jett
Well-known
I'm a 50mm shooter but I also have 35/40mm lenses... I use rangefinders and SLRs. I like use systems for different purposes. Now, I want an ultra wide angle lens for more scenic/landscape photography, so I'm thinking about picking up a 21mm.
I'm thinking,
Any Leica LTM with the CV 21 f3.5 and matching accessory finder or an Olympus OM1 with the Zuiko 21 f3.5 lens.
I'm attracted the the Leica LTM outfit because RF wide angles are inherently "better"; however, I don't like using accessory finders...they throw me off (but maybe I'm just not used to them). Focusing is easier, for sure, but I don't need to focus a 21mm too critically. I'm attracted tot he OM outfit because it is small enough, framing is easier, and the outfit is overall cheaper - the lens is probably comparable in price, but the body and lack of an accessory finder saves $$$.
Any thoughts between using a 21mm on a RF vs an SLR? Or just using a 21mm on a RF vs an SLR. I feel that this forum is partial towards RF's, obviously, but I thought that I'd ask anyways.
I'm thinking,
Any Leica LTM with the CV 21 f3.5 and matching accessory finder or an Olympus OM1 with the Zuiko 21 f3.5 lens.
I'm attracted the the Leica LTM outfit because RF wide angles are inherently "better"; however, I don't like using accessory finders...they throw me off (but maybe I'm just not used to them). Focusing is easier, for sure, but I don't need to focus a 21mm too critically. I'm attracted tot he OM outfit because it is small enough, framing is easier, and the outfit is overall cheaper - the lens is probably comparable in price, but the body and lack of an accessory finder saves $$$.
Any thoughts between using a 21mm on a RF vs an SLR? Or just using a 21mm on a RF vs an SLR. I feel that this forum is partial towards RF's, obviously, but I thought that I'd ask anyways.
Ben Z
Veteran
I have never owned an Olympus SLR nor the Zuiko 21mm, but I do own a Nikkor 20mm f/4 (it was one of the late Galen Rowell's favorite lenses) and used it on Nikon and Canon EOS (with adapter) bodies. I also own both LTM and M versions of the Voitlander 21mm f/4, although I have never used them on LTM bodies, just M's.
DOF is substantial as you mention, unless you're shooting a 21/2.8 or /1.4 wide open in the close range. In point of fact, manually (visually on screen) focusing a 21mm with an SLR is not nearly as easy or precise as with a rangefinder. The trade off is having to use an accessory finder, which tend to look a bit distorted and are not that well-corrected for parallax. (The Leica M240 solves these issues because one can focus with the rangfinder and frame with Live View, but that doesn't address your question).
Personally I don't have an overriding preference, which is why I have a 20/21 for each system and base my choice on other criteria. If you want it mainly for landscape, then I would choose based on which system (rangefinder or SLR) you prefer for that use. And I would caution you that using a 21 for landscape isn't as straightforward as it seems. Merely having a wide, sweeping angle of coverage can lead to some very boring photographs. Ultra wides tend to shrink the background into oblivion. Mountains look like molehills. You really need to look for including interesting foreground objects, as those will be what draws the viewers' eye. Frankly, other than a "standard" lens, my next most-used lens for landscapes is a medium telephoto, to pick out details. I tend to use a 21mm mainly indoors and in urban settings, particularly in the narrow streets of European cities and towns.
DOF is substantial as you mention, unless you're shooting a 21/2.8 or /1.4 wide open in the close range. In point of fact, manually (visually on screen) focusing a 21mm with an SLR is not nearly as easy or precise as with a rangefinder. The trade off is having to use an accessory finder, which tend to look a bit distorted and are not that well-corrected for parallax. (The Leica M240 solves these issues because one can focus with the rangfinder and frame with Live View, but that doesn't address your question).
Personally I don't have an overriding preference, which is why I have a 20/21 for each system and base my choice on other criteria. If you want it mainly for landscape, then I would choose based on which system (rangefinder or SLR) you prefer for that use. And I would caution you that using a 21 for landscape isn't as straightforward as it seems. Merely having a wide, sweeping angle of coverage can lead to some very boring photographs. Ultra wides tend to shrink the background into oblivion. Mountains look like molehills. You really need to look for including interesting foreground objects, as those will be what draws the viewers' eye. Frankly, other than a "standard" lens, my next most-used lens for landscapes is a medium telephoto, to pick out details. I tend to use a 21mm mainly indoors and in urban settings, particularly in the narrow streets of European cities and towns.
Jani_from_Finland
Well-known
I've had the 21/3.5 and its truly a gem. If i could afford it i would buy it again. also have the 18mm, but its too clunky to haul around. Instead of he OM1, i would mount it on a OM2n. Also with a 21mm, you can pretty much use zone-focus, its a very short focus on that.
Also the 21mm was not something i liked for landscape, more for taking photos in crowds, tight places, city and street. For travel its great also. For pure landscape i like the 24 or 35mm better and in case of landscape, id take the slower versions, ie 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 (olympus om).
Also the 21mm was not something i liked for landscape, more for taking photos in crowds, tight places, city and street. For travel its great also. For pure landscape i like the 24 or 35mm better and in case of landscape, id take the slower versions, ie 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 (olympus om).
jett
Well-known
In regards to the landscape thing, I meant that that I will use the 21mm lens/outfit for landscape. I did not mean that I will shoot all my landscape photos with a 21mm lens. I will probably pair it with a 40mm...I think that ultra wide angle lenses are easily over-used which is why it isn't a very important focal length for me.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Until recently, I owned a Voigtlander R4M and 21mm f4 Color Skopar. The camera body is the only rangefinder with bright lines for a 21mm lens, so it was relatively easy to use. I've used 21mm lenses with external viewfinders but, as a spectacles user, I didn't get on too well.
Much as I liked the R4M and 21mm, I was never quite sure where the extremeties of the frame actually lay. The lens always seemed a bit wider than the framelines. Not a massive problem but I've sort of concluded that I'm much more of a fan of SLRs than rangefinders. The exception is my Hassy Xpan which I love.
Therefore, I'd definitely go for an OM(2n) and 21mm.
Much as I liked the R4M and 21mm, I was never quite sure where the extremeties of the frame actually lay. The lens always seemed a bit wider than the framelines. Not a massive problem but I've sort of concluded that I'm much more of a fan of SLRs than rangefinders. The exception is my Hassy Xpan which I love.
Therefore, I'd definitely go for an OM(2n) and 21mm.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The deal with ultra wide angle lenses is they're dimmer than normal or long lenses of the same speed in the viewfinder. Which is the downside of using them on an SLR. On the upside the OM1 has a large viewfinder which is probably going to be better than any accessory finder for an RF camera.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
scenic/landscape where I foresee using a circular-polarizer or where I will be requiring a GND filter, then SLR wins hands down since you can exactly see your composition but I don't do much of this anymore.
I like putting a yellow or dark red filter on my lenses so a RF works best for me.
I like putting a yellow or dark red filter on my lenses so a RF works best for me.