richfx Posted December 3, 2010 Share #1 Posted December 3, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a Zeiss 18mm Distagon f/4.0, which I really like. Would I notice a significant difference in going to a 21mm FL lens such as a Leica 21mm f/2.8 ASPH or Zeiss 21mm Biogon f/2.8 (other than faster speed) as my widest lens? My next FL is 28mm, then 35, 50 and 90. Have also been thinking of letting the 28mm go, as I'm just not using it with the 35 and 50 available. I'm trying to determine the optimal FL distance between my lenses within the fog of a GAS attack. Thanks. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 Hi richfx, Take a look here Silly (or not) Question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ho_co Posted December 3, 2010 Share #2 Posted December 3, 2010 Rich, I can't answer for you. Just feed the GAS attack! Personally, I used 75, 50, 28, 21 on film. For the M8, I use primarily 75, 50, 21 and 16 (with others occasionally). Close to 80% of my shooting is with the 21. 16 and 21 on the M8 give me the same thing as 21 and 28 on full-frame. Others prefer the 24 over either 21 or 28 on full-frame. And on the M8, the 18mm focal length is the equivalent of the 24 on full-frame. Put another way, there's as noticeable a difference between 18 and 21 as there is between 21 and 24. And there's about that same difference between 24 and 28. For some people, any adjacent two are a little too close; for others, any adjacent two are perfect complements. Since you're thinking of dropping your 28, the 24 would be the perfect gap-stopper between 18 and 35. But on the other hand, since you like the 18, the 21 might be the perfect nudge up. If you can, borrow or rent any one and see how it "feels" for you. Keep in mind, there's no right answer, because our interests always change. The more choices you have, the more you know which ones you like most! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted December 3, 2010 Share #3 Posted December 3, 2010 I often used to use square root of 2 (about 1.4) as a factor on film. 18-25-35-50-70-100-135 and then leave out a step which didn't seem right to me. Very subjective!! maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted December 3, 2010 Share #4 Posted December 3, 2010 I often used to use square root of 2 (about 1.4) as a factor on film.18-25-35-50-70-100-135 and then leave out a step which didn't seem right to me. Very subjective!! maurice But when dealing with lenses, don't you have to be Objective? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 3, 2010 Share #5 Posted December 3, 2010 15mm, 35mm, 75mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 4, 2010 Share #6 Posted December 4, 2010 There are some examples on view in the thread Which Wide, here. I am very much a 35mm man. I have never had much interest in 28mm in a full format camera (the Summicron was wonderful with he M8, however). So my first "real wide lens" is 25mm. Beyond that, I own and use occasionally a 18mm lens. The step from 35 to 25mm is long enough to be useful, in my experience. I would consider a 21mm lens as a replacement for both 25 and 18mm, but not together with any one of them. For quite a long time, 35 + 21mm was the normal wide angle equipment of working Leica M photographers. I really do own the 18mm because I needed something reasonably wide with my M8. It is so good however that I couldn't bear to sell it with the M8, but it is strictly an "occasional lens" in my kit. I do most of my real wide angle work with the 25. I don't think you have any real need to fear rededge with a properly coded 18mm lens. Mine, for historical reasons, is coded as a pre-ASPH 21mm, and this works fine. With a Leica Super-Elmar, it's a no-brainer of course; it comes coded as itself. My Distagon, when I bought it, had to be coded as a WATE, with the bayonet changed to give 28/90 framelines, because the Super-Elmar didn't exist then. This coding did not work with the M9, but instead of changing the bayonet back, I re-coded it as a 21mm. The wide-eyed old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 4, 2010 Share #7 Posted December 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) P.S. There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. The same old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 4, 2010 Share #8 Posted December 4, 2010 I didn't see Lars' link appear for 'Which Wide.' However, if you enter these terms in the top right search box, these threads (among others) appear... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/101399-planning-buying-m9-wide-angle-lens.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/154110-wide.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/148129-wide-angle-lens.html Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share #9 Posted December 4, 2010 Thank you all for your insight and recommendations. Am now considering swapping the 18mm Zeiss 4.5 and 28mm Leica Elmarit ASPH for a 21mm or 24mm Elmarit ASPH. Lineup would then be 21 or 24 plus 35, 50 and 90 vs 18, 28, 35, 50 and 90. Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.