Humood Posted November 25, 2010 Share #1 Posted November 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the m web special LEICA M9 lenses and even in the printed m brochure (almost the same page) Leica features the following lenses: 18mm Super Elmar 21mm Summilux 50mm Noctilux 75mm Summicron 90mm Macro Elmar now I understand the variance in focal length between the last three lenses, my question is why list two lenses that are almost similar in focal length? (18 and 21mm) what is your experience with both? which one would you prefer? thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Hi Humood, Take a look here Difference between 18mm and 21mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 25, 2010 Share #2 Posted November 25, 2010 Don't make a mistake! The difference between a 21 and a 18 is considerable. The shorter the lens get, the smaller the "steps" in focal length are. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/angle-of-view.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 25, 2010 Share #3 Posted November 25, 2010 The step up from 18 to 21mm is an increase of almost 17%. There's about 20% between 75 and 90mm. Above all, the increase in "acreage" covered when you go from 21 to 18mm is very considerable. Here are the fields of view of the two focal lengths (diagonal/horizontal/vertical): 21mm: 92/81/59° 18mm: 100/90/67° That means that an 18mm lens takes in about 35% more territory (at the same subject distance) than a 21mm lens does. That difference counts. Especially as already a 21mm lens covers lots of ground! The old man from the Age of the 21mm Contax Biogon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted November 25, 2010 Share #4 Posted November 25, 2010 What Lars and jaap say are 100% correct. I used to use a G2 21mm and the 16mm Hooligon From 21 to 16 was a huge difference. I don't know if they'd agree with me, but I also find from a 35mm to 28mm is a pretty large step even though most say they are to similiar to have both. I have a decent Fat ASPH and the new(ish) 28/2.8 and their use gets pretty much split 60/40. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted November 25, 2010 Share #5 Posted November 25, 2010 Besides the angle-of-view, there is a huge difference in lens speed, max aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted November 25, 2010 Share #6 Posted November 25, 2010 I have a 21mm Summilux and also a 18mm Zeiss. The focal length difference between them is not all that significant. The Summilux is a better lens at f/1.4 ... f/4. Depth of field subject isolation is also often useful. Beyond that the Zeiss is sharper and has less distortion. The slower 21mm Zeiss C-Biogon has even less distortion, so would be an even better complimentary lens with film. Handheld indoors - there is no contest which wins. Likewise for architecture and landscape the choice is clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 26, 2010 Share #7 Posted November 26, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ultimately, the decision is bound to be subjective. And some people do not seem to be much aware of the outer reaches of the field of view in any case. I am very much aware of where the edges are, so the difference is important to me. Obviously, the 21mm Summilux is superior at apertures of 1.4 to 2.8, as neither the Zeiss Distagon nor the Leica Super-Elmar are much faster than f:4 ... But I have already demonstrated on these premises that it is possible to use an 18mm Distagon in the gloom of a Gothic cathedral, handheld, and with ISO200 film to boot! Finally, a Hooligon lens would be a wonderful accessory when I feel that I need a good riot. The obstinate old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2010 Share #8 Posted November 26, 2010 Lars is absolutely right. The difference of 3 mm may seem insignificant to the uninitiated, the difference in field of view (and perspective if one keeps the subject size constant) is so large as to produce a completely different image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 29, 2011 Share #9 Posted August 29, 2011 Does anyone use the Zeiss 18mm viewfinder while using the Zeiss 21/1.4? If yes, how do you approximate the frame? Use the inner markings? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaPassion Posted August 29, 2011 Share #10 Posted August 29, 2011 How about the difference between 21 and 24? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 30, 2011 Share #11 Posted August 30, 2011 Does anyone use the Zeiss 18mm viewfinder while using the Zeiss 21/1.4? If yes, how do you approximate the frame? Use the inner markings? The only 21/1.4 lens on the market is made by Leica (Summilux-M 1:1.4/21mm ASPH). The way to use a 21mm lens is, needless to say, with a 21mm viewfinder. Both Carl Zeiss and Leica do make accessory 21mm finders. And the Zeiss finder that I bought with my 18mm Distagon way back then does not have any alternative inner markings. It is the 25mm finder that also has markings for 28mm. The old man from Finder Days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 30, 2011 Share #12 Posted August 30, 2011 How about the difference between 21 and 24? Here are the angles: 21mm: Diagonal 91°, horizontal 80°, vertical 59° 24mm: Diagonal 84°, horizontal 74°, vertical 53° Zeiss gives slightly different angles for their 21mm lenses. Nominal and actual focal lengths can differ a bit, of course. Testers say that the Leica Elmar-M 1:3.8/24mm ASPH really has a field of view that is more like that of a 25mm lens. Here are the numbers for the Zeiss 25mm Biogon: Diagonal 82°, horizontal 72°, vertical 52°. The old man from Finder Days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 30, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 30, 2011 The fact that Leica chose to produce the WATE with 16/18/21 is testament to the fact that there are significant differences between these focal lengths. All have their place ..... as unlike 35/50/75 you have to do a helluva lot of walking backwards to get the same view in frame..... and there is usually a wall behind you if you try indoors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 31, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 31, 2011 Or a ditch outdoors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted August 31, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 31, 2011 Here's a pic from m43 cameras. Just double the number for Fullframe. 11mm is a 22 and 9 is 18mm. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/137735-difference-between-18mm-and-21mm/?do=findComment&comment=1781065'>More sharing options...
adan Posted August 31, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 31, 2011 Keep in mind that, in that link, Leica is promoting unique characteristics and capabilities not just limited to angle of view - the wideness of the 18, the aperture speed of the 21 f/1.4 and 50 f/0.95, the raw resolution of the 75 and the close-focusing semi-macro capability of the 90 Macro. In other words, there are big differences among all these lenses - above and beyond the focal lengths as such. If I were shooting wide in available darkness, I'd prefer the 21 f/1.4. If I needed to take in as much as possible without falling off a roof (or into that ditch) - or wanted a bit better image quality around the edges, I'd prefer the 18mm. To me, a 75 and a 90 do the same job visually - but a 75 f/2 is smaller than a 90 f/2 - and a 75 f/1.4 is faster than a 90 f/2. So I lump 75/90 together as "short tele lenses" - and then choose between them based on the other factors. I'm likely to end up with both a 75 f/1.4 and a smaller, lighter 90 or 75 f/2.8/2.5 - for different uses, not the 15% difference in view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.