New lens

[Pippohurri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody.My questions:is it so wrong to choose another lens like Elmarit 28mm 2.8 when i've goy yet the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 and the summicron 50mm 2.

Help me to chose because i want a wider lens but i don't know if i want to use an external viewfinder...is it better to choose mybe the 21 or 24mm because i still have the 35mm...any comments will be appreciated.

Thanks to evrybody

Filippo

[Advertisement]

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

[Tonki-M]

GAS is really never ending. I once thought i would only need a 35 and a 50 for all my needs, but now, i own most of the focal lengths. the 35 may seem close to the 28, but in reality, they are quite different. I myself prefer the 35 for easier viewing on the rangefinder, but occasionally, i would pick up a 28 just for a change of perspective. the question of 18/21/24 really depends on whether or not you have felt the need for that wide angle shot and the perspective it offers. If no, then you dont really need it, and may as well get the 28 that you MAY actually get to use. hope this helps.

[sblitz]

In practice. 28 is very different from a 35. 28 is a terrific street lens turns M into a point and shoot. As for gas attacks my feeling is to pay up for the focal length you use most and not for the ones you don't. For me 7000 for a 21 makes no sense at all but for others it does.

[wda]

My MATE (Tri-Elmar 28-35-50) is wonderful for travel. What have I learned with this lens? That I use all three focal lengths when out and about. However, the 35 and 50 shoot the most between them. Rarely do I need to go wider than 28, although I do love my 21 Elmarit.

[Jeff S]

but occasionally, i would pick up a 28 just for a change of perspective. the question of 18/21/24 really depends on whether or not you have felt the need for that wide angle shot and the perspective it offers.

 

Not to be pedantic, but the 28 and 35 offer exactly the same perspective if one shoots from the same place. A cropped view of a 28 pic will yield the same result as the 35 from that location. The field of view (FOV) does however change, and that may prompt the photographer to shoot from closer or farther away, which will then change perspective.

 

All that technical stuff doesn't really matter, though. What matters is what works for the person taking the picture, and that needs to be decided based on practice. Moving one's feet and/or using the lens preview lever may help. Some find the 28 and 35 too close in terms of FOV. I'm not one of them.

 

Jeff

[lct]

When photogs say that 35mm and 28mm lenses have not the same perspective, they mean for the same format and the same field of view or they don't know what perspective is. Besides, another advantage of 28 is there are 28mm framelines in 0.72x (since the M4-P), 0.68x and 0.58x M viewfinders.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When photogs say that 35mm and 28mm lenses have not the same perspective, they mean for the same format and the same field of view or they don't know what perspective is

 

I clearly said from the same location, and of course I was referring to not only the same format, but the same camera. Are you suggesting I don't know about perspective?

 

Jeff

[lct]

I just said what i said. Nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.

[Jeff S]

Well, you sure present an interesting perspective.

 

Or do you want to qualify that for the OP, too?

 

Jeff

[lct]

For everybody including me.

[jaclarkaus]

I'd go 21

[Pippohurri]

Probably you are all right but the problem is that when i bought the 35 voigtlander i made it to have a street lens and especially because it was 1.4.I was not able to buy the 35 sum micron or summilux.

But i know it,the voigtlander, has a little barrel distortion and probably is not the best panorama lens.

This is the reason why i want a wider lens than 35.I was thinking to the Elmarit 28mm 2.8 asph because is not so expensive (it depends on the point of view…but it is the leica cheapest lens), is ultra sharp and especially is very small!

On the other hand i could chose an used 21mm Elmarit 2.8 pre-asph with ext viewfinder…but i don't know if it's better or not…maybe it is too wide for me.With my canon i have an 8mm but it costs 300€ and i use it not every day.Here is a little bit different because every lens costs more than 1300€ used.

Aftel all i think i could live with 2-3 lens but every photographer want more and more…GAS never ending as you say.

Thanks to everybody

[lct]

Both very good lenses, the 28/2.8 aph being smaller and more contrasty than the 21/2.8 pre-asph but i guess you know it already. Now your problem is less the lens than the focal length if i understand well. If you don't shoot ultra wides very often, a 28 or a 24 could suit you better than a 18 or a 21. Matter of tastes first of all. If you cannot borrow one i would try a 28 (or a 24 on the M8) if i were you. You'll find corresponding framelines in your viewfinder and M lenses are easy to resell anyway.

[!Nomad64]

Basically it's not wrong, but it depends from the use you intend to make of your kit. I for instance focus more on landscapes and theater. Albeit I love street photography that's definitely not my cup of tea due to my poor interpersonal skills.

Originally I thought as many others that 28 and 35 were too close and that one would exclude the other, today I do not anymore. And a master like Salgado made excellent use of a close range 28-35-50 kit.

I originally went with more an extreme 24 - 50 - 90 combination, but later I added the 35 to fill in the gap and recently I also added a 28 which positively surprised me. I don't like to take with me heavy burdens, so which lenses to choose is a matter of mood and expected subjects. I know by direct experience that there are places where I know for sure that the longest lens I'll ever need need is the 50 ( for me it was Croatia and Maldives) so I indulge with a larger array of wide angles, in other places I'd leave at home anything wider than the 50 and limit myself to the brightest 50 and 90 (theater and concerts). My universal do-it-all kit is generally 35 - 50 - 90.

If I were you I'd go for the 24 first, because when you need to go wide you need it and you can partially - and I stress the partially - compensate for the lack of a 28 by getting closer.

 

Hope this helps

Bruno

[iedei]

21mm forever!

[tobey bilek]

24 35 50 is the best set. 21 is too far from 35, & 28 too close to 35. After 50 years of doing this, that is what I carry. Get an 18 or 15 to go wider.

 

All my slr set are the above focals, but my Leica 21 & 28 were bought new in 1980`s and they are like brand new and they seem to work fine on my M8 & 9 so I am keeping them.

[RoySmith]

I have the 24, 35, and 50 as well, and find they work very well together. (I just added the 18mm SEM to the set). They 24 mm is quite different from the 35mm.

 

A downside to the 24 mm is you need an external viewfinder. If you think you may eventually add the 18mm, a 18mm Leica viewfinder works for the 24mm lens as well.

[rramesh]

With a good 28 and 50, I will skip the 35. If required I complement with either a 21 or a 90.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pippohurri]

I probably goes for a 24mm or 21mm if i can find good price for an used one...i think it would be a good choice also if i need an external viewfinder.

On the other hand i could go for a 28mm elmarit because my personal shop has one for a very good price...mmmhh.

Hard choice

[IWC Doppel]

I love everything from 24 (maybe 21) to 75 with a real 'focus' on 24-50. My 24,28 and 35 are often my weekend companions, all very different and complimentary