what is your widest lens and why?

I don't have anything wider than 35mm in rf. That focal length seems wide enough most of the time, and I've grown accustomed to it through years of shooting w/ my xa. However, I'm thinking about a 28mm for landscapes, interiors, and oldy-worldy narrow city streets....

I have a 28mm for my SLR kit, and it saved my bacon on a trip to Prague a couple of years ago. Shooting the room from which the Defenestration of Prague occurred (not to mention interiors of churches, palaces, and such) with a 35-105 zoom just didn't cut it. So I wonder whether I should pick up a 28mm for my Canons too. The use of an external viewfinder gives me pause, though. Also, I don't think I've sufficiently mastered the use of my 35 to be able to say that I'm missing a large number of shots I would otherwise have taken because I didn't have a wide enough lens. I feel like my photography needs to develop and improve in order to justify the acquisition of another lens. If I did get a 28, though, it would probably be the CV 3.5/28, because of its compact size, reasonable cost, and I've read that the build quality is also outstanding.
 
25mm ltm Canon lens, it was the widest lens I could find to fit my Leica IIIc many many moons ago.
but it ended up being used on my M3 mostly, for some strange reason.
 
My widest RF lens is the CV 25mm/4 lens but I have used Canon SLR lenses on Leica bodies with an adapter, and here I have wide angle lenses all the way to the 7.5mm lens. For me, the 35mm-85mm range is the heart and soul of rangefinder photography,with the 50mm lens being the leader.

Raid
 
what's the project?

i was thinking that i like what and where i normally photograph, the whyte avenue area in the city i live in, but at times i get stale.
now, i hardly think i have got the ultimate pics from this longest running project and i don't really want to shoot in another part of the city, but i sometimes need to shake things up. (shake me up?)
so i thought that if i used the 25 as my 'normal' lens and then went wider for my 'wide' lens that it might get me looking at the same old things in a different way. either that or all my photos will be crap.
then the question became, which focal length would be wide compared to the 25?
that's where my head is right now.

joe
 
24mm: It is an amazing lens, the sharpness, the depth fo field of foreground to backgorund, its versatility, and the feeling of being close to your sujects, or backing away and being able to include their surroundings in great detail. I am able to photograph action in the foreground, while recording the action in the backgorund as well. This seems to be my standard lens and why not?

I would like to experiment with a 21, but I have to be more careful with distortion--it is a little trickier, since the majority of what you need to photograph needs to be in the center of the frame.
 
It was your brief comment back in a thread about 28s that helped push me over the edge to get the ZM 25mm instead of one of three other options, including the ZM 21. I already had the (much discussed) ‘Cron 35 & had just scored, by sheer luck, a used CV 15mm. It had only taken a half dozen photos, on the Yangtze River. The step between 25 & 21 may be more than the one between 25 & 28, but to me it’s not huge. You have the CV 25 viewfinder. The full area of the finder is very close to what you get with a 21. I checked that at Henry’s - my viewfinder against an SLR zoom set at 20mm. I also had a look at a Leica 21/24/28 viewfinder at Henry’s, when they had one, which confirmed to me that the steps between the 3 lenses isn’t so large, from one FL to the next. Having said that, the actual shooting experience could be different.
Years ago I had a 28 & a 20 for my Nikkormat, & after a while wished I could have afforded to go wider than 20 to complement the 28. Fast forward to my Canon SLR; I got a 28 right away, then a 17 when the opportunity came up, & much preferred that combination to what I’d had with the Nikkormat. For what you pay for it, even new, go with Michael Reichmann’s comment (I paraphrase) that no M mount photographer should be without one. It is so much fun you’ll shoot up a couple of rolls until you force yourself to settle down. Have those buildings defy gravity & lie back on their heels, etc...
The size difference between my Canon 17 & my CV 15 is pretty funny. The CV is hardly more onerous to pack along than two or three rolls of film. I’d agree it’s not for street shooting, but you’ve got the 25 & 35.
When I’m flush, I’ll also get a 21. After, of course the... There’s a monkey named Leica on my back.
See you in Montreal,
Guy
 
my widest is the CV 21 the 15 & 12 scare me 😀

a coupled 25 would be nice, and my new BEAST [35/1.2] is great, but heavy, really heavy compared to my L with the 25😱
 
The 15 is almost too wide for many shots. I have the Heliar and a Zeiss Ikon Contarex Hologon.

The Hologon is a cool camera but definitely wouldn't be my first choice as an everyday walkaround lens. However, if you understand the limits of such a wide lens, you can have a lot of fun with it.

Take a look at this page. Some photos are at the bottom of the page.

The Heliar will give you similar results at a fraction of the cost but isn't nearly as cool as the Hologon.
 
Last edited:
Joe, you just want validation for a new GAS attack, right? 🙂

For me, the 28 is wide enough. Before my trips last year, it was just too wide. After those trips, it's just wide enough.

However, can someone explain to me... why is that a 21mm lens looks so necessary? 😕
 
I sold my much used [and loved] 21 Super-Angulon when the 24 Elmarit came out because I could meter with my M6, the all-over image quality, with the R-system I'd just sold the 24 was a favorite lens, and the 24 could be used as an 'everyday' wide being faster (a really usable f2.8), a more 'natural' super wide, and more forgiving with straight horizons and architecture.

But even so, on one of my first trips after getting it I was going to force myself into a minimum 24/50 outfit I chickened out and bought a 35 on my first stop (which as usual got most the the use), and find that about 10 years on its still not used as often as my 21 was. I still hope that maybe it will work its self into more use, but find I'm thinking another 21 again (probably the new Zeiss biogon). 24 is nice on my new R-D1.
 
If you really want to shake things up, Joe, a 15mm should do it! I admit I seldom use mine. I'm mostly into 28 plus 35/40 but that could as easily be 25 plus 35/40 given RF coupling and a built-in 25 viewfinder. I like 25 and 28 as they are flexible and not too extreme.

I think 21 is the borderline of sanity. If you're careful and disciplined it can be a very wide and useful lens. You can go bonkers with it too, and then it's a super-wide! It's hard to maintian any sanity with the 15, IMHO.

Ok, I have the 15, and then a 4/20mm Flektogon for the Pentax, the 2.8/21mm Biogon for Contax-G, and the 4/22mm equivalent (45mm) for Pentax 67. None of these get a lot of use, but that lovely Biogon was what sucked me into the Contax G2 system, the main justification. Too fine a lens at too low a price to pass up even factoring in the body to put it on. Of these wide lenses it's the one I use the most.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 050920-19big.jpg
    050920-19big.jpg
    152.9 KB · Views: 0
28mm. just not interested in anything wider. not even koudelka or callahan can get me excited about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
If you could travel with just one focal length or lens, what would it be?
6 7 8
Replies
158
Views
7K
Rayt
Rayt
A
Zeiss Ikon ZM with Amedeo Adapter
Replies
0
Views
719
Archigraphie
A
W
Road Trip Kit: Leica body, Nikon glass
Replies
12
Views
391
agentlossing
agentlossing
A
What is the MOST gear you've ever carried on a trip?
2
Replies
34
Views
716
spatumba
spatumba
A
Your underrated lenses
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
3K
LeicaFoReVer
LeicaFoReVer
Back
Top Bottom