Jump to content

21mm lens for environmental portraits


stump4545

Recommended Posts

In my experiance (no technical testing, only shooting) the Super Elmar only shows negligible distortion along the edges. I'd not hesitate to shoot portraits (keeping the subject somewhat centerded) with the SEM if the situation so dictated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Stump means the other kind of distortion (big noses and chins and such).

 

The following were made with a 21 equivalent (B&W pix with 21 Elmarit on M9, color shot with 15mm cropped on M8).

 

I expect the 21 f/3.4 or any other 21 would produce essentially identical results.

 

If one knows how to use a 21, one can get any level of spatial distortion one wants.

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

21mm is one of my favourite focal lengths for portraiture. I like to shoot wide and I agree that as long as you keep the subjects somewhat centered you won't have to worry too much about distortion. I shot these with a Zeiss but I think your SEM will have better distortion control than the Zeiss.

 

8463877523_1553be31cb_c.jpg

 

8521695390_7915f00787_c.jpg

 

8464831482_c4ba369f29_c.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great examples Andy!

 

As has been mentioned, keep things, you want to keep recognisable away from the corners and the horizontal frame edges and you can get actually pretty natural looking shots.

 

The 21 SE is a fantastic 21mm lens.

 

I have only recently started to like wide angle lenses, thanks to a 16mm.

 

21 SE:

8506959978_b661b2e636_c.jpg

star by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

8505851363_24a732b86b_c.jpg

street sweeper by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

16/8 Hologon:

8482805100_0606dd9319_c.jpg

guard by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

8529698131_be9cf0ce2b_c.jpg

portrait - the trainer by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem with the big noses is the normal distortion of the perspective, independent of the brand of the lens.

 

The make of the lens can give real distortion, see the Leica technical data for instance.

An interesting comparison of different lenses in this respect you can find here:

</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="de"> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"> <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <

Please skip to the chapter "Verzeichnung". Almost at the end.

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few interesting wide-angle threads at the moment, this one and also the two about 28mm and 24mm. Interesting coincidence since I'm currently trying to decide between 24 and 21 mm because 28 is too close to my 35.

 

I am very impressed with the images posted above, they all look very "natural" to me and are clearly taken by photographers who know their lenses.

 

One thing, though, for people or street photography, would 21 be "too wide", in the sense that it requires stepping in rather close to the person being photographed in order to fill the frame sufficiently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

... trying to decide between 24 and 21 mm because 28 is too close to my 35.

 

I am very impressed with the images posted above, they all look very "natural" to me and are clearly taken by photographers who know their lenses.

On 35-mm format, a focal length of 24 mm is the strongest wide-angle. 21 mm is the first super-wide. If you're after a wide but still natural view then better go for a 24 mm lens. If you want the air of surrealism that typically comes with extremely wide angles of view then get a 21 mm (or shorter).

 

Of course you can take surrealistic pictures with 24 mm also, or natural-looking pictures with 21 mm if you try—but it won't come naturally; it'll take some skill and effort. I still haven't figured out why ... but there seems to be some kind of borderline between 24 mm and 21 mm. Maybe it has to do with the diagonal angle of view of 90°, I don't know. Anyway ... to me, 24 - 35 mm on the one hand and 12 - 21 mm on the other hand clearly are two different classes of focal length ranges—wide, and super-wide.

 

By the way, fish-eye is still another, entirely different kettle of, uh, fish, but that's another topic altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true comment above!

 

Working distance is all that matters with such wide angle lenses. I find it hard, to get something interesting, when stepping back with a 21 or wide, so stepping in is the only natural thing you do.

 

With a 21mm and tighter than full body shots it means, that you are shooting from 1.5 and closer to your subject.

 

I recently got reminded by myself, that I might be a bit unsafe in times, when I started to shoot the 16mm. I like to shoot in traffic, so when you see the world through an 16mm optical finder and you frame, you don't realise how really close you go actually.

 

This frame for example is at less than 50cm distance from the face of my subject - you stumble and you don't fall alone!

 

8493791407_68d7f657f6_c.jpg

woman on bicycle by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

Here focussing distance is about 0.7m, maybe shorter:

 

8493796957_8b8d11d8bb_c.jpg

Derek in alley shooting by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

This is about 1m distance with 16mm (21 isn't really much longer):

 

8444386320_af9b1fd965_c.jpg

16 f8 Hologon - first shots - man on scooter by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

By comparison a 28mm feels a lot more normal, when actually shooting.

Personally I find it harder, to shoot a 28mm, as this is the first focal length, where framing really exposes any flaw with falling lines, horizons, and alike, but it doesn't feel like such an extreme wide angle. I feel much easier about 21mm, probably, as it is so natural, to go close with it.

 

My point is, I'd rather jump over the 28 or 24mm focal and go for a 21mm, as I find it easier, to get your mind set for it, than 28, with which I struggle more as an in-between-lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Olaf and Dirk

 

Many thanks for this very valuable information, and Dirk also for even more great photos.

 

I like very much - see for instance the shot of the Hassy photographer - how the image isn't distorted very much even though the distance is short. It could "almost" be a longer focal length. From a natural rendering/distortion perspective, I guess there is a "sweet spot" in the camera-subject distance (and not only regarding safety and comfortableness)?

 

21 is indeed a useful focal length.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating images showing what can be achieved in street-type situations - something I have yet to really try my 21mm. Certainly for landscapes it makes some scenarios possible that other lenses would not. You just have to be careful not to include your feet! ;)

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

Well...this is in fact with CV15mm. I didn't plan to take these pictures with 15mm, but when our hot pit for roasting lamb was ready and my friend started to showel of the burning wood I just happened to have 15mm on.

So...there are times when the perspective "distortion" is just *fun* !!

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

Well...this is in fact with CV15mm. I didn't plan to take these pictures with 15mm, but when our hot pit for roasting lamb was ready and my friend started to showel of the burning wood I just happened to have 15mm on.

So...there are times when the perspective "distortion" is just *fun* !!

 

Do you know what this man is doing (other than the obvious)?

 

s-a

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few interesting wide-angle threads at the moment, this one and also the two about 28mm and 24mm. Interesting coincidence since I'm currently trying to decide between 24 and 21 mm because 28 is too close to my 35.

 

I am very impressed with the images posted above, they all look very "natural" to me and are clearly taken by photographers who know their lenses.

 

One thing, though, for people or street photography, would 21 be "too wide", in the sense that it requires stepping in rather close to the person being photographed in order to fill the frame sufficiently?

 

Just so happens that IS the lens, the 21, that Peter Turnley suggests and uses for street photography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

my favourite lens in the whole wide world is the 21mm Elmarit pre-ASPH......it hasn't left my M8 since putting it on a few months ago.

 

love the way it renders, love the way it looks...love the substantial size and amazing mechanics. Leica lenses at their peak, IMO. and it is truly affordable, relatively speaking.

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

Just watched the 2012 documentary on William Klein (an hour documentary available on youtube). At 84 he is shown carrying everywhere his well worn R (pre-R8) with a 21-35 ASPH attached. The earlier comments match my experience: the 21 offers fantastic POV when spherical shapes are kept away from the edges.

 

Dean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...