Usefulness of 21 in Europe

[ktmrider]

I am getting my Leica M gear ready for a 90 day trip to Europe and North Africa. Part of the trip includes 100 mile hikes in the Highlands and Camino de Santiago so weight and space are factors.

I just ordered a small 35 to carry in place of the Nokton f1.2. Now the kit is M9 with 21/35/90 but I would not mind leaving the 21 at home. The 21 is a Skopar so super small. So how useful is it? Is the 35 wide enough for the streets of Europe. In some ways, I am tempted with a 35/50/90 combo. Minimum kit will be M9 with 35/90.

 

[Particular]

Is the 35 wide enough for the streets of Europe.

Is it possible to be less specific?
As I'm sure you know a 21mm just produces a different kind of image than a 35mm. You will know in any given situation which lens is right. The skopar won't break your back even if you don't use it in the whole trip.
Just take it, and you will surely end up using it.

 

[FrozenInTime]

With a M9 it is easy to stitch image together ; I find I use my 21mm less often than I did with film.
Stitching works well even hand-held for wide panoramas - but less so when you have to scan on two axes for large interiors or monumental scale buildings ( the M9 buffer is also a big let down in this situation )

 

[Jerevan]

Just bring it. A 21 and some imagination is all you need.

 

[Spanik]

I would take it. In some older cities it can be tight in small streets.

 

[helen.HH]

Its soooo small , compact, and renders quite lovely...
You might miss her 'look'
Though sometimes a 35 is ALL one needs and a 35/90 sounds Sublime

 

[Particular]

Though sometimes a 35 is ALL one needs

I have often gone places in Europe and elsewhere with only a 35mm or a 50mm, and I rarely have felt I was missing anything.
I only had a 35mm in Morocco however, and did feel like I was backing up against a wall a lot to fit everything in. I would definitely bring the 21mm if I had it.

 

[Vics]

35 and 90 is all you'll need. The less gear, the more fun. If it were me, I'd just go with a 50, as I have many times.

 

[Rob-F]

I can see that this is the kind of question where if you ask five photographers you will get five answers, maybe six! So let me add mine. My European travel has been mostly in France, both Paris and Provence; also in Finland (Helsinki), and in London. A 35mm was very useful in all those places. It's an essential focal length. And I found a 25mm or 28mm no less essential. All three of these were small CV LTM lenses. A lens wider than 35 can be essential in the small narrow streets. I typically had either the 25 or the 28mm on one IIIc, and the 35mm on the other IIIc. I did very little lens changing that way. But I don't think it matters exactly which wide-angle focal length you bring. Any ultrawide will have its uses, as long as you like the look it gives. I could have brought just the 35 and the 25 and been OK; ditto the 35 and the 28. I didn't need both the 25 and 28, I just brought them because I had them. If I'd had a screw-mount 21mm rather than a 25mm, I would have brought it. Personally I think a 25mm is plenty wide enough for the job, but that's just me. I your case you have a 21, and I would surely not leave it home! I will just add that I hardly used the 50mm I brought; I didn't bring a 90 at all, and didn't miss it. Again, that's just me.

Have a great trip. We will expect pictures!

 

[Highway 61]

Is the 35 wide enough for the streets of Europe.

Is the "travel" subforum of RFF stunning enough so that we can read such things ? 😀

Hey - when Jean-Loup Sieff (you know who he was ?) decided to go to Rome for an extensive street and fashion photos session there, he decided to take the 21 only. Once arrived, he took pictures with what he had. Before leaving Paris, he had no idea of what he'd find once arrived, because he had never been in Rome before - but what he knew was this : he had one lens with him, and it was the 21.

Why did he take the 21 ? Simple : the 21 was his own favorite focal length.

Guess what ? Probably the most beautiful pictures of Rome ever were done by him during this trip.

Guess why ? Because he was an exceptional photographer.

The proof ? Well, several years later he went to Death Valley. Guess who made the most iconic photos of that place ? And with which focal length ?

The rest... is literature, my friend.

Do you like the 21 enough ? If yes, take it. If not, don't.

 

[Godfrey]

I am getting my Leica M gear ready for a 90 day trip to Europe and North Africa. Part of the trip includes 100 mile hikes in the Highlands and Camino de Santiago so weight and space are factors.

I just ordered a small 35 to carry in place of the Nokton f1.2. Now the kit is M9 with 21/35/90 but I would not mind leaving the 21 at home. The 21 is a Skopar so super small. So how useful is it? Is the 35 wide enough for the streets of Europe. In some ways, I am tempted with a 35/50/90 combo. Minimum kit will be M9 with 35/90.

On the last couple of trips to the UK, I've carried 35/50/90 and 24/50/90. I missed having the ultra wide on the trip I didn't have it, even if I didn't use it all that much.

21/35/90 is an excellent kit that covers all the bases well. The Color Skopar 21 is tiny and does not get in the way even if you don't use it.

G

 

[icebear]

I would never leave the house without my 35 and 50, everything else is optional.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Your 21mm lens will be as important to your photography and your style in Europe or Africa just as it is in North America or any other continent. No more, no less.

Some cannot live without a 21mm lens. Others find it less useful. It only depends on which you are, not which continent you are on.

 

[Highway 61]

Your 21mm lens will be as important to your photography and your style in Europe or Africa just as it is in North America or any other continent. No more, no less.

Haha. Thanks, Bob. 😉

 

[BillBingham2]

Gotta agree with Ms. Helen, 35/90 is light and a most excellent small kit.

For ease of use, pick up an iPod Touch (current generation) and use it for panoramic shots. Yes, it's not as anything as your M9, but it slips in your pocket and you can use it when you find WiFi to check your email.

B2

 

[thegman]

I'd take it, it's not like it's a big lens. But yes, 'streets of Europe' is like saying 'Homes in North America'. Even being as specific as one city, in one country (Brussels), you've got tiny little alleys and huge, grand squares. It depends where you like to hang out, really.

 

[rscheffler]

I love 21mm, so of course my advice is to include it. For my travel photography I find 21/28/50 to be very useful, with some use of 90 too, though it's my least used of the four. I'm one of those who can't imagine bringing only one lens. Having more in the bag doesn't mean you have to always use them, so long as it's manageable. A three lens Leica M kit isn't much of a burden.

 

[TennesseJones]

Europe's a continent. So probably no general rules?

 

[raid]

Take with you what you are most familiar with and most likely to use during the trip.
In my last trip, I used a 35mm lens on the M9 and a 45mm lens (on a M4/3, making it a 90mm lens).

35-90 worked for me.

 

[Tom A]

For travel, I always take a 21/35 combination - usually add a 50. In my luggage there is usually a 90 o f some kind - but it rarely gets used. The 21 is a bit of an image saver when streets are narrow and interior spaces cramped. The 35 becomes the "standard" lens. Obviously weight is a consideration - the 21f4 Skopar is about as small as it gets anyway - though you need the finder too.
When walking long distances - what weighs nothing in the morning - becomes a mill-stone by afternoon! I would leave the 90 - unless you are planning to do portraits. The 50 is nice - but the 35 can substitute for in most cases.
Have a great trip anyway.