21 or 28 for wide angle?

Fotohuis said:
Well if you want to keep nose, ears etc. a little bit in proportion 28mm is the edge for portraits.
In fact a 75mm or 90mm is the best focal lenght for this.

If you look at the girl near the railway station, it's looking awfull. (of course IMO).
Click to expand...

Awful is a bit harsh don't you think? Fortunately artists need not worry about the vain ideals of society and may thus choose to picture the noses and ears of their subjects in whatever way they seem fit :D
 
Phil_F_NM said:
The right 21mm lens can be amazing for portraiture. I've gone through maybe 8 different 20/21mm lenses (or focal equivalents on cropped digital cameras) and I'm on my second Super Angulon f/3.4 now because it is the perfect lens. No distortion. Amazingly sharp. Will outresolve the M9 sensor or any of the best films available today so I can make very tight crops if needed. But the ability to get within 15" of a subject and capture it without any barrel or pincushion distortion is amazing. Personally I think the 21mm SA is the best wide angle ever produced and probably the second best lens ever behind the DR Summicron. Once you get used to it, there is no substitute. Once you sell your first one, you start shopping for your next within the week and once you get that one you swear off selling them at all.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Amen!

21/3.4 Super-Angulon

U37154I1327507059.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Sometimes only a 20/21 will do the job. As shown here.

But the 28 is a generally more useful/versatile focal length.

See, you need both.
 

Attachments

  • image-2150092234.jpg
    image-2150092234.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 0
Paired with a 35, either a 20/21 or 24/25, to taste. Used as a single lens, the 28. I am increasingly thinking that a 28 Summicron on an M6 should be my only film setup...

Currently rocking the 35/2.8 and 21/2.8 Biogons.


Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
 
semilog said:
Paired with a 35, either a 20/21 or 24/25, to taste. Used as a single lens, the 28. I am increasingly thinking that a 28 Summicron on an M6 should be my only film setup...

Currently rocking the 35/2.8 and 21/2.8 Biogons.


Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Great shot! Is the quote in your signature one of yours? It's awesome!
 
I've never had a 21, but from looking at a lot of photos taken w/ this lens it looks dramatically wider than 28, and introduces composition issues unless you really know how to use it. I've found 24 to be a much better fit for me, particularly with a 35 and a 50. I've traveled w/ this three lens kit and found it very useful for urban settings in particular.
 
I have a 21, 28 and 35. I use the 28mm most of the time...in fact...about 90% of the time. I could probably shoot with this one lens and be happy for the rest of my life. I rarely bust out my 21mm as it's too much of a specialty lens. I shoot documentary work mostly, so 21mm isn't really "how I see" the world and neither is my 50mm....so I switch between 28 and 35mm. I hear a lot of people say "they're close". They aren't as much as you think. Parallax really starts to take hold between these focal lengths, making the difference in angle much more noticeable to the eye than just a figure of 7mm difference. However, if I had the money, I'd probably go with a 24mm and 35mm in my kit and be done with it. But I don't, so I can't.
 
astro8 said:
Helen, it was what you did with the 21SA that first sparked my interest.

Now I have 2 of them!
Click to expand...

oh Wow how Wild, 2 of them... You are the 21 SA King :)

Just peeked at your RFf gallery photos...Soooo GOOD...Sublime
Love the shot of the Mrs. Legs in those stockings
Purrfect Angle, so well Done

Thanks for the Compliment, now You have me Inspired to go out and shoot with the 21 :D
 
jbot said:
Great shot! Is the quote in your signature one of yours? It's awesome!
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jared. Yes, the quote is mine. I got a bit frustrated with the incessant sniveling (here and elsewhere) about all the things that the rather large crop of amazing new cameras "can't" do.
 
semilog said:
Thanks, Jared. Yes, the quote is mine. I got a bit frustrated with the incessant sniveling (here and elsewhere) about all the things that the rather large crop of amazing new cameras "can't" do.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one. While equipment does matter (I have a fair share of gear myself), I thoroughly believe that it represents just a small percentage of what makes a good photograph.
 
helenhill said:
oh Wow how Wild, 2 of them... You are the 21 SA King :)

Just peeked at your RFf gallery photos...Soooo GOOD...Sublime
Love the shot of the Mrs. Legs in those stockings
Purrfect Angle, so well Done

Thanks for the Compliment, now You have me Inspired to go out and shoot with the 21 :D
Click to expand...


Thanks for the kind words.

Everyone should try the 21SA ...it's special.

This was the first shot I ever took with it. From that moment on I knew I was in for a love affair with this lens. :)

U37154I1327471250.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Papercut said:
I went from 35 to 21 and found that while I got some good images, I was often cropping the long edge back to about 24/25mm. So, I boxed the 21 and shoot with a 24mm now. Every so often I miss the 21 (especially as it is less than half as big and heavy as the 24!), but I'm using the whole frame much more regularly with the longer focal length.
Click to expand...

The same reason I prefer a 28mm to a 21mm. Ultra-wide lenses are made for a purpose...and if you don't have that purpose, it's not exactly a comfortable lens for everyday shooting.
 
Don't get a 28 to complement the 35. Either get a 21 to do that, or take the 28 instead of the 35. Just my 2 cents.

I either go 28/50 or 21/35/75...
 
The classic choice in the 'old' days was 28, 50 135, not so now.
You have a R4a which unlike my camera works with lenses wider than 28mm. If I had it I would go with a 21 like the VC f4. You don't mention a budget, assuming like most of us - especially me, you don't want to spend a fortune. The VC is a pretty good lens for the money, soft at the edges but it renders tone and detail quite well and is very small. It is slow, but that's the pay off. It's on ebay often.

I have the latest Elmarit 28 and the VC 21. I use the 28 more, maybe because it's a fantastic lens, but also because of the VF frame, the finder I have is a pain so I usually just guess and maybe crop with the 21. As others point out, cropped it becomes a 24 / 28 whatever - so why not just use a 28? I'd use the 21 more often if I had a good VF.

I had the 24 Elmarit for years, but for some reason I never really loved it, so PX'd it for a new body. I think it's an in-between length, a lot bigger & heavier than the 28 for the extra angle you get and more money.

Tried out a 15mm VC the other day, plenty of colour madness but a very nice little lens too. I wish Lightroom 4 had made profiles for VC, why doesn't someone clever make them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom