Usefulness of 21 in Europe

Highway 61 said:
Keep in mind that most European countries have now adopted the metric system. Will a 21mm lens frame the same way as it does on those pesky Anglo-Saxon soils ? :p
Click to expand...
Not really sure, but clearly this is off-topic. I suggest you start a new thread, but you'd better carefully consider what countries you want to include in your question.

Reminds me when I was 19, years ago, and had rented a Vespa motor scooter in Stockholm: a girl I had met asked me whether I could drive her home. I asked how far it was and she said, "Only three Swedish miles." Only after I got to her family's house in the countryside, did I find out that a Swedish mile is ten kilometers.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio
 
malland said:
Reminds me when I was 19, years ago, and had rented a Vespa motor scooter in Stockholm: a girl I had met asked me whether I could drive her home. I asked how far it was and she said, "Only three Swedish miles." Only after I got to her family's house in the countryside, did I find out that a Swedish mile is ten kilometers.
Click to expand...
I would have liked to learn what Swedish miles were that way.

Just imagine what you'd have had to endure if that girl had asked you to go and watch the full collection of Ingmar Bergman's movies (in Swedish, without English subtitles, of course) with her.

To take your revenge, you would have asked her to pose naked in front of your 21mm I'm certain.
 
Take either 21,35,90 or 21,50,90. I'm in the UK but when I go to mainland Europe I take one of the above. Though on a recent trip to Japan I took a 21,50,90 setup, but never once used the 90. The decision was easily made as to which lens to use - if I needed wider, the 21 went on. If that was too wide, the 50 went on. And didn't use an external finder for the 21, just the m4-p finder, and consider the composition before putting the finder to my eye.

Enjoy looking and enjoy your trip.
 
If we are talking about a 400mm 1:2.8 bazooka, then no, leave it at home.

But 21mm is wonderful for cities and landscape.
Of course, bring it.

Another way to think about this: How would you feel if you are stuck on a 90 days trip and realize that you could have a lot of pretty pictures with a *small* lens that you decided not to bring...?

That would have driven me nuts.
 
That 21mm is so small and light that taking it is no trouble at all. Its only 150g and less bulky than a golf ball.

If you feel like some 21mm inspiration, google Jean Loup Sieff, who worked with 21mm extensively. He was French ;)
 
And France is in Europe, to be precise.

Turtle said:
That 21mm is so small and light that taking it is no trouble at all. Its only 150g and less bulky than a golf ball.

If you feel like some 21mm inspiration, google Jean Loup Sieff, who worked with 21mm extensively. He was French ;)
Click to expand...
 
Rob-F said:
Such a lens does exist. It just doesn't come from Leica. It's the 40/1.4 Cosina Voigtlander. It's ideally suited, almost a perfect match, for the slightly undersized 35mm frameline of the M6/M7/MP. I have used this lens on my M7 in Europe, and found it more useful there than the 50. Shortstop and I are on tHe same page in finding the 28mm (and I would include 24 or 25mm in this) as being adequate for the narrow streets. But since the OP apparently does not have a 28, but does have a 21, he should bring it. It won't go to waste!
Click to expand...
Rob-F said:
Such a lens does exist. It just doesn't come from Leica. It's the 40/1.4 Cosina Voigtlander. It's ideally suited, almost a perfect match, for the slightly undersized 35mm frameline of the M6/M7/MP. I have used this lens on my M7 in Europe, and found it more useful there than the 50. Shortstop and I are on tHe same page in finding the 28mm (and I would include 24 or 25mm in this) as being adequate for the narrow streets. But since the OP apparently does not have a 28, but does have a 21, he should bring it. It won't go to waste!
Click to expand...
I know that CV has a 40/1,4. I didn't know the 35 mm frame is undersized (I have an MP). This is a good news. when I said a Leica 40/1,4 I intended a Leica not a CV. I 've read good reviews about CV 40/1,4 (surely better lens than CV 35/1,4), but (may be it's only my prejudice) consider, beyond the sharpness in se, the rendition of Leica lenses unique. So my desire would be a true Leica 40/1,4. At the moment I'm oriented toward a preaspherical 35 Summilux, but have to wait cause its cost.
What do you think?
 
I have a Summicron-C 40/2, which is an overall excellent lens, and I also have a 35/1.4 pre-asph that is my standard travel lens now. It offers lots of flexibility for many photo situations.

As for the two CV lenses, the 40/1.4 came out before CV released the 35/1.4, so you would expect the latter to be better somehow. Maybe not?
 
I'd say take the 21 for its potential value. For a few weeks in southern Spain and Morocco some years ago I took two small bodies, Bessa-L and CLE, with 15, 25, 40, and 90. I didn't have a 21 but it would have been useful I think. I did not use the 90. I used the 15 only a few times. The 25 Snapshot Skopar surprised me at how often it was useful. Of course the 40 is a great all-rounder and it mostly stayed on the CLE while the 25 was stuck to the Bessa. Good combo!

Good luck and have fun on your trip!
 
shortstop said:
I know that CV has a 40/1,4. I didn't know the 35 mm frame is undersized (I have an MP). This is a good news. when I said a Leica 40/1,4 I intended a Leica not a CV. I 've read good reviews about CV 40/1,4 (surely better lens than CV 35/1,4), but (may be it's only my prejudice) consider, beyond the sharpness in se, the rendition of Leica lenses unique. So my desire would be a true Leica 40/1,4. At the moment I'm oriented toward a preaspherical 35 Summilux, but have to wait cause its cost.
What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think if the Leica lens is the only one which will scratch your itch, then go for it, but I find it hard to believe that many of us could tell the difference between photos taken with a CV or a Leica lens.

Some lenses you could tell, I had a Summarit f/1.5, and wide open, it was very soft, low saturation, all the rest, so I could easily tell photos taken with that. Two modern lenses, one from CV, one from Leica, I'd seriously doubt any meaningful difference in the results.
 
I did Europe (Berlin, Prague, Rome, Florence) with primarily a 35 'Cron ASPH and it suited me fine. Were there times I wished for something a little longer or wider? Certainly. Did I regret it? Not at all.

Just this year, I did the Nakasendo walk from Kyoto to Tokyo, but this time using a Dual Hexanon 21/35. I found that I was using 21mm more often than 35mm for this trip.

Personally, I find switching lenses in the field more cumbersome (and it breaks the flow of my photography)than using a larger or heavier lens. It takes a while for my "vision" to adjust to a new focal length, so many times, I will decide in the hotel what lens I will be using for the day before I leave, then it doesn't change for that day.

Anyway, to go back to the original question - since the 21mm Skopar is so small anyway, I'd take it along if I were you, but decide per day what you'll be using instead of fiddling with changing lenses while you're out shooting.

Hope that helps!

Some samples from the trips I mentioned above:


Hula by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


Motionless by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


- by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


Udon Line by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


Konichiwa by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr


Calligraphy by The Johann Espiritu™, on Flickr
 
An important point is the sensitivity of the M9 to get dust on its sensor when you change lenses as you walk around. Be careful.
I changed the lenses while at the hotel, and I used the 25/4 only one day during a 17 day trip.
 
shortstop said:
I know that CV has a 40/1,4. I didn't know the 35 mm frame is undersized (I have an MP).
Click to expand...

Just a little. Not seriously undersized. I can tell in a direct comparison with the framelines on my M2 and M5. The difference is just enough so that they agree well with the coverage of a 40mm lens at distances at which I usually shoot.
 
Replacing 35f1.2 for this Trip

Replacing 35f1.2 for this Trip

Well, I just ordered the 35f2.8 C Biogon to replace the 35 Nokton f1.2 so with the weight saved I could actually carry a few more lenses then planned.

Seriously, I will be taking the 21 Skopar with the 35 Biogon and 90 tele elmarit m. All three lenses are nice and small.

Thanks for the input. And honestly I did not know that light and optics works differently with the metric system. The 21mm should really be called a .83 inch lens here in the good old USA. We need to keep the US pure from foreign (metric) influences. And remember since the French started the whole metric thing, we no longer have French fries but Freedom Fries.
 
I've got the 21mm Color-Skopar and it's about the smallest lens I've ever owned. You could lose it in a jacket pocket. Seriously, this lens isn't going to make or break your load-bearing capability. I used mine on a recent trip to Munich. It's so wide you nearly get your own ears in shot and it's fantastic for close-in street shots, crowds, markets as well as wider vistas if you need something wider than a 28 or 35 lens.

IMO, this is a complete no-brainer but, obviously, it's your call...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom