35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Hi All:
Of all the focal lengths, the wides are the hardest for me to choose. Roger Hicks says that even WA should be fast for 35mm shooters (not exact quotation). I start here.
80% of my work is with the 35mm lens. I've recently addded a 50mm Lux for portraits. However, I am quite clear that eventually I will need a 21-24mm. But which one?
Cost is always a factor; mostly because its not a length I use often. Why pay large and then just have it simply go along for the ride?
I plan to make a tour of Nazi concentration camps and I'll need a good WA for that project (in addition to my 35mm/50mm Luxes asph).
External VF: Zeiss is supposed to be the brightest, but the Leica 21-24-28 is more useful if I decide to switch lenses during the learning curve. I'll be carrying two Leicas or one Leica and my Makina 67. There is no room for an additional camera dedicted to the 21-24mm lens.
Thanks for taking time to read and any suggestions you might have.
Paul
Of all the focal lengths, the wides are the hardest for me to choose. Roger Hicks says that even WA should be fast for 35mm shooters (not exact quotation). I start here.
80% of my work is with the 35mm lens. I've recently addded a 50mm Lux for portraits. However, I am quite clear that eventually I will need a 21-24mm. But which one?
Cost is always a factor; mostly because its not a length I use often. Why pay large and then just have it simply go along for the ride?
I plan to make a tour of Nazi concentration camps and I'll need a good WA for that project (in addition to my 35mm/50mm Luxes asph).
External VF: Zeiss is supposed to be the brightest, but the Leica 21-24-28 is more useful if I decide to switch lenses during the learning curve. I'll be carrying two Leicas or one Leica and my Makina 67. There is no room for an additional camera dedicted to the 21-24mm lens.
Thanks for taking time to read and any suggestions you might have.
Paul
back alley
IMAGES
i loved when i went with a 25 zeiss lens. it seemed so much more 'edgy' than a 28, and i think i could have been very satisfied with it had i not tried a 21. the zm 21/4.5 is perfect for me. i'm ok with a slower lens and this is so much smaller than the 25. and very sharp.
i doubt that you could go 'wrong' with either focal length but i'm happier with the 21.
i doubt that you could go 'wrong' with either focal length but i'm happier with the 21.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I agree with back Alley here. The 21f4.5 ZM Biogon is about as good as it gets with 21's. It is small and compact and deadly sharp!
If you are an 'occasional" user of wides (21/25) - look at the VC 21f4 and 25f4 in P- mount (coupled to the rangefinder and in M-mount). Small, compact and very good. If you are a 35mm shooter as your standard - the 25 is quite close and I would recommend a 21 instead. You can always crop excess - adding is more difficult.
As for finders, the Zeiss is the top of the heap! The Leica 21/24/28 is not that good, clumsy to use and quite large. Lousy at 28 and 21 - good at 24.
You say you have space for an extra body - just get a Bessa R4M or A - as it has 21/25/28/35 and 50 frames built in and a damned good meter to go with it. It also is cheap compared to Leica finders (or Zeiss for that matter)
The combination of the VC 21 and a Bessa R4M works very well - and in a pinch you can stick your 35 on it and use it as a back-up body or "2nd film" body. The 50 frame is an emergency" frame - but it can be used - tiny though.
If you find that you need more speed with the 21 - later you can always add the 21f2.8 Elmarit or Zeiss Biogon 21f2.8 - or, if the money starts pouring in, the 21f1.4 Summilux!!
There is of course the penultimate performer in this line up - the new Elmar 24f3.8, but it does cost about Euro 2000+ ( about twice what a Bessa R4 and a P version 21f4 would cost) - it is a remarkable lens - only "flat line" MTF curve I have seen for a wide lens!
If you are an 'occasional" user of wides (21/25) - look at the VC 21f4 and 25f4 in P- mount (coupled to the rangefinder and in M-mount). Small, compact and very good. If you are a 35mm shooter as your standard - the 25 is quite close and I would recommend a 21 instead. You can always crop excess - adding is more difficult.
As for finders, the Zeiss is the top of the heap! The Leica 21/24/28 is not that good, clumsy to use and quite large. Lousy at 28 and 21 - good at 24.
You say you have space for an extra body - just get a Bessa R4M or A - as it has 21/25/28/35 and 50 frames built in and a damned good meter to go with it. It also is cheap compared to Leica finders (or Zeiss for that matter)
The combination of the VC 21 and a Bessa R4M works very well - and in a pinch you can stick your 35 on it and use it as a back-up body or "2nd film" body. The 50 frame is an emergency" frame - but it can be used - tiny though.
If you find that you need more speed with the 21 - later you can always add the 21f2.8 Elmarit or Zeiss Biogon 21f2.8 - or, if the money starts pouring in, the 21f1.4 Summilux!!
There is of course the penultimate performer in this line up - the new Elmar 24f3.8, but it does cost about Euro 2000+ ( about twice what a Bessa R4 and a P version 21f4 would cost) - it is a remarkable lens - only "flat line" MTF curve I have seen for a wide lens!
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I didn't use the CV 21mm f/4 often when I borrowed one in the summer, but it came in handy when I did. I was shooting mostly 50mm at the time and it was just so much wider I didn't find it comfortable. Now that I use a 35mm most of the time I think I would use the 21mm more for those times I need to get wider.
john_s
Well-known
Although a wide aperture is always handy at times, it costs a lot more for the same quality, and makes for a heavier lens. I draw the line at f2.8 somewhat arbitrarily. I find that f4 or thereabouts is just more limiting. Wider than that too heavy and costly.
Whichever focal length you choose will be the wrong choice some of the time, but as Tom says you can always crop if you choose the 21mm. Working in a building calls for very wide in my experience. It also assists you to keep the camera level which reduces the appearance of distortion (converging verticals) and you can crop later.
Whichever focal length you choose will be the wrong choice some of the time, but as Tom says you can always crop if you choose the 21mm. Working in a building calls for very wide in my experience. It also assists you to keep the camera level which reduces the appearance of distortion (converging verticals) and you can crop later.
marknyc
Established
I have the CV 21 and I like it lot (the voigtlander finder is really nice too). But I am trying to discipline myself to use just the 50 this year as a sort of experiment, although if I fall off the wagon it is to use the 21.
oscroft
Veteran
A combination I use a lot is CV 21/4 on an R4A, and I love it - I'll often combine it with a 35 on another body.
back alley
IMAGES
it's hard to beat the r4a as a permanent mate to a 21 or 25 as it's just a bit more $$ than a good finder. and you have a built in back-up body to boot.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
"There is no room for an additional camera dedicted to the 21-24mm lens."
OK so that rules out a Zeiss body, or the CV-R4? The question is whether to select a 21 or 24mm, then. As I have both, and a 25mm, I can make some observations.
A 24mm or 25mm makes for a good next step after the 35mm, your "normal" lens. I think of a good next step as the lens that is different enough that you don't have to wonder which focal length you need. You might have to wonder whether you need a 35 or a 28 for a given shot. You do not have to wonder if you need a 35 or a 25 (or 24) because they are far enough apart that the difference is obvious. The same goes for the choice between 35 and 21. But with a 21, there is a chance that the gap between the two lenses is too wide, leaving a hole in the middle. The 24 or 25mm can be called the widest lens that does not scream, "I am a wide angle lens." (The 28mm is probably the "tipping point" that separates normal-wide from really-wide.)
Nevertheless, for this specific trip, perhaps it is important to be sure that you will be able to cover a very wide angle of view, if the occasion arises. Maybe you will need to document a small interior space, for instance. In that case, I would want to bring the 21mm, just to be sure.
I am a fan of the 24mm focal length. That said, in recent times my handiest lens set has been 21-28-40. So I think that, to be on the safe side, you should probably have a 21mm for this project.
OK so that rules out a Zeiss body, or the CV-R4? The question is whether to select a 21 or 24mm, then. As I have both, and a 25mm, I can make some observations.
A 24mm or 25mm makes for a good next step after the 35mm, your "normal" lens. I think of a good next step as the lens that is different enough that you don't have to wonder which focal length you need. You might have to wonder whether you need a 35 or a 28 for a given shot. You do not have to wonder if you need a 35 or a 25 (or 24) because they are far enough apart that the difference is obvious. The same goes for the choice between 35 and 21. But with a 21, there is a chance that the gap between the two lenses is too wide, leaving a hole in the middle. The 24 or 25mm can be called the widest lens that does not scream, "I am a wide angle lens." (The 28mm is probably the "tipping point" that separates normal-wide from really-wide.)
Nevertheless, for this specific trip, perhaps it is important to be sure that you will be able to cover a very wide angle of view, if the occasion arises. Maybe you will need to document a small interior space, for instance. In that case, I would want to bring the 21mm, just to be sure.
I am a fan of the 24mm focal length. That said, in recent times my handiest lens set has been 21-28-40. So I think that, to be on the safe side, you should probably have a 21mm for this project.
Krosya
Konicaze
I know you asked about 21-24mm, but let me tell ya - get CV 15 - very cool lens and fun to use. Great glass too. or get 25 and 15mm - very nice combo!
principe azul
Ian
25mm covers twice the area of 35mm, which covers twice the area of 50mm, so 24/25's a neat choice.
Personally, having used both, I find a 25mm is more suitable than 21mm to carry around all day for general shooting as my only lens. I even convinced myself that 21mm was sometimes too wide and sometimes not wide enough, so I thought I was better off with the 15mm I got after I sold the 21mm.
But I still hanker after a 21mm. Why? I don't know. I just find 21mm and 25mm quite different from each other and like that end of the focal lengths. Don't want a 75 and an 85/90, don't want a 28 as well as my 35, but, for me, there's something about having both - but not carrying both at the same time.
Anyway, if 21/25 were going to be your only lens, then I'd say it's completely personal: for me 25, but others prefer 21 as a general-purpose only lens. But as it's going to be your widest lens and it's going to be a lens you'd only use 5-10% of the time, I'd veer towards 21, just because it's wider, and you want something wide, rather than something that draws in a particular way. But I may be wrong.
Personally, having used both, I find a 25mm is more suitable than 21mm to carry around all day for general shooting as my only lens. I even convinced myself that 21mm was sometimes too wide and sometimes not wide enough, so I thought I was better off with the 15mm I got after I sold the 21mm.
But I still hanker after a 21mm. Why? I don't know. I just find 21mm and 25mm quite different from each other and like that end of the focal lengths. Don't want a 75 and an 85/90, don't want a 28 as well as my 35, but, for me, there's something about having both - but not carrying both at the same time.
Anyway, if 21/25 were going to be your only lens, then I'd say it's completely personal: for me 25, but others prefer 21 as a general-purpose only lens. But as it's going to be your widest lens and it's going to be a lens you'd only use 5-10% of the time, I'd veer towards 21, just because it's wider, and you want something wide, rather than something that draws in a particular way. But I may be wrong.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Thank you very much for your suggestions. It appears the 21mm would provide the difference to my 35mm Lux that I am looking for. As suggested by Tom A. & Rob-F, I can take away (crop) but I cannot add. Two Leicas and three lenses is maxed out for me. Travelling light allows me to make the most of the journey.
When I think about it, 24/25-35-50 is too bunched up. I carry a smallish fibre-tripod and I don't hesitate to use it when needed. I'm really leaning towards the Zeiss 21mm/4.5. Its small enough and by all accounts can keep pace with my 35mm ASPH Lux.
Thanks again. Paul
When I think about it, 24/25-35-50 is too bunched up. I carry a smallish fibre-tripod and I don't hesitate to use it when needed. I'm really leaning towards the Zeiss 21mm/4.5. Its small enough and by all accounts can keep pace with my 35mm ASPH Lux.
Thanks again. Paul
fbf
Well-known
If you don't use 21 as often, I would recommend the hexanon 21-35 dual. It's a good travel lens and good performer. It won't outperform the zm 21/4.5 nor the 35 lux but it will get the job done.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I had the Hexanon 21-35 for several years. I found it too big and a bit clumsy. It also drove me nuts that there was no indication when you had the 21 switched on! Lots of cropping to get it back to 35 view. It is also a bit slow at 35. Optically it is actually a good lens and a friend now has it and uses it on his M8's.
dreamsandart
Well-known
I used a 21 Super-Angulon as my 'super-wide' for many years. It was a fine lens, not fast to begin with, and best if you stopped down to f8-f11. The problem when you get into this wide a lens and doing the work I did with it (with a rangefinder view), mostly interiors and architecture, is keeping things level and straight.
I had a 24mm for my Leica-R system and found it the perfect wide for me. It gave the wide angle view without the super wide feel if that makes sense. So when Leica came out with the 24mm for the M-series I got one.
I've been very happy with it, no surprises as it does everything I want from it with the best quality I could hope for. Very sharp with high contrast even wide open, fast enough for slow shutter speed handheld use. good in the close range, smooth focus and aperture feels and works just the way I like, solid made. Not so 'extreem' wide (like with the 21mm lens) that I feel I need to take a 35mm along with a 'normal' 50mm, making a nice 2 lens kit when I want that extra space in the photo and my bag. And when I need to keep the lines straight its just more forgiving and easier to keep level.
I had a 24mm for my Leica-R system and found it the perfect wide for me. It gave the wide angle view without the super wide feel if that makes sense. So when Leica came out with the 24mm for the M-series I got one.
I've been very happy with it, no surprises as it does everything I want from it with the best quality I could hope for. Very sharp with high contrast even wide open, fast enough for slow shutter speed handheld use. good in the close range, smooth focus and aperture feels and works just the way I like, solid made. Not so 'extreem' wide (like with the 21mm lens) that I feel I need to take a 35mm along with a 'normal' 50mm, making a nice 2 lens kit when I want that extra space in the photo and my bag. And when I need to keep the lines straight its just more forgiving and easier to keep level.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
dreamsandart: I like the 24mm + 50mm in concept. Problem is I've trained myself to see with the 35mm as my standard lens. It took an act of Congress already for me to bring the 50mm Lux on board.
Allow me to add that I often have a stable of lenses (GAS) but when I'm on the road only one or two ever go. With the concentration camp project, its an important once-in-a-life trip for me, where I want to make sure I have adequate coverage without substituting gear for creativity.
I appreciate your suggestion. I think its great.
P.
Allow me to add that I often have a stable of lenses (GAS) but when I'm on the road only one or two ever go. With the concentration camp project, its an important once-in-a-life trip for me, where I want to make sure I have adequate coverage without substituting gear for creativity.
I appreciate your suggestion. I think its great.
P.
peter_n
Veteran
Paul I think you should try before you buy. The FOV of these super-wides is a very personal thing. I used a Kobalux 21/2.8 for 2+ years before regretfully giving up on it, and I got a Leica 24/2.8 to replace it. Instant love, at least for me. I'll never go back to a 21 as the focal length just doesn't work for me. I found the 24 just so much more usable, especially in urban environments - you still have a big foreground, but nowhere near the gaping space of the 21. With the 21 I found myself always looking for suitable subject matter, with the 24 it is never a problem. But, we are all different, you should go and try both if you possible can. I was in Berlin last year and below are a couple of shots with the 24 from that trip.
One other thing, I use a 35 and a 75 together, with the 24 as the additional very wide support and I use two bodies. I find this covers 95% of the subject matter I'm interested in. I have a couple of very good 50s but they don't work for me as well as the 75/2 does. I think if you had a 28 it would pair better with your 50, and then you might look seriously at a 21 to go with those two. Just a thought...
A detail of the art installation Shalechet (fallen leaves) by the Israeli sculptor Menashe
Kadishman in the Memory Void of the Jewish Museum, Berlin.
The leaves disappear into infinite darkness.
The massive portal of the the vast Soviet war memorial and cemetary in Treptower Park, Berlin.
One other thing, I use a 35 and a 75 together, with the 24 as the additional very wide support and I use two bodies. I find this covers 95% of the subject matter I'm interested in. I have a couple of very good 50s but they don't work for me as well as the 75/2 does. I think if you had a 28 it would pair better with your 50, and then you might look seriously at a 21 to go with those two. Just a thought...
A detail of the art installation Shalechet (fallen leaves) by the Israeli sculptor Menashe
Kadishman in the Memory Void of the Jewish Museum, Berlin.
The leaves disappear into infinite darkness.
The massive portal of the the vast Soviet war memorial and cemetary in Treptower Park, Berlin.
Attachments
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
pics dont show, Peter.
peter_n
Veteran
Thanks so much Krosya! You should be able to see them now...
ghart
Newbie
Over the past few months I have grappled with the 21/24 choice, so what I have to say is personal. YMMV. I shoot architecture as well as landscapes, and I wanted something wider than 35 mm. I have experience of a 24 mm in SF years ago, and more recently the equivalent focal lengths in 6x9, 5x4 and 5x7 formats.
I bought the 21/4.5 Zeiss C Biogon and it's a wonderful lens. Small and sharp. But I found it too wide for my use, more in the "special effects" category. So I sold it and bought the Leica 24/3.8, which is nearly as small, an excellent performer, and closer to the way I see things.
I think hard about my purchases before going ahead, and it is unusual for me to get it wrong. So I would encourage you to try both focal lengths, if possible, before making the leap!
I bought the 21/4.5 Zeiss C Biogon and it's a wonderful lens. Small and sharp. But I found it too wide for my use, more in the "special effects" category. So I sold it and bought the Leica 24/3.8, which is nearly as small, an excellent performer, and closer to the way I see things.
I think hard about my purchases before going ahead, and it is unusual for me to get it wrong. So I would encourage you to try both focal lengths, if possible, before making the leap!