21 or 24 mm

[Paul Verrips]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm thinking of selling my Elmarit-M 2.8/28 ASPH because i don't use is since i bought the new Summilux1.4/35 ASPH

 

Because i want something to shoot wider, i'm thinking of a 24 or 21.

 

21 might have to much distortion, 24 is maybe more complementary.

 

I can buy a secondhand Elmarit-M 21mm/2.8 ASPH € 2.700 or a new Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH € 1.800

 

What would be wise, 50mm Lux is my favorite one. The 21 or 24 i will use fore more dramatic shots.

[Advertisement]

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

[kokoshawnuff]

The distortion on a modern 21mm made by Leica or the two made by Zeiss is almost 0. The 21mm might compliment the 35mm better if you are looking for something dramatic, but the plus of a 24mm is that it can be used on a .72x or smaller viewfinder magnification without a external viewfinder; if the situation so calls...

[markforce]

The distortion on a modern 21mm made by Leica or the two made by Zeiss is almost 0. The 21mm might compliment the 35mm better if you are looking for something dramatic, but the plus of a 24mm is that it can be used on a .72x or smaller viewfinder magnification without a external viewfinder; if the situation so calls...

 

 

Same 'debate' here and decided to go with the new 21. Should arrive any day now. The notion of 'something dramatic' which also complements my 50 and 35 nicely made me decide against the 24.

[gyoung]

In my experienced I found 24 fine as the next wider angle than a 35, I thought the step from 35 to 21 would be too much. Once I got a 28 I went for a 21, and it suits me.

 

Gerry

[algrove]

If f3.4 suits you then the newer 21 and 24 Elmars could work for you from a pricing standpoint. When I am out with a 50 I take a 24 and sometimes an 18 to compliment it if needed. On the other hand, when I am out with a 35 then I usually take along a 21 to compliment that situation.

 

If you need fast lenses, then the cost is high, but often 3.4 is plenty. Plus the sizes of these new lenses is ever so small. Agree with others that distortion is not a major consideration in new Leica wides these days. I am sure you have read the countless reviews on all new lenses, as I have. Only problem it makes the decision harder since they are all so good.

[01af]

The difference between 24 mm and 21 mm (on a 35-mm-format camera) is the difference between wide and super-wide. The latter adds an element of surrealism to everything; the former does not. Mostly.

 

This topic has been discussed exhaustively several times before.

[Studio58]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yea I went through the same process recently and purchased the 24 Elmarit (from Kurland in NY. They still have some)

Stellar lens without a doubt. Unfortunately at this early stage I am unable to give much practical feedback except to say what I see on the screen looks great. No distortion, lovely flat view.

[Double Negative]

I faced a similar dilemma and despite 21mm being one of the more popular Leica focal lengths and 24mm being the oddball... I went with the 24mm (well, 25mm actually) for two reasons. First is because I don't care for eternal VFs, and I just use the whole VF to frame (I don't wear glasses to shoot). The second reason is because of the lens in question, the 2,8/25 ZM. It's just that good - you could almost say I built my system around it.

[StephenPatterson]

I'm going to assume that the OP is using an M9, in which case I would highly recommend the 21mm focal length. The new 21SEM coupled with the full frame M9 is an amazing combination.

 

Stephen

[jaapv]

So is the 24... Any 24.

[StephenPatterson]

So is the 24... Any 24.

 

Very true, there are no wrong answers here. One of the major advantages of the full frame sensor is the ability to go " U L T R A W I D E", which is why I prefer the 21mm focal length. And if I remember correctly Jaap, you have an 18 Super Elmar in your bag, so apparently I'm not the only one who enjoys this aspect of the M9!!!!

[jaapv]

But no 21

[StephenPatterson]

But no 21

 

...yet

 

For reference please see Lar's thread on GAS

[Double Negative]

18 is wiiiiiide

[NZDavid]

21mm = 92º AOV

24mm = 84º AOV

28mm = 76º AOV.

 

Measure the angles with a protractor. Those few millimeters in focal length do make a significant difference at the wide end. The 2.8/24 Elmarit-ASPH is a superb lens. So is the 2.8/21 Zeiss, but more specialized and harder to keep converging verticals under control.

 

I would use an external finder for all three. Clear and uncluttered and no hassle.

[lars_bergquist]

If f3.4 suits you then the newer 21 and 24 Elmars could work for you from a pricing standpoint. When I am out with a 50 I take a 24 and sometimes an 18 to compliment it if needed. On the other hand, when I am out with a 35 then I usually take along a 21 to compliment that situation.

 

This is my position too. I own two 'standard lenses', one 50mm Summilux ASPH and one 35mm Summilux ASPH. If I decide to use the 50mm as my standard, a 25mm Biogon ZM rides with it, and I have just bought a 21mm Super-Elmar to go with the 35mm – and it seems set to become a favourite.

 

Now if you decide for what was in the past termed a 'super-wide angle lens' you must be aware that you use it very differently from a standard lens (35 or 50). Since the Renaissance, we Westerners have been taught to compose images with one central subject, and everything else strictly subordinate. It has in fact been drummed into especially 35mm photographers that they had to limit themselves religiously to one subject. "If your pictures are not good enough, you're not close enough" said Robert Capa. Well, finally he got too close.

 

But this sort of thing is impossible with a really wide lens. Your composition will mostly, if successful, look like that of a Chinese or Japanese scroll painting. There are several subjects in it, but in a spatial or emotional relationship with each other, and that relationship is built not in the viewer's central visual field, but in his or her mind.

 

The attached picture may be taken as a modest example. It was taken this summer at Järntorget, the Iron Square, in Stockholm Old Town, with the 25mm Biogon (coded as a 24mm Elmarit. Distortion? Nonsense. And note that the latest firmware upgrade has removed all 'rededge'. This is a splendid lens.) With a 25/24, a 21 or a 18mm lens, you have to 'think laterally'.

 

The old man with a squinty mind

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!

[lars_bergquist]

I would like to add that I would not dream of using either a 24/25mm or a 21mm lens without the proper accessory finder. Not even a 28mm, because I use specs, and cannot see the 28mm frame! This is really not for exact delimitation of the field, but it is necessary for proper levelling of the camera.

 

The picture in my previous post btw IS properly levelled – but the Medieval town plan of the Old Town is definitely not! And you should see some of the houses ...

 

The slightly lopsided old man

[01af]

... we Westerners have been taught to compose images with one central subject, and everything else strictly subordinate. It has in fact been drummed into especially 35-mm photographers that they had to limit themselves religiously to one subject.

In the case of the 35-mm photographer of the 1920s and '30s, there used to be a very good reason to stick to this advice. The resolution of the films available back then—and consequently, the maximum useful size of the prints—was severely limited, so they wouldn't support images with an array of several subjects with equal importance to the composition. So you better picked one main subject and filled the whole frame with it.

 

Far-east scroll paintings may follow entirely different rules of composition ... but then, they aren't the size of a postcard.

 

 

But this sort of thing is impossible with a really wide lens.

No, it's not impossible. I agree that a wide lens naturally does support that kind of eastern-style composition indeed. But this still does not mean that you cannot do traditional western-style compositions with them also. The secret is to pick a good main subject and then to get real close. What Capa said. Then the special character of a wide-angle lens will create an image that will be significantly different from an image of the same subject taken with a standard lens. Please note I said 'different', not 'better'. While better implies different, the reverse is not always true.

 

If you're using a wide-angle lens only to include more in the frame then you won't automatically be shooting 'eastern-style'. In most cases you just will end up with just a cluttered and boring composition that shows nothing but the fact that the photographer wasn't able to decide what to shoot so he simply shot everything. So there's more to shooting eastern-style than just using a wide-angle lens. To get a real good picture with lots of subjects but no central subject is pretty hard; it won't come easily and automatically. The more things are in your frame, the harder it is to find the moment when everything comes together to form a meaningful picture.

 

 

... with the 25 mm Biogon (coded as an Elmarit-M 24 mm). Distortion? Nonsense. And note that the latest firmware upgrade has removed all 'rededge'. This is a splendid lens.

In terms of sharpness and lack of distortion, the Zeiss Biogon T* 25 mm ZM is splendid indeed ... but the red-edge issue is far from being removed. All the left edge of your picture is red. Are you really saying you don't see it!?

 

 

With a 25/24, a 21, or a 18 mm lens, you have to 'think laterally'.

No, you don't have to. You can do that ... but that's only one out of several options. The Capa way, for example, is another (however avoid stepping on landmines).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[flyalf]

I would say go for a 21, or even better a 18mm. Its easy to post crop the image from a 21 to a 24 frame with negligible loss of quality. In addition you have the ability to change the perspective by moving closer.

 

But then again I dont go for the orthodox fill-the-frame. Due to inaccuracy of rangefinder I prefer to have some extra for cropping and tilt post.

[lars_bergquist]

In the case of the 35-mm photographer of the 1920s and '30s, there used to be a very good reason to stick to this advice. The resolution of the films available back then—and consequently, the maximum useful size of the prints—was severely limited, so they wouldn't support images with an array of several subjects with equal importance to the composition. So you better picked one main subject and filled the whole frame with it.

 

Even later, 35mm detail was not too great. That was the reason why I was always using MF cameras in parallel. The late T-grain films did make a considerable difference. Even so, the M8 did beat my old Mamiya Six hands down – and that one had some lenses!

 

No, it's not impossible. I agree that a wide lens naturally does support that kind of eastern-style composition indeed. But this still does not mean that you cannot do traditional western-style compositions with them also. The secret is to pick a good main subject and then to get real close.

 

And get some awful subject distortion. Add the risk that the subject will hit you over the head – and that a female subject will claw your eyes out when she sees the result.

 

If you're using a wide-angle lens only to include more in the frame then you won't automatically be shooting 'eastern-style'. In most cases you just will end up with just a cluttered and boring composition that shows nothing but the fact that the photographer wasn't able to decide what to shoot so he simply shot everything. So there's more to shooting eastern-style than just using a wide-angle lens.

 

But of course, just as using a 50mm lens does not automatically make you compose the Renaissance way – or even compose at all! But IF you care about how you shoot, you will have to be even more careful and thoughtful when doing wide angle work – and think differently.

 

In terms of sharpness and lack of distortion, the Zeiss Biogon T* 25 mm ZM is splendid indeed ... but the red-edge issue is far from being removed. All the left edge of your picture is red. Are you really saying you don't see it!?

 

That little square is full of reflections from differently coloured house fronts. You can see one of them in the glass pane to the right – it's the original Bank of Sweden building, founded in 1668 (that's earlier than the Bank of England, but the house is from 1680). So you get very little plain unadulterated sunlight there. Forget your Kelvins. Also, I am not particularly interested in what a pedant with PhotoShop can find when he's in his nit-picking mode. What interests me is that I, as a practical photographer) can forget about it. For that matter, Leica lenses also have vignetting, and distortion, and astigmatism ... look at the graphs. Arrgh! Ug#&€@¶‡ (vomiting). How can you use them?!

 

Because they have been brought to negligible levels, that's why.

 

No, you don't have to. You can do that ... but that's only one out of several options. The Capa way, for example, is another (however avoid stepping on landmines).

 

Certainly, the police won't arrest you. The result is a different matter.

 

The squinty-eyed old man from the Age of the Hologon