35mm shooters: 18mm, 21mm, or 24mm as your single WA lens?

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Being just a bit contrary, as my first truly wide lens, I went with the CV15 II.

 

My reasoning was:

1) I really don't use super wide angle lenses very much but when you need a very wide angle they are almost indispensable. Stitching things together is too much work.

2) My buddy is an architect and he occasionally has me do some photos for him. I have the 11-23mm on the T and I've found that I use it much more at the 11mm end than toward the 23mm end when shooting stuff for him and so 15mm seemed like a better choice for the indoor architecture.

3) It is very small and light and so adding it to what I carry when there is one of those rare chances when I think that I might use it doesn't encumber me. For example, traveling where I might see some architecture, adding it to my travel bag is almost inconsequential. The WATE would have been too big, it would be more like another lens to carry which would encourage me to leave it at home much of the time.

4) It wasn't much of an investment to pick one up used and so it came more out of pocket spending cash then budgeted camera kit improvement. The WATE and the 18mm while both unquestionably better lenses would be harder for me to justify for the amount of use that I get out of them.

 

So if budget were not a limiting factor maybe I would have gotten the SEM 18mm and figured out how to shoot with a little narrower field of view. (Really if budget were not a limiting factor and it was out I'd buy a SL and a 16-35mm but that would be a different world of budget not mattering.)

If size, weight and budget didn't matter then I'd probably have bought the WATE.

 

In the end for <$300 I have a pretty good lens that I won't use all that much but which I don't mind carrying around. The first weekend that I took it out, I got some great shots of the giant sequoias in the snow. A UWA lens really seems to do them justice.

[dante]

I have this same question frequently. Answer depends on the day...

 

With the M240, I like the 18mm f/4 ZM Distagon. It has a little color shift (correctable), but the big draw is that the corners are exceptionally sharp, among the best I've seen. But the "cheat" answer is the 21-35mm f/3.4-4 Hexanon Dual, which is huge but is versatile and sharp.

 

With the M246, I like the 21mm f/4.5 ZM Biogon. It's tiny, takes 46mm filters, has zero distortion and noticeable but not obnoxious vignetting.

 

 

[Lord Lucan]

dante, good photos. I think that Dual lens is a marvel.

PS: Please note that the external link in post 61 is not working. They were offering 21mm f2.8 for 695GBP!

[Guest )-(]

Perfect use of the wide angle there, great characterful portraits

 

 

I like 21mm, any wider makes everything too tiny for my taste. 70cm can be a long way for MFD on such wide angles.

I had the 21SEM on M9 and i found it superb for architecture but on film I much prefer the lower contrast and closer MFD (0.40m) of the Super-Angulon.

The lack of distortion, quirky character and advantageous MFD of the Super-Angulon won the day for me.

 

The point and shoot aspect of 21mm is probably its most appealing property to me. Set and forget.