bigdog
Established
For those of you who have both a 21mm and 15mm, which would better round out a 50mm, 35mm kit? If I go too wide I am not sure it won't end up being a task specific lens that sits in my bag.
I have considered a 25mm but it seems it may be too close to my 35mm. I'm shooting with an R2a.
Is there a big jump in field of view going from the 15mm to 21mm? I anticipate my next wide lens will be used for landscape and architecture shots, primarily outdoor shots.
Any input on the image quality, light fall off etc. in comparing these two lenses?
I have considered a 25mm but it seems it may be too close to my 35mm. I'm shooting with an R2a.
Is there a big jump in field of view going from the 15mm to 21mm? I anticipate my next wide lens will be used for landscape and architecture shots, primarily outdoor shots.
Any input on the image quality, light fall off etc. in comparing these two lenses?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
There is a huge difference between 21mm and 15mm. I've never shot the same scene with both, so I can't show you direct comparisons.
21mm is very wide, but easier to control. It says "ultra-wide" where 15mm screams it.
21mm landscape
15mm landscape
A lot of people consider 15mm to be gimmicky. I think it just depends on the application. Sometimes a gimmick is just what you want.
15mm
I have both lenses. On the hike that produced the landscpe shots above, I had each lens on its own body.
I guess that's not much help for your choice because my solution was to get both.
21mm is very wide, but easier to control. It says "ultra-wide" where 15mm screams it.
21mm landscape
15mm landscape
A lot of people consider 15mm to be gimmicky. I think it just depends on the application. Sometimes a gimmick is just what you want.
15mm
I have both lenses. On the hike that produced the landscpe shots above, I had each lens on its own body.
I guess that's not much help for your choice because my solution was to get both.
ampguy
Veteran
I've only shot 18mm (rectilinear) and FE 180 deg. on ff film SLR, but IMHO, 28 FF is as wide as you will usually need to go unless you are looking for special effects.
maggieo
More Deadly
Nice shot of the Super Guppy! Was that in Tuscon?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
15 is very very very wide.
There are other issues as well, e.g. light falloff is serious.
I think a 21 would be better if u want just wider than 35.
By the way, 25mm is already quite a lot wider than 35.
There are other issues as well, e.g. light falloff is serious.
I think a 21 would be better if u want just wider than 35.
By the way, 25mm is already quite a lot wider than 35.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
In the past, I've said, If you're only buying 1, buy the 21mm.
I guess that's still true, but I missed the 15mm.
I guess that's still true, but I missed the 15mm.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
My 21 get significantly more use.
Except on the M8, where 15/16 equates to 20/21.
That's why I'd like a 4/16-18-21 Tri-Elmar. When I had one on loan, I used it mostly at 16 on the M8 and 21 on the MP.
A 25 is a nice, moderate WA, quite different from 35. A 28 is, for me, neither one thing nor the other: not a wide standard like 35, not a real wide-angle like 25 or (better still) 21. But my wife Frances Schultz reckons she'd be happy with 18-28-50-90.
Cheers,
R.
YMMV.
Cheers,
R.
Except on the M8, where 15/16 equates to 20/21.
That's why I'd like a 4/16-18-21 Tri-Elmar. When I had one on loan, I used it mostly at 16 on the M8 and 21 on the MP.
A 25 is a nice, moderate WA, quite different from 35. A 28 is, for me, neither one thing nor the other: not a wide standard like 35, not a real wide-angle like 25 or (better still) 21. But my wife Frances Schultz reckons she'd be happy with 18-28-50-90.
Cheers,
R.
YMMV.
Cheers,
R.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
kxl
Social Documentary
I have a 21, 25, 35, 50, and used to have a 15 (and may yet once again).
The ultra WA of the 15 makes composition a challenge, and I guess that's part of the fun. The downside is that anytime you go out with the 15, you'd inevitably need another lens with you, for general use.
The AOV of the 21 makes it a better utility lens. I think it is a better fit with the 35 and 50, although IMHO, a better option would be to get a 25 now, and then get a 15 later.
Just my $0.02 (which is worth even less these days)
Keith
The ultra WA of the 15 makes composition a challenge, and I guess that's part of the fun. The downside is that anytime you go out with the 15, you'd inevitably need another lens with you, for general use.
The AOV of the 21 makes it a better utility lens. I think it is a better fit with the 35 and 50, although IMHO, a better option would be to get a 25 now, and then get a 15 later.
Just my $0.02 (which is worth even less these days)
Keith
back alley
IMAGES
25/35/50 is a near perfect kit, lots of difference between 25 and 35.
i'd go for a 25 first and then add a 21 later.
i'd go for a 25 first and then add a 21 later.
oscroft
Veteran
I have both the 21 and the 15, and if choosing one of them to accompany a 50+35 setup, I'd definitely go for the 21.
The 15 is fun, but it's very easy to end up with lots of gimmicky "look how wide this is" shots, and for me it's not really suitable for general-purpose use.
But I do find the 21 to be very useful indeed - on my last photo trip I had CV 50, 28 and 21mm lenses with me, and that made a great combination.
The 15 is fun, but it's very easy to end up with lots of gimmicky "look how wide this is" shots, and for me it's not really suitable for general-purpose use.
But I do find the 21 to be very useful indeed - on my last photo trip I had CV 50, 28 and 21mm lenses with me, and that made a great combination.
Photon42
burn the box
21-35-50-90 really is my thing - but may not be yours, of course. I'd certainly go with 21 first. As you ask for 15 vs. 21, I don't think the 25 will suit you.
monopix
Cam repairer
Difference between 35 and 50 is the same as 25 and 35 so, in theory, the trifecta should be 25, 35 and 50. 20, 28 and 40 have the same spacing. (The factor in each case is 1.4).
But throwing theory out the window, I'd go for the 21. There's too big a difference between 15 and 35.
But throwing theory out the window, I'd go for the 21. There's too big a difference between 15 and 35.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have a similar problem with deciding what lens to get to fill the gap between 35mm and my 15mm Heliar. Just when I think a 25mm is exactly what I actually need ... I have doubts and start thinking about 21mm ... then I change my mind again. Oh well ... I'm broke at the moment so it's not an issue!
It's a focal minefield out there people!
It's a focal minefield out there people!
Turtle
Veteran
I would seeeeeriously consider something longer than 21mm to close up the gap with 35mm. 28 mm is significantly wider and 25/24 very much wider than 35 with a VERY significant impact on the appearance of things in the frame. I would go 24/5 or even 28 and add a 21 later.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I couldn't do without my 24mm Elmarit, no matter what other lenses I had or didn't have. It is certainly not too close to the 35 to consider! Actually a 25mm lens covers exactly twice the area of a 35mm. (The change in area coverage is proportional to the square of a change in focal length. (35/25=1.4; 1.4 squared = 2) And a 24mm is just a tiny bit wider than that.
Rob's law: "The difference in the picture is greater than the numerical difference in focal length."
I might not take the 21 and 24 on the same trip, but I do take 24, 28, and 35; or else 21, 28, and 35. I'd leave the 50 home before the 24.
Rob's law: "The difference in the picture is greater than the numerical difference in focal length."
I might not take the 21 and 24 on the same trip, but I do take 24, 28, and 35; or else 21, 28, and 35. I'd leave the 50 home before the 24.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
My experience mirrors this. And this is my M mount kit.
I get a lot of use from my ContaxG mount 21mm Biogon but that kit also has the 28mm Biogon.
I had my 15mm Heilar for a month and sold it. At least I sold it to a friend so I can borrow it back if I need it again.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I have a 15, a 21, and a 25. I use the 21 most, but if the 25 was the coupled version, I might use it more. After playing around with a lot of options, I found that the classic 21, 35, 50, 90mm lens progression works best for me. But I also really like 25 paired with the 50 for a two lens kit. There are probably about as many ideas on the best lens progression as there are photographers, so take what you read with a grain of salt. As usual, you'll need to play around with a few lenses yourself to make the best decision for you.
As for the 15mm, I use mine very little. In fact, several years ago I sold it- then later regretted it, and replaced it. It still sees very little use, especially next to the 21. But every so often, I find myself in a situation where nothing else will do. For those shots, it's nice to know it's in my bag. I've learned my lesson. I'll keep this one.
As for the 15mm, I use mine very little. In fact, several years ago I sold it- then later regretted it, and replaced it. It still sees very little use, especially next to the 21. But every so often, I find myself in a situation where nothing else will do. For those shots, it's nice to know it's in my bag. I've learned my lesson. I'll keep this one.
shimo-kitasnap
everything is temporary..
I find 21 easier to use because it's usually rf coupled. I had a 21, 35, 50, 90 Voigtlander kit for my M3 but have since ditched 50 and 35 in favor of 40 and the 90 for 85. So now my kit is just 21, 40, 85, all quite different from each other. (the 85 is a jupiter-9, fast, cheap, light) For you though I might go 15 because it's easier to tell apart from 35, and maybe you could sell the 50 and get a 75. It's good to work with doubling.