Wider than 35mm

[idusidusi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am contemplating a wider lens than 35mm.

These are the choices I came up with:

A. LEICA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/28MM ASPH., SCHWARZ ELOXIERT

As I understand it this one has it's own Frame Lines on the M11 and therefore doesn't necessarily need the Visoflex 2.

Now these two would I presume need the use of the Visoflex 2, am I right?

B. LEICA ELMAR-M 1:3,8/24MM ASPH., SCHWARZ ELOXIERT

 

C. LEICA SUPER-ELMAR-M 1:3,4/21MM ASPH., SCHWARZ ELOXIERT

 

Which lens of the three would be more useful. On a Sony A1 I use the 24mm G lens. I would have been tempted to go with either the 24/21mm,

but don't want to HAVE to use the Visoflex 2 every shot.

 

So which lens? Price is not so important in the scheme of things as I will do an exchange.

 

 

[SiggiGun]

If you use as first lens a 35, take a 21.If you use as 59,take a 24 oor 28 etc. 

This is at least my view

[Jean-Michel]

If you have an M camera now, you can toggle between the 35 and 38 mm fields in the viewfinder. In my case, since wear glasses, the 28 mm frame in the viewfinder is all but impossible to see. I have an M9 and M-P, and the M11 has the exact same frames.

On an M, any lens wider than 35 is probably best used with an external finder. For decades I used 21 mm finder with a 21 mm lens ( early 21 Super Angulon , then a VC 21 f/4). Focus was either via zone or focus using the rangefinder, frame with the finder. 

Now I use a WATE, and for that, it is an EVF2 on the M-P, or via an adapter on an SL2.

And, only you can tell which lens is more useful for your purposes.

 

[idusidusi]

9 minutes ago, SiggiGun said:

If you use as first lens a 35, take a 21.If you use as 59,take a 24 oor 28 etc. 

This is at least my view

Thanks I was veering towards the 21 as I do have the 35mm Summicron.

Edited March 30, 2022 by idusidusi
Typo

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Jean-Michel said:

 I have an M9 and M-P, and the M11 has the exact same frames.

 

 

Same pairings but different VF magnifications (M9 and M240 are .68x; M11 is .73x); different diameter openings (larger on M11); different eye relief (more with M11); and different frame line distance optimization (1m for M9; 2m for M240 and M11). 
 

And besides the math differences, individual vision and eye conditions vary, as do lens and eyeglass frame thickness and flexibility.  
 

In other words, no substitute for experimenting.  I wear glasses AND use a diopter, and I’m able to use 28mm frame lines on multiple M bodies.

Jeff

[Kreeshp]

I went through this decision about a half year ago and decided to get the 24mm Elmar, especially after watching some of the Red Dot Forum Camera Talk videos on Youtube (the hosts rated the 24mm Elmar very highly) that reviewed wide angle lenses.

28mm seemed too close to 35mm (but I ultimately wound up with a limited edition, matte black 28mm Summaron which essentially lives on my camera now).

21mm seemed too wide and I thought it would require more attention keeping the verticals upright and not slanted.  21mm lenses also would be too far beyond my 0.73x viewfinder's view so critical framing would be more challenging than with a 24mm lens.  With the 24mm Elmar, I can approximate the coverage by using the entire 0.73x viewfinder's view and don't need to use a Visoflex.

The 24mm Elmar is contrasty and renders with very little noticeable distortion.  I enjoy using it for environmental portraits and street shooting and landscapes.  I picked up my pristine, boxed copy for under $1700 USD last year on eBay.  I think the 24mm Elmar is an under rated performer and I like the fact that it's also discontinued, so it may see a future, extra bump in appreciation.

[idusidusi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Kreeshp said:

I went through this decision about a half year ago and decided to get the 24mm Elmar, especially after watching some of the Red Dot Forum Camera Talk videos on Youtube (the hosts rated the 24mm Elmar very highly) that reviewed wide angle lenses.

28mm seemed too close to 35mm (but I ultimately wound up with a limited edition, matte black 28mm Summaron which essentially lives on my camera now).

21mm seemed too wide and I thought it would require more attention keeping the verticals upright and not slanted.  21mm lenses also would be too far beyond my 0.73x viewfinder's view so critical framing would be more challenging than with a 24mm lens.  With the 24mm Elmar, I can approximate the coverage by using the entire 0.73x viewfinder's view and don't need to use a Visoflex.

The 24mm Elmar is contrasty and renders with very little noticeable distortion.  I enjoy using it for environmental portraits and street shooting and landscapes.  I picked up my pristine, boxed copy for under $1700 USD last year on eBay.  I think the 24mm Elmar is an under rated performer and I like the fact that it's also discontinued, so it may see a future, extra bump in appreciation.

Interesting thank you for sharing your experience.

[rsolomon]

21 SEM

awesome

aggressive

fun 

lite

small

[Erato]

4 hours ago, idusidusi said:

I am contemplating a wider lens than 35mm.

These are the choices I came up with:

A. LEICA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/28MM ASPH., SCHWARZ ELOXIERT

As I understand it this one has it's own Frame Lines on the M11 and therefore doesn't necessarily need the Visoflex 2.

Now these two would I presume need the use of the Visoflex 2, am I right?

B. LEICA ELMAR-M 1:3,8/24MM ASPH., SCHWARZ ELOXIERT

 

C. LEICA SUPER-ELMAR-M 1:3,4/21MM ASPH., SCHWARZ ELOXIERT

 

Which lens of the three would be more useful. On a Sony A1 I use the 24mm G lens. I would have been tempted to go with either the 24/21mm,

but don't want to HAVE to use the Visoflex 2 every shot.

 

So which lens? Price is not so important in the scheme of things as I will do an exchange.

 

 

Get the SEM 21 since you have APO-35 and the Tri-Elmar(MATE).

 

[idusidusi]

5 hours ago, Erato said:

Get the SEM 21 since you have APO-35 and the Tri-Elmar(MATE).

 

I have the ASPH-35

[RexGig0]

Alan Schaller is known for using the Summilux-M 24mm, but he does not use a Visoflex. He discusses this during video presentations on Youtube, in which he is being interviewed.

I have only snapped a few test images, thus far, with my recently-acquired, pre-owned Elmar-M 24mm ASPH. Early impressions are quite favorable. I am not yet ready to comment upon whether I perceive a true need for a Visoflex, when using a 24mm lens.

A lens that has my attention, as a prospect for a future acquisition, is the Super Elmar-M 21mm.

[RayD28]

I generally use a 50mm and 28mm.  My 35mm sits on the shelf.  I bought the 28mm after I found the 35mm a bit vanilla.  Shot 50mm and 28mm for many years.  I bought a 21mm SEM a few months ago and it's awesome but for me not something I carry in an everyday bag.  Just looking at math of the focal lengths is deceptive.  To me there are huge differences between 50mm, 35mm, and 28mm.  The difference between a 35mm or 28mm and a 21mm is astounding.  

My 2 cents.  When it comes to lens focal length preferences, many people have different "perspectives".  🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is all personal. I use 35 on M most of the time. 

Have tried 28 many times. Always sold. 24 went same way. 21 is staying. It is more natural FOV for me than 28, 24. Basically it is exactly how I see. Just VF is enough.  

[idusidusi]

4 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

It is all personal. I use 35 on M most of the time. 

Have tried 28 many times. Always sold. 24 went same way. 21 is staying. It is more natural FOV for me than 28, 24. Basically it is exactly how I see. Just VF is enough.  

True it is personal and varies with intended use. I can see the 21mm will be the final choice.

[Ko.Fe.]

9 minutes ago, idusidusi said:

True it is personal and varies with intended use. I can see the 21mm will be the final choice.

 

To me here is no portrait, landscape, reportage and so on focal lengths. It just how close I want to be or could be to the subjects.  

Sometimes I do long walks starting from midcore, this is where 35mm makes sense, but once I'm entering crowded downtown, everything get so close, the 21mm is the answer.

Or even family pictures at home, where 21 is the only focal length to have everyone in frame and in focus. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

 

To me here is no portrait, landscape, reportage and so on focal lengths. It just how close I want to be or could be to the subjects.  

Sometimes I do long walks starting from midcore, this is where 35mm makes sense, but once I'm entering crowded downtown, everything get so close, the 21mm is the answer.

Or even family pictures at home, where 21 is the only focal length to have everyone in frame and in focus. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Do you use external VF for 21mm or just guesstimate? 
 

I’m considering adding the 21mm f/3.4 SEM - 28mm being my fave FL (shooting the lowly Elmarit 2.8 ASPH) and 50mm 2.4 Summarit as my “long lens”.

Best,

Mads

[Ko.Fe.]

2 minutes ago, mcpallesen said:

Do you use external VF for 21mm or just guesstimate? 
 

I’m considering adding the 21mm f/3.4 SEM - 28mm being my fave FL (shooting the lowly Elmarit 2.8 ASPH) and 50mm 2.4 Summarit as my “long lens”.

Best,

Mads

I have funky Russar lens VF for my 21 lens. But if I take quick shots in the crowd, I only use two eyes. Don't know who to describe it, for me everything I see if looking straight forward, but not in far corners is exactly 21 mm FOV. 90 degree.  Very easy for left, right edge framing, vertical frame edges takes sometime to practice.

[Guest]

Just now, Ko.Fe. said:

I have funky Russar lens VF for my 21 lens. But if I take quick shots in the crowd, I only use two eyes. Don't know who to describe it, for me everything I see if looking straight forward, but not in far corners is exactly 21 mm FOV. 90 degree.  Very easy for left, right edge framing, vertical frame edges takes sometime to practice.

Thanks, really tempted to try going wider than my trusty 28mm. Btw, I used to be a die hard 35mm shooter. 🙂

[rsolomon]

18 hours ago, RexGig0 said:

Alan Schaller is known for using the Summilux-M 24mm, but he does not use a Visoflex. He discusses this during video presentations on Youtube, in which he is being interviewed.

I have only snapped a few test images, thus far, with my recently-acquired, pre-owned Elmar-M 24mm ASPH. Early impressions are quite favorable. I am not yet ready to comment upon whether I perceive a true need for a Visoflex, when using a 24mm lens.

A lens that has my attention, as a prospect for a future acquisition, is the Super Elmar-M 21mm.

I’ve owned the 24 Elmar, a sharp high contrast lens, a great lens. The EVF is optional, if you ‘press into’ the OVF you can see the edges which represent the 24 frame lines.  If you wear glasses this of course can not be done. I also have a 35, the 35 and 24 provide a significant difference in angle of view, the 35 and 21 provide considerably more difference. 
 

im in it for fun and to stretch and strengthen my abilities , the 21 will provided me more challenge and made me better with all 3 of my lenses: 21 35 75. 
 

there is no right there is no wrong choice here, it’s what you want based on where your at and what you feel your missing, for me I moved from 24 to 21

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[harmen]

If precise framing is not too important to you I can also recommend 21mm without an EVF or other external viewfinder.  I happily use 21mm with film and have yet to regret that I’m not sure what I’m getting until I see the results much later.