Papercut
Well-known
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.
FrankS
Registered User
Duh! Get both. 
hausen
Well-known
I went 28 and got rid of my 35 and 21.
braver
Well-known
A 28 is something you might end up using all day. Lots of street photographers have used 28mm lenses for almost everything they did (Winogrand, Trent Parke to name only 2). A 21 is very wide and much more a specialty lens. If you want to stick to your 35 for most photography, but want to add an option to 'go wide', the 21 makes the most sense: it's noticeably very different from the 35. If you want to take only one lens but one that's a bit wider than the 35, take the 28.
I only ever use one lens at a time and have become so used to the 28 that I don't need or want anything else. Some people take 3 lenses with them and switch them around per scene (or something, I can't really imagine the hassle!), so perhaps then a 21 makes more sense.
I only ever use one lens at a time and have become so used to the 28 that I don't need or want anything else. Some people take 3 lenses with them and switch them around per scene (or something, I can't really imagine the hassle!), so perhaps then a 21 makes more sense.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Try a 24 or 25. I feel 28 is too close to 35. For close environmental portraits, 24 or 28 is just about perfect (I lean towards 28). 21 is a nice match with 35 as a 'really' wide lens. 21 also pairs nicely with 28 in my mind. But 28 and 35... eh.
Personally I shoot with a 50, 28, and 21, with 28 pulling doubt 80% of the duty.. I'd be more interested in the 24/25 lenses if I shot with 35 instead of the 28, but I don't.
Personally I shoot with a 50, 28, and 21, with 28 pulling doubt 80% of the duty.. I'd be more interested in the 24/25 lenses if I shot with 35 instead of the 28, but I don't.
rizraz
Established
My regular set up is a 21 and a 35...... I use the 21 more, well maybe because i am usually in tight spaces, the wet markets or in an alley somewhere in Asia.....
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I am a big fan of 24mm.
The sense of space that it conveys are satisfying.
More so than 28mm even though it's only 4mm difference.
presspass
filmshooter
I've tried to love the 28 but haven't had much luck. 35 is usually on one camera and the 21 is close at hand. There are times when only the 21 will work and there's no room to back up. 28 and 50 seem to be a good set, but 28 and 35 don't work for me.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I also favour the 24 or 25mm focal length.
In fact I would not normally use anything wider.
I have a 28mm lens that I rarely use and a 16mm lens that I only used twice in 20 years.
In fact I would not normally use anything wider.
I have a 28mm lens that I rarely use and a 16mm lens that I only used twice in 20 years.
Richard G
Veteran
I went from 50 to 35 to 25 to 21. I've only used 28 on the OM and liked it. For some reason I am not finding the 25 on the M9 nearly so comfortable as on my film cameras. When I learnt to use a 25 I was keen to try 21 and went around for weeks with just the 21 on an M5. I do like it on the M9 too. I think that controlling the shot with the 21 requires more thought and technical considerations such as trying to keep the camera perfectly horizontal and perfectly upright for many shots. Despite my current difficulty seeing nice results with my 25s on the M9 I reckon the advice above that 25 or 24 is the more versatile lens is likely correct. But I am joining the 21 brigade.
RFluhver
Well-known
This is really all going to depend on what you shoot at.
I began with a 35, then moved to 28 because I wanted more of the edges of a scene. Recently I bought 21mm lenses (first an Avenon then more recently the CV 21) just to try. I really quite like the 21, but note that filling the frame is a challenge, for me anyway. But I quite like it when I am very close to a crowd of people. For general walking around I stick to the 28 as I find out more versatile, although I've recently taken up my 35 just to break the rhythm a bit.
I began with a 35, then moved to 28 because I wanted more of the edges of a scene. Recently I bought 21mm lenses (first an Avenon then more recently the CV 21) just to try. I really quite like the 21, but note that filling the frame is a challenge, for me anyway. But I quite like it when I am very close to a crowd of people. For general walking around I stick to the 28 as I find out more versatile, although I've recently taken up my 35 just to break the rhythm a bit.
S
Sputnick
Guest
21 and 35 is a great combination. 28 would be too close to 35 for me, but I've never really been comfortable with 28 anyway.
jbot
Jared Krause
Thanks so much to everyone who took the time to reply. I've decided to go with the CV 25mm F/4. I think it will probably meet my needs most out of the options. The 28 seems way too close to the 35 for me and I feel like the 21 will be too wide for my style.
This thread has been very helpful. Thanks again.
This thread has been very helpful. Thanks again.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
the 21 out & about at night...
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Not too wide at all. Jeanloup Seiff was the master of using this focal length for portraits.
Here's one I did of Ashley Gilbertson in February of 2011 during an interview.
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
sandermarijn
Newbie
My favourite walkaround set for the Contax G1: 28, 35, 90.
The difference between 28 and 35 is not just 7mm, it's 56%: if you take a picture of say a mountain, then with a 35 that mountain will take approximately 56% more area on the negative than a 28.
7mm sounds like little, but 56% really is a lot.
Those 7mm between 21 and 28 make even more difference: your subject will take 78% more area on the negative with the 28.
Also consider the difference in 'drawing' between lenses. For example in the Contax G system, between the 28 (a Biogon) and the 35 (a Planar). They just look different, by more than what can be explained from the focal lengths.
And then there is a practical matter inherent to rangefinders: anything wider than 28 quickly becomes hard to compose with. Generally speaking, extreme wide angles (<28) require a very careful composition with a well-placed foreground. A few cm difference in camera position will make a huge difference for the composition. Parallax between lens and finder interferes with that too much below 28, IMHO.
The difference between 28 and 35 is not just 7mm, it's 56%: if you take a picture of say a mountain, then with a 35 that mountain will take approximately 56% more area on the negative than a 28.
7mm sounds like little, but 56% really is a lot.
Those 7mm between 21 and 28 make even more difference: your subject will take 78% more area on the negative with the 28.
Also consider the difference in 'drawing' between lenses. For example in the Contax G system, between the 28 (a Biogon) and the 35 (a Planar). They just look different, by more than what can be explained from the focal lengths.
And then there is a practical matter inherent to rangefinders: anything wider than 28 quickly becomes hard to compose with. Generally speaking, extreme wide angles (<28) require a very careful composition with a well-placed foreground. A few cm difference in camera position will make a huge difference for the composition. Parallax between lens and finder interferes with that too much below 28, IMHO.
traveler_101
American abroad
Right, 25/21 is too wide for shooting people close up (for the most part--or in my experience), but you have to ask yourself what do want with a wide? The answer might also depend on what other lenses one uses. For example, if you shoot 35 as a wide-normal then you have a moderately wide lens that is very good for shooting people close up, and logically a 25 would be a useful and clearly distinct FOV. 25 over 21 because 25 is wide enough for landscape/townscape shots and easier to use than a 21 (I think . . . well I admit no experience with a 21, but the 25 is very, very usable and a lot easier than a 15, to that I can attest).
Fotohuis
Well-known
Well you have photographers who are getting famous by using any focus lenght which is normally not in regular use at all.
Yes, 15mm is very rare and only suitable for very special shots on people:
4,5/15mm SWH with of course an external VF.
Yes, 15mm is very rare and only suitable for very special shots on people:
4,5/15mm SWH with of course an external VF.
Jockos
Well-known
I would really like to get the zuiko 21/2 for it's close up performance (floating element design) myself but don't really have the cash for it. Currently I'm using the 21/3.5 instead, mostly for close up portraits!
Those lenses can focus down to .2m, where the subject isolation is great, even with smaller apertures!
I also have a cv 21 for the Leica, but it's hard to focus since it only couples with RF to .7m, which is often a bit far off with a 21.
It requires some thinking to use since it's difficult to exclude things from the shot, but if you can get close enough it's very rewarding.
It's great to use in the dark with flash,since you won't need to focus very accurately at f16!
It's also very good for self portraits, where you can make use of the DOF and wide angle to capture the interesting environment you're in.
Truly a focal length with infinite possibilities!
I'm sure that you can do just as much with the 28mm, but people saying that the 21 cannot be used for this and cannot be used for that are just uneducated. Except for the fast 50mm, 21 is my favorite and they see a lot of use on my cameras
Those lenses can focus down to .2m, where the subject isolation is great, even with smaller apertures!
I also have a cv 21 for the Leica, but it's hard to focus since it only couples with RF to .7m, which is often a bit far off with a 21.
It requires some thinking to use since it's difficult to exclude things from the shot, but if you can get close enough it's very rewarding.
It's great to use in the dark with flash,since you won't need to focus very accurately at f16!
It's also very good for self portraits, where you can make use of the DOF and wide angle to capture the interesting environment you're in.
Truly a focal length with infinite possibilities!
I'm sure that you can do just as much with the 28mm, but people saying that the 21 cannot be used for this and cannot be used for that are just uneducated. Except for the fast 50mm, 21 is my favorite and they see a lot of use on my cameras
Fotohuis
Well-known
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).
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).