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

[cp995]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My "standard" ist 21/35/75mm

[spydrxx]

I thought I'd use the 24/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, and snagged one...but as I began to use it, I found that, although a brilliant lens, it didn't suit my subjects, and I eventually sold it. As a novelty I got a VC 15/4.5 ASPH but again it didn't really  work out as I thought, so I kept looking and thinking. My primary lens had been a 35 Summaron/2.8 for years but I wanted something wider. I tried several 28s on my SLRs and DSLR and concluded that focal length worked well for the extended dimensions I was seeking, but I just couldn't see adding it to my Leica bag. In the end I picked up a VC 21 which I'm anxious to try out this summer when my doctor releases mme to drive again. I think you'd probably be fine with a 24 but not so fine with a 21.

[Advertisement]

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

[Xavier]

My "standard" ist 21/35/75mm

 

Same.

 

I am also coming from Canon (but I did not sell anything yet, though maybe I should as I am using my Canon system a lot less now). Before getting my M9, I was already moving from 17-40L + 24-105L to a mix with primes (21 ZE, 24-105, 40stm and 135L), which made the transition to 21-35-75 appear quite natural.

 

Sub'erman, are you using your 17-40L a lot ? If so, which focal lengths are you using the most ? Assuming your shooting style does not change while moving to Leica M, that might give you a good indication.

If you are not using the 17-40L too much, then I would look at a 24 (28 would be a bit too close to 35).

If you are using it a lot around the 20mm mark, then the 21 seems a better option to me.

If you like using the widest point, you may actually find 21 not wide enough, and considering a 18 might not be a bad idea.

[Tobers]

I do a lot of landscapes. I started off with a 28 2.8 and moved to a 28 2.0. I found 28 was just a bit too restrictive for expansive landscapes, so I have moved to a 24 1.4, which is a total luxury but amazing. It's a bit tricky with filters though (I use Lee Seven5 filters) as it needs a weird adapter ring.

 

You can see plenty of results on my web site at http://tobinators.com.

[otto.f]

Elmarit 24: character.

Don't forget that it's just workable without the separate viewfinder, which is not feasible for the 21.

If you already have the 35, 24 is the best next wider lens. Otherwise it would be 50 with 28 and then perhaps 21.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Elmarit 24: character.

Don't forget that it's just workable without the separate viewfinder, which is not feasible for the 21.

If you already have the 35, 24 is the best next wider lens. Otherwise it would be 50 with 28 and then perhaps 21.

 

instead of buying an external viewfinder you could always buy a SL instead..............problem fixed :) 

[ru2far2c]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just picked up a 24 f3.4 elmarit. I'd been wanting a 24 for a long time. I've have a 21 f2.8 and 28 f2.0 both pre asph. I found the 28 not to be wide enough sometimes and too close to a 35 other times and the 21 would be too wide yet it was perfect for doing landscape and interiors. I'm very happy with my new 24 and finding I'm using it more often than I thought I would. The 24 has nice color rendering for needs, can live with the 3.4 f stop and it filled in a gap in line up of lenses. Others above have mentioned this as well.

[lct]

I just picked up a 24 f3.4 elmarit. I'd been wanting a 24 for a long time. I've have a 21 f2.8 and 28 f2.0 both pre asph. I found the 28 not to be wide enough sometimes and too close to a 35 other times and the 21 would be too wide yet it was perfect for doing landscape and interiors. I'm very happy with my new 24 and finding I'm using it more often than I thought I would. The 24 has nice color rendering for needs, can live with the 3.4 f stop and it filled in a gap in line up of lenses. Others above have mentioned this as well.

 

You mean Elmar 24/3.8 i guess. Elmarits are f/2.8 lenses and the only f/3.4 wide is the Super-Elmar 21/3.4 currently. Just to avoid misunderstandings .

Edited May 19, 2017 by lct

[Herr Barnack]

I have the 21/3.4 Super Elmar #11145 and the 28/2.8 Elmarit #11677 at present.  The 28 Elmarit is a good standard wide while the 21 S-E is a little more specialized. 

 

With the 21, you have to get closer to your subject than with the 28, if you are shooting people or groups of people.  I have not had problems with distortion from the 21 S-E; it's all about how and where you place your subjects in the frame and whether or not you have the camera level and squared up.  Of course some perspective distortion can be fixed in post processing but it is still best to get it right from the get-go as much as is possible.

 

I am very pleased with the results produced by both of these lenses; you can't go wrong with either one IMHO.  Being a fan of the 28mm focal length, I would go with a 28mm if I could have only one wide angle lens.  If that were the case, I'd likely choose the 28/2 Summicron #11672 over the 28 Elmarit as a do it all wide angle lens.

[ru2far2c]

You mean Elmar 24/3.8 i guess. Elmarits are f/2.8 lenses and the only f/3.4 wide is the Super-Elmar 21/3.4 currently. Just to avoid misunderstandings .

Oops my bad! Yeah I meant Elmar 24/3.8.

Edited May 20, 2017 by ru2far2c

[Aljoheri]

21mm is my favorite. I love to fill the foreground. It is beautiful and cinematic way to tell story.

You can add your hand holding a cigarette to the frame. Or the table and what hanging from the ceiling.

It is seeing 90 degrees.

If you tilt? It is ok! Everything dynamic with 21.

You have to be creative with it and it will change everything in tight interiors!