Jump to content

Wide-Angle Lens Choice


rramesh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yosemite is so massive (very wide open) I'd consider a 90mm or 135mm (both of which are pretty easy to find with great optics and at reasonable prices) to bring along. As for the 21, a Zeiss ZM is great for the price (f/4.5 if you shoot film, the f/2.8 if you use a digital), if you intend on using the 21mm often back home the Super Elmar is fantastic

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 24 Elmarit-M f2.8 is a stunning lens. Useable in more circumstances than a 21 which you have. A great balance with speed and size, plus it has some magic in the way it renders with a real ability to capture image depth.

 

A quick look at MTF's will tell you how good this lens is from a technical perspective as well. Given the prices they are currently fetching I think they are good value at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My standard two lens kit is exactly the same as yours. My next choice going wide would be the 3.4/21 SEM - what other choice could there possibly be? :D

 

Although I less often use longer lenses I agree with taking along a longer lens. I'd take my 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar - small but spectacular IQ.

 

Enjoy the trip

Link to post
Share on other sites

My standard two lens kit is exactly the same as yours. My next choice going wide would be the 3.4/21 SEM - what other choice could there possibly be? :D

 

  • I did try out the 21 SEM and I really like it, especially it uses a 46mm filter the same as my 28 Cron, 50 Lux and 90 Elmarit-M.
  • I'm also going to check out the Voigtlander 21 f/1.8. It's a bit big but there seem to be some good reviews out.
  • A third option I'm toying with is the 18 Super-Elmar but I don't have much experience with angles wider that 21mm and need to play with it before looking at an expensive purchase.

The real challenge is that I use 21 less than 10% of the time and can't seem to justify an expensive purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • I did try out the 21 SEM and I really like it, especially it uses a 46mm filter the same as my 28 Cron, 50 Lux and 90 Elmarit-M.
  • I'm also going to check out the Voigtlander 21 f/1.8. It's a bit big but there seem to be some good reviews out.
  • A third option I'm toying with is the 18 Super-Elmar but I don't have much experience with angles wider that 21mm and need to play with it before looking at an expensive purchase.

The real challenge is that I use 21 less than 10% of the time and can't seem to justify an expensive purchase.

 

Two focal lengths wider than 28mm still seems a sensible next move.

You could then go to a Distagon 15:D

 

Do you think you would use a 21mm lens more if you had the SEM?

Do you really think you would regret buying the 21 SEM?

Dont you just want a 21 SEM for its outstanding IQ?

 

And it gives you a great 4 lens travel kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I visited Yosemite last May and had brought 21, 35, 50, 75 and 135 along. Overall I found more use for the 75 and 135 than for the 21. But it should be added that I don't seem to use my wide angles so much, no matter where I am :)

 

Interesting how some see wide and others see long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I visited Yosemite last May and had brought 21, 35, 50, 75 and 135 along. Overall I found more use for the 75 and 135 than for the 21. But it should be added that I don't seem to use my wide angles so much, no matter where I am :)

Looks like I will need to bring the 90 as well. If you are like me going to Yosemite from a built-up city like Singapore, wide open spaces and sweeping landscape seem to just beg for a wide angle lens. :cool:

 

And as MarkP asked, would I really regret it if I used the 21 CV instead of the better alternative lenses?

Edited by rramesh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I mean, if you are looking for an opportunity to upgrade the CV then I guess Yosemite is as good an excuse as any :) But with a set of 21, 28, 50 and 90 at your disposal you are well covered within the traditional scope of a rangefinder. I would also bring a tripod.

 

If you look at Yosemite pro's (take William Neill as just one example) many of them use SLR zooms, e.g. Canon 17-40 and 70-200, for a large proportion of their published photos. In my limited experience Yosemite is not so much about large sweeping landscapes but more about picking out scenery or details with good shapes, lines and colours.

 

I was on a family trip so didn't dedicate as much time as I would have liked to photography. Nonetheless, if you are interested, I have put a few photos on Flickr:

Yosemite Landscapes - a set on Flickr

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the 18 SE together with the 28, 35 and 50 crons.

 

Really like that lens. Great quality and the 18mm wide look is great. It gives me 3D like quality with nice colors and tone. And is absurd sharp even wide open.

 

But it has some flaws.

1. Its the most expensive of the super elmars.

2. Needs a filter adater for 77mm filters. Making it even more expensive.

3. 18mm finders aren't really common, so u need the leica or zeiss one. (making it even more expensive)

 

The 77mm filters are not that nice, but it has a advantage to. 77mm filters are far more common to find used. And the filteradapter has an opening at the back trough were u can look to to see the effect of the used filter.

 

 

If the 77mm filters don't bother you, and u would like really wide I would say this is a really good one.

 

 

However, If I could pick again I think my choice would be the 21 SE because of the 46mm filters. And I hear its even better in picture quality.

 

Im now even thinking of selling the 18SE to fund a canon 17 TSE. But the 18SE keeps having something special making it really hard to sell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I will need to bring the 90 as well. If you are like me going to Yosemite from a built-up city like Singapore, wide open spaces and sweeping landscape seem to just beg for a wide angle lens. :cool:

 

And as MarkP asked, would I really regret it if I used the 21 CV instead of the better alternative lenses?

The 90 is a must. When i visited I took a Canon with a 100 macro and it produced my favourite images by far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not use an ultrawide for our trip to Yosemite as regrettably I left it at home. Later I used my M4-P with 15mm and 21mm Voigtlanders to good effect on street scenes but sold them after I moved to an M9 as the vignetted edges of the Voigt. images needed treating with Cornerfix. Now I use a 17mm Tokina on an adapter. I believe the Voigtlander lenses are sharper but the edge-effects deter me. I read that the 17mm Tamron and the 18mm Nikkor are sharper than the Tokina (which is a good lens when stopped down) but so far I have been outbid.

Anybody else experimenting with non-Leica ultrawides?

Philip

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think i'm starting to sound like a broken record now....but my late-production 21mm Elmarit pre-ASPH is quite simply my favourite lens.....well, ever. you can get them reasonably priced ~$1500 or so......and they really have stellar build quality and function. the images are characterful and sharp. Absolutely love this lens.....and think that it may be one of THE most underappreciated lenses Leica have made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...