Which would You choose: 21 mm, 24 mm or 28 mm???

[Sub'erman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here I go again 

 

Recently I moved from Canon DSLR's and their Red-Ring collection to Leica.

 

So far I have a 35mm, but find it lacking when I shoot landscapes and objects at little away (30 ft and further)

 

I have used my 17-40, 24-105 and 24-70 Canon Red-Rings for these shoots before.

 

So here goes:

Which wide angle lens do you prefer and why (chosing from the Leica M 21-24-28 line-up)? 

[rpittal]

conventional wisdom would have the 28 and 35 too close;

21 (and 18) maybe too wide for routine use;

24 elmar f/3.4 may be your sweet spot

but you should select based on your prior use and your intentions (and conventional wisdom/rules are made to be broken)

Regards,

Bob

[mikemgb]

conventional wisdom would have the 28 and 35 too close;

21 (and 18) maybe too wide for routine use;

24 elmar f/3.4 may be your sweet spot

but you should select based on your prior use and your intentions (and conventional wisdom/rules are made to be broken)

Regards,

Bob

 

I would agree, 28mm is quite often not wide enough, 21mm produces a distortion I don't like, 24mm is ideal.

[jdlaing]

24.

[Go Figure]

28 is usually not a big enough step from 35 

but 21 is roughly 2x vertical 35mm or 90º viewing angle 

it is very easy to compose with in landscape

I'd go with the ZM21/4.5 as older Leica 21 have so much vignetting that you need to stop

down anyway 

For shooting people I'd go with 24 instead 

( unfortunately there is no Cron 24 and the lux is blocking too much of viewfinder )

given the conundrum  and depending what sensor you use I'd buy a VC 25/4.0 and dyoc

[Sub'erman]

conventional wisdom would have the 28 and 35 too close;

21 (and 18) maybe too wide for routine use;

24 elmar f/3.4 may be your sweet spot

but you should select based on your prior use and your intentions (and conventional wisdom/rules are made to be broken)

Regards,

Bob

 

Might just be me but searching for a 24mm elmar 3,4 has proven an Urias Post??? Is it the elmar 3,8 you're referring to??

Edited May 18, 2017 by Sub'erman

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd go for a good used 24 f/2.8

[Sub'erman]

I'd go for a good used 24 f/2.8

 

Just found a great looking one... 

[oldwino]

Don't count out the Zeiss ZM 25/2.8. Great lens.

[Ko.Fe.]

I also left Canon FF and L earlier this year. Just keeping old, trusty digital Rebel for AF. 

 

I owned briefly ELC Elmarit 28 2.8 III, because I was trying to understand Garry Winogrand who used 28 most with Leica. I came to conclusion what for my photography with people doing something, somewhere I have to get too close with this focal length. Framelines were OK on M-E. Before 28, I briefly owned 25mm lens (Color Skopar) and it was interesting lens for indoor pictures. Much easier to fit in some people doing something. On the street it was exactly what Winogrand was saying about everything wider after 28. It is very hard to control. It is so wide, you have to check many elements to have solid picture. For static objects it was fine. Just take your time and eyeball every corner. But for some people doing something it was too slow. The main reason I sold it was the external VF. I have big nose and Leica with VF in the corner allows me to breath freely, which I like to do while I'm taking pictures of some people doing something. With 24 and wider it has to be external VF and for me it makes M-E just like Canon FF. My shnose on the camera screen... 

 

I'm still thinking of trying 21mm. With 24 I was still inclining back to get pictures of people across the table. With 21mm I might just take it while seating strait.  And I want it to try for pictures of single trees. I want to be as close as possible to have as much of the tree as possible, yet, no DSLR fisheye effect. 

 

But for now, my only lens on M-E is Summarit-M 35 2.5 And honestly, I don't really need anything else. After I left heavy L lenses it is easy to zoom with legs.

[rpittal]

Might just be me but searching for a 24mm elmar 3,4 has proven an Urias Post??? Is it the elmar 3,8 you're referring to??

 

yes, the 3.8; sorry for the typo....

[keithlaban.co.uk]

The longest focal length possible necessary to do the job. 

[pgk]

21. But that's just me - 21/35/75 (or 90) makes for a great kit. But its a very personal choice. You'll get advocates for all I'm afraid.

[michaelwj]

Last year I'd have said 21mm without hesitation. But after a while having a dinky viewfinder sticking out of the top of my camera wore me down. It means that you have to change both the lens AND the viewfinder, and it no longer slips in and out of the bag.

So if that doesn't bother you, go for a 21, but I'd prefer a 28 even though my primary lens is a 35mm. In any case, I find a 35 so versatile for my shooting that I don't need or want wider. (I'm a bit over the exaggerated perspective landscape thing anyway, I used a 21 mostly for people and events)

[lct]

21 would be too wide if i had only a 35 personally. The Elmar 24/3.8 is superb but too slow for me. The Elmarit 24/2.8 could be a good compromise but it is rather bulky and may show some color shifts on the M9 if memory serves me well. This is to be confirmed as i have no experience wth this lens though. I would prefer the Elmarit 28/2.8 asph which shows no color shifts and is super sharp, tiny and is affordable which does not spoil anything. The almost perfect lens if you like contrasty results. Only outperformed by the Summicron 28/2 which is more expensive and significantly bulkier. Matter of tastes anyway.

[Martin B]

It depends on your personal shooting style, and I also come from the Canon side using the 17-40/4 L intensively. With Leica M, I decided to go the 21 and 35 mm route with CV 21/1.8 and Leica 35/2. I find 28 mm still quite close to the 35 mm FL, so I prefer to have something further apart. I also used my 17-40/4 L lens predominantly between 17 and 24 mm FL - so 21 mm was the best compromise in a prime lens for me. So far I have everything covered with 12/21/35/50/90 focal length range. 

[MarkP]

I would prefer the Elmarit 28/2.8 asph which shows no color shifts and is super sharp, tiny and is affordable which does not spoil anything. The almost perfect lens if you like contrasty results. Only outperformed by the Summicron 28/2 which is more expensive and significantly bulkier. 

 

Agreed!

[newnew]

If you shoot more landscapes the 21 SEM is really for you. You will be living a different experience with that lens. If you shoot more people in their surroundings than pick a 24 as you can also do good landscapes.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

If you shoot more landscapes the 21 SEM is really for you. You will be living a different experience with that lens. If you shoot more people in their surroundings than pick a 24 as you can also do good landscapes.

 

+1

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Stein K S]

As other has commented as well; if you have a good copy of the 24 2,8 at hand... go get it! Just the most brilliant lens/drawing in my eyes... and a perfect companion to your 35!

 

And by the way... sold of a number of L lenses myself a few years ago and never regretted it

Edited May 18, 2017 by Stein K S