Leica 24 vs 21

W

w1234ale

Member
Local time
2:07 PM
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
30
All,

I shoot daily with a 35/50/90 kit and am thinking of a wider lens and am interested in a 21 or 24. I had a 28 but sold it because it was too close to my 35. I shoot with film and an M9.

What would you recommend? I am looking at the new 21 super elmar or the 24 Elmar. A while back on film I used a 21 Elmarit-m and wasn't too happy with the distortion. Will the new Super-Elmar be better for distortion?

Do you need a external viewfinder with the 24? Generally I find them a pain.

If anyone has used both I would be interested in which to prefer and which is the best match with a 35.

Thank you do much!
 
When you use the term "distortion," exactly what makes you unhappy?

Neither the 21SE or 24E have significant native distortion. Deviate from camera level and you'll introduce distortion, more so with a 21 than a 24.

I own the 24E, preferring to use an external VF, but it's possible to approximate framing using the entire internal finder.

Since you didn't like the 21 Elmarit, maybe try the 24 Elmar-M first.
 
I have a 24/35/50/90 kit and couldn't be happier. I tried a 21mm at first but found it too wide for my liking. With the 24mm the distortion in the edges isn't as bad. Flatter objects look normal almost normal. Larger 3D objects can still look a bit weird.

I use 35 and 50mm for the majority of my photos. Very rarely do I use the 24mm but when the space or the composition demands it, I have it. I have the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH and I find it to be the finest Leica lens that I've ever used. I just don't use much because I have tremendous difficulty in composing with anything wider than 35mm.
 
I made the choice for the Summiluxes 21 and 24. Although the 21 is more spectacular, I went for the 24 because it is more universal - and I am not going to pay that amount of money and use the lens only sporadically.
Plus it gave me an excuse to buy a Super Elmar 18 :D
 
As for distortion ( a geometrical perspective story with 3-dimensional subject matter, not a lens fault) I cannot say that it really bothers me - for instance here, with the Super Elmar 18, indeed an egghead, but it is not distracting to my eye - besides, what other lens would have given me the shot?
Note btw how the SE 18 handles high contrast edges against the totally overexposed window - one of the reasons I preferred it over the Zeiss 18.


bush.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do so regularly, but framing is not very precise It all depends on whether you are able to visualize the field of view of a given focal length without optical aids.
 
w1234ale said:
The distortion with the 21 at the edges of people in particular is was bothered me. Looked like they had cone heads.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'd suggest:
1. a 24 will present less "cone head" effect than your 21
2. keeping people away from the edges and not extremely close will mitigate the effect
3. keeping the camera level will also mitigate the effect

the photographer *oneant* over at FM shoots wonderful street-style portraits with a 21ZE. all real wides have a learning curve, but it is an interesting and enjoyable one (not that I'm expert).

other than a vague "might like a wider FOV" sentiment, what are you trying to accomplish that your 35/50/90 kit doesn't do for you?

jaap, i'd really like to compare the 18SE and the 18ZM. i sold the latter foolishly and miss it. The 18SE shots I've seen here and there are gorgeous.
 
Last edited:
It looks like you are getting a lot of support here around going for the 24mm. As I read your question, I also think it's the right choice for you. I have and use both 21 and 24mm, as well as 28 and 35. I find that the 24mm is well spaced from the 35; whereas with only a 21mm, there is more of a gap between the focal lengths. Stepping from 35mm down to 21 with nothing in-between seems like "a bridge too far" to me. Also the 24mm does not quite scream "wide angle" as much as the 21mm does. Actually I'd say the 28mm is the "tipping point" between natural vision and wide. The step to 24mm pushes the edge of the envelope just a little, but not, IMO, excessively.
 
MCTuomey said:
Ok, I'd suggest:
1. a 24 will present less "cone head" effect than your 21
2. keeping people away from the edges and not extremely close will mitigate the effect
3. keeping the camera level will also mitigate the effect
Click to expand...


Yes - but:
1. If I had used a 24 for the shot I illustrated, I would have been standing on the wing - not a good idea at 7000 feet.
2. Any other composition would not have gotten me the shot I wanted
3. Shooting a bit upwards as I did mitigates the effect even more

I meant to say that I find the distortion not disturbing in this case, maybe it even adds to the shot - stricty imo of course. But no excuse not to use an extreme wideangle for people.
 
Last edited:
MCTuomey said:
jaap, i'd really like to compare the 18SE and the 18ZM. i sold the latter foolishly and miss it. The 18SE shots I've seen here and there are gorgeous.
Click to expand...

The 18 SE is stunning. The Zeiss is very good, I shot a borrowed one a few years ago and I compared shots in the shop.

But the Super Elmar renders so clean and with such presence that the price difference is fully justified.
 
15/24/35/50/90 - what was the question? :p

I was often thinking about what would be a reasonable "step" between lenses and find something around 1.5 to work fine or even a bit more on the long end. For the line as mentioned above this would be:

15->24 : 1.6x
24->35 : 1.46x
35->50 : 1.43x
50->90 : 1.8x

What you can find helpful is to find a photo that has a lot in it (cityscape or such) and that was taken with the widest lens you consider (e.g. 21) - and then add "framelines" to it for all the longer lenses and see what would work for you. Of course such an approach does not replace experience using such a lens/es, but it may give you a starting point. (If you like just drop me a PM and I can send you such an "example" via email)
 
When I look for a new lens, I think about the shots that I missed because I did not have the right lens. This happened a lot when 28 (or 21 on my M8) was my widest lens. So I look at my files and see that at one point I was shooting a lot of hotel lobbies for ads and brochures. A 21 was essential. But not so much anymore. At another point it was landscapes for travel brochures and a 24 (24-70 zoom) worked best. And this is probably still true for most of the work I do today.

While the 24 can be a magical focal length, you can always crop the edges off a 21. With a Zeiss 21/4.5 or CV this is a good thing. And since I sold my 21/2.8 Biogon, I am faced with the same choice, I'll probably opt for another 21... unless I stumble onto a great deal on a 24.
 
If you have a 35 and found 28 too close, I'd go for 24. It is significantly wider than 28 and not as extreme as 21. IMHO the gap between 21 and 35 is fairly epic, comprising of the entire middle ground of wide angle photography.
 
All, thank you very much for your helpful input! I was leaning towards a 24, but now am settled that it is the way I will go, and for once is a lens that is available at times.

Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom