21 or 24 mm

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

You did read the rest of the paragraph I wrote, didn't you? Whether the subject distortion will be awful or not depends on the subject and on the photographer's intents. For portraiture, it's not so good indeed ... but there's more in the world to photograph than just portraits.

 

 

But of course, just as using a 50 mm lens does not automatically make you compose the Renaissance way—or even compose at all!

Sure.

 

 

... 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. [...] Also, I am not particularly interested in what a pedant with Photoshop can find when he's in his nit-picking mode.

Well—to note the red colour cast in your picture's left-hand edge, it does not take a measurement of the RGB values in Photoshop. It jumps right out at you upon first sight—and looks exactly like the dreaded red-edge issue. But when it actually is just the reflection off a red wall outside the frame then I guess it's okay. Still, maybe you should not use this particular picture in an M9 forum to show off what the Biogon 25 mm ZM can do*.

 

________________________________________________

* Yes, I know your primary intention was to make a point about composition, not technical performance ... but after all, you did also mention the red-edge issue.

[Paul Verrips]

Today i sold my Elmarit-M 2.8/28 ASPH and bought a Elmarit-M 21mm/2.8 ASPH (secondhand ) with the 21mm metal viewfinder.

 

All thanks for the feedback.

 

The reason i bought the 21/2.8 is that 24/3.8 was not wide enough, reason not to choose the 21/3.4 or 18/3.4 is that i prefer the faster aperture.

[algrove]

Today i sold my Elmarit-M 2.8/28 ASPH and bought a Elmarit-M 21mm/2.8 ASPH (secondhand ) with the 21mm metal viewfinder.

 

All thanks for the feedback.

 

The reason i bought the 21/2.8 is that 24/3.8 was not wide enough, reason not to choose the 21/3.4 or 18/3.4 is that i prefer the faster aperture.

 

You can always get more speed with the 21 1.4 if and when needed. Just sell an old car and it's yours.

[jaapv]

Today i sold my Elmarit-M 2.8/28 ASPH and bought a Elmarit-M 21mm/2.8 ASPH (secondhand ) with the 21mm metal viewfinder.

 

All thanks for the feedback.

 

The reason i bought the 21/2.8 is that 24/3.8 was not wide enough, reason not to choose the 21/3.4 or 18/3.4 is that i prefer the faster aperture.

 

Do you really see a difference in speed between 2.8 and 3.4 in daily use?? It is about half a stop..

[lars_bergquist]

Well—to note the red colour cast in your picture's left-hand edge, it does not take a measurement of the RGB values in Photoshop. It jumps right out at you upon first sight—and looks exactly like the dreaded red-edge issue. But when it actually is just the reflection off a red wall outside the frame then I guess it's okay. Still, maybe you should not use this particular picture in an M9 forum to show off what the Biogon 25 mm ZM can do*.

 

Well Olaf. All lenses, even your own Leica lenses, exhibit residual lateral and longitudinal CA, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism, vignetting, various stray light phenomena and distortion. AND they give rise to rededge effects that may or may not be adequately corrected by firmware. The question is whether they have been reduced to negligible proportions, NOT whether they are detectable by some inquisitorial procedure or other. If that is the criterion, stop photographing.

 

To reiterate my argument, I am not terribly interested in laboratory tests. I go out and take pictures of real, uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) subjects. I understand that to some circles, this is an unforgivably sloppy and proletarian activity. But while I am quite allergic to distortion, I am not naive enough to believe that colour is anything but a subjective perception, just as arbitary as the 'false colours' that a displayed picture by a heat camera is. So as long at the thing does not irritate me, I don't give a damn because the image is what it is all about, not the satisfying of some arbitrary criteria.

 

And I did NOT try to show off what that lens could do, because a lens does nothing on its own. I wanted to exemplify one way of using it. This discussion is now closed at my end.

 

The dirty old man who enjoys pictures

[algrove]

Well Olaf. All lenses, even your own Leica lenses, exhibit residual lateral and longitudinal CA, spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism, vignetting, various stray light phenomena and distortion. AND they give rise to rededge effects that may or may not be adequately corrected by firmware. The question is whether they have been reduced to negligible proportions, NOT whether they are detectable by some inquisitorial procedure or other. If that is the criterion, stop photographing.

 

To reiterate my argument, I am not terribly interested in laboratory tests. I go out and take pictures of real, uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) subjects. I understand that to some circles, this is an unforgivably sloppy and proletarian activity. But while I am quite allergic to distortion, I am not naive enough to believe that colour is anything but a subjective perception, just as arbitary as the 'false colours' that a displayed picture by a heat camera is. So as long at the thing does not irritate me, I don't give a damn because the image is what it is all about, not the satisfying of some arbitrary criteria.

 

And I did NOT try to show off what that lens could do, because a lens does nothing on its own. I wanted to exemplify one way of using it. This discussion is now closed at my end.

 

The dirty old man who enjoys pictures

 

+1, +1, +1

[Paul Verrips]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you really see a difference in speed between 2.8 and 3.4 in daily use?? It is about half a stop..

 

Not in every situation.....

 

But, the price difference was not much and i had a preference for the 2.8.

[lars_bergquist]

A difference of one half of an EV or f-stop can be large at the long end, and considerably less at the short end. If you can hand-hold a 90mm lens at 1/60th, then you can do it at 1/15th with a 21mm lens. And the relative dangers of camera shake blur and subject movement blur do not change, because with decreasing focal length magnification decreases, and hence subject movement is also depicted smaller, along with the 'virtual movement' caused by shake.

 

The old man from the short end (mostly)

[Double Negative]

Do you really see a difference in speed between 2.8 and 3.4 in daily use?? It is about half a stop..

 

In "daily use" perhaps not, but that's a big "depends" right there. If you shoot in the dark often enough, every bit helps. I notice this even down to f/1.4, f/1.5 and even f/1.1 (Lux, Sonnar and Nokton) when it comes to grabbing a 50mm for some night shooting. All three lenses are within a stop of each other.

[jaapv]

I see Lars gave my answer

[Your Old Dog]

Sorry I'm late posting.

 

I have both the 21 and the 24. Bought the 24 first and loved it until I bought the 21. The 24 hasn't seen the light of day since. I expect to ebay the 24 soon and maybe a 75mm also as I find the 90 better suited for my interest.

 

If I were lens challenged I'd have the 24/50/75 but I'm not The 21/35/50/90 will work great for my needs.