kaikeong Posted January 8, 2014 Share #1 Â Posted January 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi! Â I have a 35mm, 50mm & 75mm lens. I am thinking of getting a wide angle lens to add to my collection. Should I get the 24mm or 21mm? Any recommendation? Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Hi kaikeong, Take a look here How wide?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 8, 2014 Share #2  Posted January 8, 2014 Hi! I have a 35mm, 50mm & 75mm lens. I am thinking of getting a wide angle lens to add to my collection. Should I get the 24mm or 21mm? Any recommendation? Thank you.  Buy the focal length you need rather than the one recommended by others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc_rufctr Posted January 8, 2014 Share #3 Â Posted January 8, 2014 My 21 Super Angulon is my favourite lens although it won't meter on my M6 TTL. I mostly use it on my M4-P with a hand held or Voitlander meter. Â What M do you have? Digital or film?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaikeong Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share #4 Â Posted January 8, 2014 I am using the Leica M240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted January 8, 2014 Share #5 Â Posted January 8, 2014 The most obvious choice is probably 21mm, but if it was me I'd take 24mm as this feels like a wider 'normal lens' and doesn't push back the subject as aggressively as the 21mm. Â I have 18,21,24 and 28 and I'd order as most desirable tome 24 first, 28/21 tie, 18 last. Â Not sure if that helps ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted January 8, 2014 Share #6 Â Posted January 8, 2014 I've never used the 24 so I can't say much about that but I really love the 21. My setup is 21/35/50 when traveling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted January 9, 2014 Share #7  Posted January 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lots of posts about this elsewhere on the forum; do a search for more info. I have both the 2.8/24 Elmarit-Asph. and a 2.8/21 Zeiss M. Both are excellent, but there is quite a difference in coverage (field of view). Those few millimeters in focal length make a difference at the wide angle. For me, 21mm is good for architecture and 24mm is more of a general purpose-lens for travel and landscapes.  21mm = 92º FOV  24mm = 84º FOV  28mm = 76º FOV  35mm = 64º FOV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted January 9, 2014 Share #8 Â Posted January 9, 2014 Suggest 2 focal lengths below what you have and you can't go too wrong. If you have a 35 as wide then a 24 as wider. Â In my case I had a 28 as wide and I bought a 21. Â Best to try before you buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonil Posted January 9, 2014 Share #9 Â Posted January 9, 2014 Suggest 2 focal lengths below what you have and you can't go too wrong. If you have a 35 as wide then a 24 as wider. Â In my case I had a 28 as wide and I bought a 21. Â Best to try before you buy. Â Or just shrug, get a 12mm and celebrate! Â In all seriousness, this is good advice - its how I bought most of my primes for my Canon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 9, 2014 Share #10 Â Posted January 9, 2014 24 & 35 are my favorites and I buy them when possible, ie my Nikon DSLR set. Â Â the Leica set is from 1980`s and I am stuck 21 28 35. Â 21 is pretty wide and a big step from 35. Â The whole thing is do you prefer a close ratio or wide ratio gear box when there was a choice and you could order what you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaikeong Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share #11  Posted January 9, 2014 Hi!,  Thanks for the comments. I think 24mm should be great for me. Will you guys pay for extra dollars just to get the F1.4 instead of F2.8. As the Leica M240 has a better iso system now?   Cheers  Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted January 13, 2014 Share #12 Â Posted January 13, 2014 Sounds like it is either the 24 or 28. Unless you really need a super-fast lens, a 1.4/24 Summilux will be bulkier and a lot more expensive. The 3.8/24 would also be worth looking at, and almost a third less than the Summilux. Â I don't think the 2.8 Elmarit-Asph is available new any longer, so you will have to look for a used example. Â There is also a Zeiss 2.8/25 Biogon T ZM at about half the cost of the Elmar. Â By the way, this thread should really be in the lens forum, perhaps mods could move it? More advice there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 14, 2014 Share #13 Â Posted January 14, 2014 Given the setup with 35 as the widest I would go for 21. But rather than buying the Summilux I would buy the 21mm f1.8 Ultron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted January 14, 2014 Share #14  Posted January 14, 2014 Hi!, Thanks for the comments. I think 24mm should be great for me. Will you guys pay for extra dollars just to get the F1.4 instead of F2.8. As the Leica M240 has a better iso system now?   Cheers  Alex  The 24 F2.8 is a real stunner, it's on the list of landmark lenses by Erwin Puts and I think for good reason, very 'walk in' and 3d with it's depth. I love the lens, "a masterpiece of optical engineering' as quoted again by Erwin. Small neat and light enough, plus they sold for £3k in 2011 and they go for 1/2 that now. A current bargain. The Elmar is nearer 25mm by the way, so the Elmarit is slightly wider too. The Elmarit is a higher build quality design Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.