What lens took this photo?

[Grumblepunk]

http://www.dlridings.com/paw2004/04v37-0024.jpg

Something about this photo just grabs me. It's the subject, the grain and the lens all at once. The problem is, I don't know what lens it is.

This is from Daniel Ridings' PAW project for week 37 of 2004. There are seven photos, for this week and he lists the two lenses used for them, though he doesn't list which was which.

http://www.dlridings.com/paw2004/37.html

"Leica M2 with 21/40 Skopar unless it looks like something else. Then it was a 35mm Summicron. 400TX @ EI 800."

21/40 Skopar is obviously a typo and should read 21/4.0.

This is where my ignorance shows through. I am a 50mm man. I have always used 50mm and nothing but. However, I am wanting to branch out and this is the kind of perspective that I am looking for.

I already emailed Daniel, but then realised that he's out of the country for the next several weeks (months?) and we all know that when a lens need hits you, you have to act before the wallet or wife notices. 😀

 

[eric]

The first one looks to be a 21. That was my guess before I read the bottom half of your post. A 35mm would look sort of "normal'ish". But I would be $$ it is a 21 since the bottom left (the plate) is really distorted looking.

I was on the PAW list for 2 1/2 years. Very good to be on it if you are interested but I was getting way too busy for it.

 

[FrankS]

I sure looks like a 21mm rather than a 35mm shot to me!

 

[gelmir]

Yes, obviously the 21mm. There's almost no distorsion with a 35mm.

 

[Terence T]

It looks like a typical 21mm perspective, given the distortion near the edges. The 21/4.0 is fast becoming a favorite of mine, especially with its ultra compact size and sharp rendition of images. A true CV gem.

 

[Grumblepunk]

I never thought that this thread would receive so many replies so quickly. Thank you!

I was really almost hoping that it was a 35mm, because life would have been so much easier, with an M2 on the way. 😀

So herein lies my predicament. I am thinking that a 21mm-50mm set up would be perfect. However, there is the portability factor to consider. My camera is with me literally everywhere. I prefer to keep it under my right arm, within my coat, or if the weather is too warm, I carry it inside my slingbag. For this reason I have always shied away from external finders.

- Does a 28mm lens approximate the same level of distortion, or reasonably similar to?

- Can you use a .58 viewfinder to focus a 21mm in much the same way that the viewing area of an M3 is workable for a 40mm. Is that even feasible, without massive irritation?

- Should I just bite the bullet and dedicate A 21mm finder to the top of my camera? Externals just look like such a pain in the butt, for portability.

Again, thank you for the replies, everyone. 🙂

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I actually at first thought it could be the 15mm f/4 CV, given how enlongated the bottom seems, from the edges towards the center, but this would also apply to a rectilinear 21mm lens. This kind of edge "distortion" correction is atypical of the 35mm available for the Leica LTM and M mounts.

Per your question of the 21mm finder on top of the camera, I think it works with the 28mm framelines if you frame it outside (that'll be kind of a stretch), or you could do what most do when they get the 15mm: get the Bessa L; you'll have a dedicated wideangle body; how could would that be?

 

[VinceC]

Distortion on a 28mm is much less. A 28mm has a 75-degree angle of view whereas 21mm has a 90-degree angle of view. This is a large difference. On the other hand, given the close-focusing distances on a rangefinder, you can frame the subject quite a bit tighter with a 28 than with a 21.
I'm not familiar with the .58 viewfinder (I shoot Nikon RFs because I love their 1.0 finders) but I'm fairly certain you'd need an external finder. That 15 degree angle-of-view difference between 28 and 21 is considerable.

Vince

 

[jlw]

So herein lies my predicament. I am thinking that a 21mm-50mm set up would be perfect. However, there is the portability factor to consider. My camera is with me literally everywhere. I prefer to keep it under my right arm, within my coat, or if the weather is too warm, I carry it inside my slingbag. For this reason I have always shied away from external finders.

An external finder isn't bad as long as you only need ONE of them! If you have to keep switching from one to another, they're a bit of a PIA. But if you want to run a 21/50 combination, you'll only need one accessory finder and can just keep it parked in the accessory shoe all the time. The Voigtlander finder is pretty compact and won't detract from the portability of the camera. Most 21mm lenses for RF cameras are nice and small, too.

Note that with a 21mm f/4 lens, there's so much DOF that you can often scale-focus rather than having to look through the rangefinder. This eliminates the other nuisance of an accessory finder, having to switch your eye back and forth between the camera eyepiece and the accessory eyepiece. Just focus by scale, look through the accessory finder, and shoot away.

Does a 28mm lens approximate the same level of distortion, or reasonably similar to?

No, not even close. Although the perspective of a 28mm shot looks spacious, you won't see anything like the perspective effects you see toward the edges with a 21 (for example, note how the presumably round plate in the corner of the photo looks elliptical; this isn't actually a "distortion," but is a geometrically correct rendition of a circle projected onto the film plane at a steep angle. Still, it looks really funky!)