Elmarit ASPH 21/2,8 or 24/2,8??

[Leicakillen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I know this has been up before - but any helpful comment on this would be very appreciated;

1. I would like to add something wider to my 35 mm Summicron. I also have 50 and 90 mm. Is 24 mm to close to 35?

2. I can read a lot of very positive comments on the 24 - "one of the best in the current M range" - but not so about the current 21. Is the difference important and noticeable in real life photos? Anyone who have both and can compare?

3. Both need extra viewfinders - but is it possible to "live with" not using an extra 24mm finder but using the ordinary (should have been a 0,58 finder to include the 24 frame)?

 

Thanks

 

/Anders

[Advertisement]

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

[Manolo Laguillo]

My answer to your 3rd question (viewfinder y/n): even having one 24 mm VW (the D-Lux 4 one), I do use my Biogon 25 mm often without it.

To know in advance what is going to be framed can be learned.

But there is another reason: the Leica VW shows the scene

1. with barrel distortion,

2. and smaller.

I am waiting for the Zeiss 25mm VW, which is much better.

The Voigtländer VW has barrel distortion as well, but the scene appears more bigger, more 'life-size'.

[kipdent]

Hi,

I know this has been up before - but any helpful comment on this would be very appreciated;

1. I would like to add something wider to my 35 mm Summicron. I also have 50 and 90 mm. Is 24 mm to close to 35?

2. I can read a lot of very positive comments on the 24 - "one of the best in the current M range" - but not so about the current 21. Is the difference important and noticeable in real life photos? Anyone who have both and can compare?

3. Both need extra viewfinders - but is it possible to "live with" not using an extra 24mm?

 

Great question--and you'll see below why I think so! All comments are using these two lenses on my M9:

 

1. Like you, I own a 35mm 'cron and it is my favorite lens. Even so, I do want to go wider fairly frequently, and I'm actually living through this 21 vs 24 experiment right now. I purchased both lenses to decide for myself, knowing that though I can't really afford both, I'll sell the one I use the least. What I have discovered is that though the 24mm and 35mm present "different" enough views (i.e., I don't really think they are "too close" to each other) and render differently, for whatever reason, I am using the 21mm Elmarit ASPH more frequently. This could be that when I think I want a wide angle lens, I want a REALLY wide angle lens! I also want one with very little distortion--and the 21mm fits the bill very nicely.

 

2. I am a nutcase when it comes to splitting hairs about image quality and I want the best achievable. I'm sure that's why I bought the 24mm, to see if it really does smoke the 21mm. Here's my "real world" experience: They both are stellar. Yes, there does seem to be a bit of color strangeness in certain images at the very extreme edge margins on the 21, but it is easily corrected in Lightroom when it happens, in my experience. But on the monitor and in prints, I honestly have to say the 21mm seems every bit as sharp as the 24 and give the classic "Leica look," as does the 24mm, to every image I've taken with it. So, unless you are sicker than I am, I would not let the technical specs or reviews sway you in your decision.

 

3. I bought a plastic Leica 24mm external viewfinder and discovered that it's perfect, of course, for the 24mm lens, but it also works beautifully with the 21mm when you look outside the frame lines it has and use the plastic margins of the finder when using the 21mm lens. In effect, the plastic 24mm finder is a "two-in-one" finder. Not bad since it seems easier to find and is usually less expensive. I must say though, that an external viewfinder is critical for proper framing with either of these lenses on the 0.68 finder of the M9. If you have a 0.58 film M finder, you might sneak by with the 24mm if you can see the edges of the finder.

 

Hope this helps!

[Wiggi]

Erwin Puts says, the 21mm lens is super wide angle but the 24mm lens can create a dream.

 

Using the 21mm lens everyone recognizes the super wide angle. The 24mm you don't see with the first look.

 

I would prefer the 24mm lens. Maybe to buy a 18mm later too.

 

But this is only my very personal point of view.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Anders, I have the 24;2.8, having seen the images it produces on ReidReviews. I bot it immediately I was pleasantly gratified to see that Putz says it is a magic lens.

 

With enuf light, I prefer it. I also have a 35 'lux-a, a 50 'lux-a, and a 75 'lux.

 

I agree that the 24 is totally magic.

[lars_bergquist]

"Chocolate icecream is best!" -- "No no, strawberry is the thing."

 

This (no, not the ice but the lenses) comes close to being the quintessentilally subjective question. The only possible answer is "try both and decide for yourself". A somewhat expensive piece of advice to follow, admittedly. But no-one can answer it for you.

 

Just a couple of notes. First, 24mm is felt by many to be sufficiently different from 35mm, so that carrying both is meaningful. Second, a 24mm lens is easier to level, and therefore faster to use, than 21mm. But 21mm has indeed hat "super wide look" that 24mm lacks. It is up to you to decide if that is desirable or not.

 

The old man from the Age of the Contax 20mm Biogon

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For some reason I still haven't figured out yet, you're crossing a borderline when going from 24 mm to 21 mm (in 35-mm terms).It's the border between strong wide-angle and super-wide-angle. As 'kipdent' and 'Wiggi' already have pointed out, 24 mm yields a wide but still natural view, but the 21 mm gives an exaggerated view that is immediately recognized as super-wide. Both are wide—and not too different in this respect—still their visual impact is very different.

 

If you want to create extreme and surreal vistas on a regular basis then 24 is not wide enough. If you want to capture a wide field-of-view but get a natural-looking image still, without obvious super-wide-angle characteristics always getting in the way, then 21 mm is too wide.

 

I guess that's because you're crossing the 90° angle-of-view limit. A 24 mm lens, on a 35-mm-format camera, has a diagonal angle-of-view of 84°; a 21 mm lens is 92°. So, 28 mm and 24 mm are pretty similar to each other; so are 21 mm and 18 mm. But 24 mm and 21 mm clearly are in two different categories. That said, a 24 mm definitely is far enough from 35 mm to make it worthwhile.

 

Lenses that sit on a borderline often are the most interesting and versatile ones. The 35 mm lens is just in-between standard and wide-angle ... and in the same way the 24 mm sits between wide and super-wide. You can create the typical super-wide vision with a 24 mm lens if you push it—but it doesn't come always and automatically. If you want a tool that lets you play with the super-wide attributes like surreal projective distortion, exaggerated keystone distortion, and super-natural perspective then you'll need 21 mm or shorter. But then it will become difficult to create images that don't scream 'super-wide' all over ... which can become tiring in the long run.

 

If you can afford—and don't mind carrying even more lenses—then the solution could be 24 mm and 18 mm ... or 24 mm and WATE. If however you want to carry only one lens below 35 mm then it's gonna be a tough decision ...

[luigi bertolotti]

I have both, but use them on M8, so the 24 has an obvious advantage not needing the ext. VF : that is the reason for I bought it... indeed, the 21 was my first add-on lens I bought with M8, for I wanted a real WA for it and my (old, excellent) Super Angulon 21 has notoriously metering errors with M8.

My personal feeling is that the two lenses are both superb (the reported little problems of 21 at corners are obviously cut onto M8) with a bit of more contrast for the 24, which, in general, I consider one of the 3 top lenses I have (with Summicron 35 asph and Elmarit M 90) : but they ARE different in usage, so I found that when I take with me the 35 I prefer to have the 21, while the 24 (but, again, on M8) can be even a "single lens set"... I often carry with me, for instance, 24+75 and no more.

[jaapv]

Yes - I can confirm Luigi's vision.On the M9, the combination 24-50 Summiluxes (but it is just as valid for the Elmarits) has pushed the 35 mm focal length out of my standard set. I would say that if one has to choose just one of the 21-24 the 24 is the more versatile focal length and bound to get the most use - not a bad thing for a lens at this price-point

[Manolo Laguillo]

The reason behind existing focal lengths is a, b, c, being

a = the format's short side ---- really wide angle

b = the format's long side ------ wide angle

c = the format's diagonal ------- normal

 

In 35 mm format we have, therefore:

a = 24 (the real lenses have this length)

b = 36 (the real lenses are nominally 35)

c = 42 (there is a 'Cron 40 for the CL)

 

Multiplying a, b, and c by 2 renders the teles:

a x 2 = 50, which is a 'longer normal' or, even better, a short short tele

b x 2 = 75 (short tele)

c x 2 = 90 (discrete tele)

 

Dividing a, b, and c by 2 renders the super wide angles:

c / 2 = 21

b / 2 = 18 (90 degrees horizontally!)

a / 2 = 12

 

If we combine this facts with the rule "one yes, one no" when picking from the existing lens catalogue, we arrive, depending from the starting point, to the following 2 combinations-collections:

 

16 18 21 24 28 35 50 75 90

 

16 18 21 24 28 35 50 75 90

 

I do prefer the 2nd one (18, 24, 35, 75), with the addition of the 50mm.

 

The advantage of this systematization: we can compare between different formats!

A 4 inches lens (aprox 90mm) in 9x12/4x5 corresponds to the 24 in 24x36.

A 5 inches lens (aprox 120mm) in 9x12/4x5 corresponds to the 35 in 24x36,

A 6 inches lens (aprox 150mm) in 9x12/4x5 corresponds to the 40 in 24x36

etc...

[michael_b_elmer]

Hi,

I know this has been up before - but any helpful comment on this would be very appreciated;

1. I would like to add something wider to my 35 mm Summicron. I also have 50 and 90 mm. Is 24 mm to close to 35?

2. I can read a lot of very positive comments on the 24 - "one of the best in the current M range" - but not so about the current 21. Is the difference important and noticeable in real life photos? Anyone who have both and can compare?

3. Both need extra viewfinders - but is it possible to "live with" not using an extra 24mm finder but using the ordinary (should have been a 0,58 finder to include the 24 frame)?

 

Thanks

 

/Anders

 

Some really difficult questions, Leicaguy. As others have pointed out, it is most subjective whether you prefer one focal length or one lens over another.

 

The 24/2.8 is in a class of its own, with Bill's words: totally magic. I would find it very difficult to part with this lens, even if I bought the Lux 24.

 

The 21/2.8 asph is also an excellent lens, but its pictures to me don't have the same Wauw-effect as those made with the 24 Elmarit. That's why I sold my 21 Elmarit asph and instead bought the Lux 21 which has some of the same magic as the 24 Elmarit. However it is heavy and big.

 

You will need an external finder with any 21 or 24, and investing in Leica's universal finder - the socalled Frankenfinder - will save you money on the long run when you expand with more WA lenses, such as the excellent Super-Elmar 18.

 

However, since you already have 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses, you might also consider a 28 mm lens as your next lens "downwards". An advantage of the 28 mm lens is that the M9's finder has frames for it, and if you choose the Elmarit 28 instead of the Lux, you will save weight and money, and you even do not need to take the latest generation of the Elmarit 28 in order to become happy with the results - a 3rd generation 28 Elmarit is excellent and can be acquired at a reasonable price.

 

I do not believe in other's ideas on how to compose your set of lenses by excluding certain focal lengths. I find it very difficult to exclude any of the focal lengths actually produced by Leica, except perhaps apart from the 135 mm which is difficult to master with a rangefinder.

 

Good luck with your difficult choice - no matter which of Leicas WA lenses you choose, you won't be disappointed.

[christer]

I have had Voigtlaender 15mm and the Leica 21mm ASPH as well as the last Leica 21mm non-ASPH. I also have 35mm Leica ASPH and some longer Leica lenses. I generally only shoot b/w. This just as background.

 

I now have the Voigtlander 21mm f/4 and I am very pleased with it. It is optically very good indeed in every respect. It handles very well and has the advantage of being small and inexpensive. Ken Rockwell has tested this lens; look at his website.

 

The angle covered compared with the 15mm is not that much different on paper, but in the real world it is a major difference. Used together with a 35mm you will probably not find any need for a wider lens than 21mm. And also nothing less wide than 21 if you have a 35mm. With a 24 mm I am not so sure.

 

How often will you use 21 mm? And how? Are you/your wife prepared to carry the extra weight and bulk of the Leica 21mm all day?

 

Buy the Voigtlaender and try it out. If you don't like it, sell it. You will get a very good price for it as few people sell theirs and the prices are therefore rather high. I ended up buying a new one because used ones were too few and too expensive compared to new ones.

 

With regard to viewfinder: you can very well get around using one. I use the Voigtlaender if I use one, and it is amazingly accurate. If the picture in the viewfinder is distorted or not is not an issue for me. The main thing is that the frames in the viewfinder approximate the picture on the negative as closely as practicable.

[Manolo Laguillo]

I do not believe in other's ideas on how to compose your set of lenses by excluding certain focal lengths. I find it very difficult to exclude any of the focal lengths actually produced by Leica, except perhaps apart from the 135 mm which is difficult to master with a rangefinder.

 

Good luck with your difficult choice - no matter which of Leicas WA lenses you choose, you won't be disappointed.

 

The problem doesn't consist in believing (or not believing) in excluding/including. :)The problem is that we must make a choice! It's a question of economy, both of money (it's impossible to buy everything) and of energy (it's impossible to carry everything). It's a question of obtaining the maximum in results with the minimum in effort: resource optimization. A minimum of systematization (as the opposite of fancy), however loose, is of great help here.

The problem is a very interesting one: choosing means excluding, but excluding doesn't mean being less free! Actually, the boundaries make us more free, because we are forced to use our imagination.

Having the whole Leica lenses catalogue would freeze me, would collapse my impulse.

It's impossible to control what is going to happen out there, the unexpected. We often try to neutralize the anxiety associated with this fact with the posession of more and more equipment.

It's normal to think: "I am here, in front of this, but perhaps there is something very interesting around the corner, and I am missing it!" When this happens to me (the possibility interferes with reality), I refrain from thinking, and proceed.

[christer]

Manolo: True and Beautifully Presented.

 

Thanks!

[yanidel]

I currently own the 24mm Elmarit and 21mm CV (coded), yet these are focals I do not often use on the M9. On the M8, the 24mm was the best performer, still is great on the M9 but I prefer 35mm. I used it with and without external finder (the whole viewfinder is a good enough approximation though not very convenient to use).

Yet, for a focal that I might use only once a day, I found the elmarit too big to lug around so I bought a tiny CV21mm. I did test shots side by side and I am impressed by the CV which comes close to the Elmarit. The difference is mainly in the corners yet in street photography, corners are usually not very important anyways.

As for 21mm vs 24mm, the question is IMO more super wide angle vs wide angle. I feel too often the super angles are used as gadget lenses as 95% of the pictures I have seen would probably have looked better if taken with a 28mm or 35mm.

So my advice is buy a cheap CV super wide angle and experiment with it for some time. If you like the fov, than upgrade for more speed and quality.

[lars_bergquist]

If you can afford—and don't mind carrying even more lenses—then the solution could be 24 mm and 18 mm ... or 24 mm and WATE. If however you want to carry only one lens below 35 mm then it's gonna be a tough decision ...

 

And that is in fact my solution. I do own both an 18mm and a 25mm lens. I do never carry both, however. And the 18mm is for me an 'occasional' lens, used only when I am after a very special look, while the 25mm is one of my perennial favourites. Both work very well together with a 35mm lens.

 

The old man from the Age of the Contax 20mm Biogon

[michael_b_elmer]

The problem doesn't consist in believing (or not believing) in excluding/including. :)The problem is that we must make a choice! It's a question of economy, both of money (it's impossible to buy everything) and of energy (it's impossible to carry everything). It's a question of obtaining the maximum in results with the minimum in effort: resource optimization. A minimum of systematization (as the opposite of fancy), however loose, is of great help here.

The problem is a very interesting one: choosing means excluding, but excluding doesn't mean being less free! Actually, the boundaries make us more free, because we are forced to use our imagination.

Having the whole Leica lenses catalogue would freeze me, would collapse my impulse.

It's impossible to control what is going to happen out there, the unexpected. We often try to neutralize the anxiety associated with this fact with the posession of more and more equipment.

It's normal to think: "I am here, in front of this, but perhaps there is something very interesting around the corner, and I am missing it!" When this happens to me (the possibility interferes with reality), I refrain from thinking, and proceed.

 

Yes, Manolo, we must make a choice.

 

My choice is to take them all or rather to take the best lens in each focal length, and then to choose the proper lens before going out on the basis of the practical need for each photographic task.

 

Your choice is to exclude on beforehand some of those focal lengths solely on the basis of purely theoretical considerations.

 

I cannot see why I shouldn't have a wonderful 'rit 24 and a stellar Lux 35 FLE, just because I already have a 28 mm 'cron. And if I have a magic 'rit 24 and 'lux 35 FLE, why should I exclude myself from having a stellar 21 or 50 Lux or even a Nocti - just because they don't fit in your fine mathematical and purely theoretical system???

 

As explained by Lars below, you don't have to carry all your lenses all the time, just choose the right lens before going out (and perhaps put one more in your pocket).

[jaapv]

You have more money than most:rolleyes:

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[shootinglulu]

I like to have two lenses only, two very different fl's to know well and make the most of. Being limited to two helps me photograph more creatively.

I would feel so uncomfortable owning all the fl's, like i did with zoom lenses, where the choice of composition is cerebral rather than instinctual, moving the body.

Even though all the focal lengths would fit my needs at sometime i like to try and work around the two most useful for me which are 24 (or 25) and 50.

After quite a bit of tweeking over the last year i have found my comfort zone and i'm so happy. No more lens buying for me:)

[Manolo Laguillo]

I cannot see why I shouldn't have a wonderful 'rit 24 and a stellar Lux 35 FLE, just because I already have a 28 mm 'cron. And if I have a magic 'rit 24 and 'lux 35 FLE, why should I exclude myself from having a stellar 21 or 50 Lux or even a Nocti - just because they don't fit in your fine mathematical and purely theoretical system???

 

I was only thinking aloud in this context of having to make a choice before buying.

 

The weight of Leica lenses is not excessive, so carrying the whole collection you mention would be ok, of course, as long as you own it .

 

But what if you could not buy both the 21 and the 24? That was the beginning of this thread, precisely.

 

The 'system' I was referring to is neither of my ownership nor is purely theoretical...

It is not a starting point, but a conclusion after many years of... practice!

 

I would not take the time of mentioning it if I would think it is "purely theoretical", and therefore useless.

 

What I was explaining can be understood in a very easygoing and flexible way, not rigidly, nor as a rule.

 

In any case, for me it has been always useful searching for the general principle under the particularity...

 

Let me finish with a question: what focal length did I use for this photo?

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!