18mm, 21mm, or 24mm..

[Shade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, I'm planning to add a wide angle on my current set up.. I have a 35 lux and 50 lux.

 

My options are the 18/3.8, 21/2.8 or 24/3.8.

 

I'm not fussing much about speed, since I will stop them all down to F4-8 anyway when I shoot.

 

Which would be best to pair up as my travel trio.

 

I really like the 18mm, but the filter thread is difficult to work with, and you need an adaptor for 77mm - which contradicts my Leica point of view - travel small and light.

 

I also like the 21mm, but at f2.8, I personally feel the F stop hacks up the price too high, and I really don't want to spend too much on a lens that won't be used as frequent as my 35/50.

 

The 24mm sounds the most interesting option. Its very small and light, and share the same 46mm thread as my other two. But is 24mm too close to 35mm?

 

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff Day]

I ordered the SEM 18/3.8 from Ken Hansen today to use for travel along with my Elmarit 90/2.8 and a 35. It seems I gravitate to either a wide or a 90 most of the time lately, which is what spurred me to get the 18. I'll try to post some photos after I get.

 

Best,

 

Jeff

[Shade]

Hi Jeff,

 

Thanks for your reply, please share an insight on how you think about the 18mm.

 

Did you get the filter adapter along with it as well?

 

I'm really interested in how it goes without filters, I like using CPLs or Grad ND or even NDs for my wide shots. However, without the filter holder, no filter seems to fit.

 

I tried flipping the filter inside out and place it before I screw in the hood, but turns out the front element protrudes quite abit, preventing from the filter from screwing down.

 

An alternative that I thought of is using a step down ring, 62-58, flip it inside out, and then you'll get a female thread of 62mm to screw the filters. However, I will not be able to place any lens caps on it, since the craps are usually designed to fit the female thread of the filters, and is 1mm too large to fit the male thread on the flip side.

 

Another alternative I thought of is to buy a cheapo no-name 58mm filter, and break the glass, screw it in before the hood (flipped), hence giving me space so that the front element will not prevent another filter to be stacked on top of the blank/empty filter thread. But I'm worried if stacking two filters that way will cause vignetting problems. And furthermore, I have no idea how a cpl would work if you screw it flipped inside out..?

 

So let's see..

 

Any of you wanna share some thoughts on my ideas?

 

I really prefer going 18mm instead of 24mm..

[adan]

IMHO 24 is not too close to 35mm - In fact the 24-35 combo was a photojournalists' standard combination along with a short (85/90) telephoto, back when 20mm lenses were a lot slower (or just not yet as good as the 24s).

 

A 24mm horizontal image is like two 35mm vertical images stitched together. Twice the area - 1.5x the linear field of view. Which is a pretty nice spacing for wideangles.

 

An 18mm field of view is like FOUR 35mm (well, 36mm) horizontal images stitched together 2x2.

 

But if it works for you, it works.

 

Personally, I use a 21mm (+ 35mm) because I need the faster aperture and the extra touch of wideness (and a used 1983 21mm is cheaper than a new or used Leica 24mm of any type).

 

I had an 18mm for a while on the M8 (effective "24mm"), and used your stepdown ring/flipped filter technique. I could have lived with it. But moving up to the M9 sensor and going back to my 21 was a better option - for me.

[Ario Arioldi]

Why not considering a WATE?

Cheers,

Ario

[MacSpikes]

I went for the SEM 18 as well. 24mm is too close to 35mm in my opinion. It was hard to choose between 21 and 18, but I went for the 18 because in my old Nikon I used 18 a lot with my 17-35 zoom. So far I really like the 18mm.

[sjt1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an SE18 and am well pleased with it. I have been using it on an M8 with the proper leica UVIR filter, and a CV 25mm finder. I think the lens is very sharp indeed on the M8. I cannot comment on the very edges of its field of view as I have not tried it full frame, apart from one time I used it on a film camera with the filter on and got extreme vignetting!

 

One of the things I like about it is its giant depth of field. On many occasions, you can set the focus using the scale on the lens and not have to bother about using the RF. Often I take pictures from different angles (e.g. low down) without looking through any finder, and the depth of field means that I can usually get what I want sharp - I can check this (as well as exposure) on the monitor straight after taking the picture. It almost turns the camera into a point and shoot!

 

I think the major disadvantage of the lens is not really its fault - it is a very wide angle and this means the pink corners / red edge thing will be stronger on this than with longer lenses. However to counteract this I use Cornerfix, which is a very useful tool.

 

If you want to use it on the M9, I dont think you will need filters for most of the time unless you want something like a UV filter to protect the front element. On this lens the front element is very convex and if you have the lens hood off, the front element sticks out past the metal flange where the lens hood screws on (I think the WATE is like this as well). The lens hood is metal, presumably to be nice and strong to protect the front element.

 

Hope this helps

[Shade]

Hey all,

 

Thanks for all the inputs. I'm highly considering the 18mm at the moment. I'm not bothering about just putting a UV filter.. But I usually like using NDs and CPLs when I shoot wide. However, I might opt not using any filters at all.

 

Moreover, I'm also considering the 15mm CV Heliar, or the 21mm CV, but I heard there's the cyan drift on the corners. Is it easier to fix the pink/rededge or the cyan drift with cornerfix? I don't have the software yet.. So I need inputs on that one..

 

I'm only opting for Leica due to the fact I "assume" it'll be easier to fix the pink/rededge issue.

 

Please bear in mind that I don't want my budget to be above my luxes - since it just doesn't feel right spending more on a lens that gets 1/3 of usage compared to my luxes.

 

But yes, I need a wide angle.

 

Oh one more thing, the WATE is nice, but from Leica's specs, the distortion is higher than any of those lenses I mentioned. And the price is also WAY higher..

[piero]

I agree with Ario,

the WATE is an excellent alternative if you want to have wide versatility.

If you learn to use it well you can avoid missing the 24, if a slightly stronger perspective is not a problem. Adding a 28 to that would be very interesting.

But it all depends on the way one usually looks at things.

 

The 24 Elmar is an outstanding lens.

[Shade]

Piero, the WATE is indeed a great lens to have! But at the moment, not the lens I want.

 

As I mentioned, I want it to be not too expensive, so that it wouldn't go higher in price in comparison to a 35 lux or a 50 lux. Since I won't be using it as much. Hence, I don't wanna spend way too much on a lens that I won't use as frequent.

 

Furthermore, I want it to be as small as possible, the WATE is longer and slightly larger than the 18mm.

 

So.. I'm even considering a voigtlander as well, the size alone is extremely interesting. But I'm wondering if cyan drift is easier to fix than rededge?

 

Thanks..

[piero]

focal length wise, I'd go for the 21 - since you have a 35 and a 50.

Red shift wise, I had no red shift troubles, neither with the WATE nor with the 18/24.

So I can't be of any help.

[Shade]

I finally decided on the 18 Super Elmar. I find it more interesting both in wideness, price, as well as the more amount of aperture blades for better stars shines in night scenes.

 

So, let's see if I can find anything interesting to shoot at later this week.

[tategoi]

I also have the same dilemma as the OP. I got the 21mm after an avid M user told me the legendary M lenses are the 50, 35 and 21. With that my choice is clear.

[JLV]

Hi Shade,

 

My three lens combo is 21 elmarit, 35 cron asph and 75 apo asph.

To answer your question, I felt that 24 was a bit close to 35.

 

The 21 is an awsome lens.

 

Here is a little sample.

Just my two cents.

 

all the best,

Jean-Luc

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[charlesphoto99]

All depends on the type of photography you do. For me, which is primarily people, I use 24 and 35. 18 and 21 typically too wide except for special circumstances. But it all depends on you and your needs (and your budget).

[01af]

At 20 or 21 mm on 35-mm format, you're crossing a boundary—the borderline between wide-angle and super-wide-angle. So if you want a wide-angle significantliy stronger than 35 mm but still able to yield wide but natural-looking shots, better get a 24 mm lens. That is the widest wide-angle which isn't super-wide. It's less spectacular but much more versatile than anything shorter. If you're looking for the effect that screams WIDE! at your face then better get the 18 mm.

 

I feel the step from 35 mm to 24 mm is just right; an 18 mm lens would leave a wide gap, calling for another lens to jump in. An 21 mm lens might be a nice compromise if you're sure not to miss anything in-between 21 and 35 and never to feel the need to go wider than 21.

 

As someone else already has mentioned, the wide-angle Tri-Elmar-M (a.k.a. WATE) might be a viable alternative. At full aperture—which is f/4—it is as good as the prime lenses Elmarit-M 21 mm Asph and Super-Elmarit-M 18 mm Asph at the frame's center but will fall off a tiny bit, in comparison, towards the frame's edges. At f/8 and smaller, it's just as good as the primes across the whole frame.

 

If you own exactly one wide-angle lens below 28 mm then you might get away with one of those tiny single-frame viewfinders. But if you plan to acquire more than one super-wide-angle lens then you should seriously consider the universal wide-angle finder M (a. k.a. 'Frankenfinder,' for obvious reasons). That is a huge and ugly beast, but good and, umm, universal. With single-frame finders, switching lenses also means switching finders ... very awkward. In the price of the WATE, the Frankenfinder is included. In the prices of any other super-wide-angle lenses, no finders are included.

Edited April 6, 2010 by 01af

[Shade]

Hi guys, sorry I didnt mention what I will be using the lens for. It will be mainly for landscape and architectual work.

 

I settled for the 18mm, just arrived today, lets see how good this thing is.

[Shade]

Here's a quick and dirty sample of my 18 Elmar...

 

I don't see any rededges... but these are cropped anyhow.. F8.

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[exile]

My choice would be a 21mm.

If you want compact quality at 21mm, why not the Zeiss ZM 21mm f/4.5?

[Shade]

Hi..

 

Well I already got the 18mm now. And the 21 zeiss is not available here in my country, buying overseas will just create trouble with customs and they will charge me ridiculous tax (up to 100%).

 

So, I'd take what's available for the options..