What pairs better with a 35, 75 combo, 21 or 24?

[ymc226]

Not having gone this wide before, I enjoy the picture scale of the 35mm Lux as a "natural" normal lens, but need wider to get more shots.

Is there a great difference between the 21 and 24mm Lux currently offered by Leica, in terms of what falls onto the print? Any more distortion in the 21? Why would you prefer the 21 or vice versa?

How easy is it to use any lens with an external viewfinder? Do you look at the external to compose, internal to focus and then external again before depressing the shutter?

 

[payasam]

There is not so much difference between the angular coverage of the 21 and the 24. Either should serve your purpose. As for the method of using an external finder, you are right. I'll only add that focus is seldom critical with lenses that wide.

 

[notturtle]

24 would be great with 35. 21 is great with 28 IMO

 

[kxl]

If you didn't already have a 35, I would have suggested the 24/25 as an everyday lens, but since you do, then you might as well go wide and get the 21mm.

I have both a 25mm (ZM) and 21mm (Kobalux). With my ZI, I can use the entire frame for th 25mm.

I do use an external finder for the 21mm (or when I mount the 25mm on my Bessa T). If you actually want to focus, then using an external VF makes for slower shooting. However, the 21mm (and to an extent the 24/25 as well) gives you such a huge range of DOF to work with that all you really need to do is set the focus to 6-8 feet at f5.6 or f8, and you've got a nice point & shoot. That's when an bright external finder really shines (pun intended).

 

[peter_n]

This is just me, but I tried really hard with a Kobalux 21/2.8 (for two years) and eventually sold it. Just too much empty space between me and the first object in the scene. The 21 was one of those lenses (at least for me) that I had to go and specifically look for appropriate scenes for it. Then I bought a 24/2.8 and was just immediately comfortable with it and it is my third lens in my standard "base" kit. I just love the FOV of the lens and to me there is a big difference between 21 and 24/25. Once again I emphasize that this is just me and YMMV.

My base/travel kit is 35/75 and that takes care of 90% of what I shoot. I bring the 24 for when I need wider than the 35 and so far I've never felt I needed wider (and I use a 15mm). However I never used the 21 in combo with my 35/75 but as notturtle says above the 21 would probably go better with the 28/50 combo.

 

[BillBingham2]

For me it's a 15mm.

I like jumps between lenses. The 21 I owned I never got along with. While I LOVE the 25 and have it for my S3, I'd prefer a 15mm. I hear really go things about the ZI 21/4 that might bring me back to a 21, but the 15 has such a fun perspective when I look wide. It allows me to look really wide.

B2 (;->

 

[back alley]

i liked using 25/35 as there is plenty of difference between the 2 and the zeiss 25 is a fantastic lens.
but then i bought a cv 21 and found i was using the 25 less and less as i was falling for the wider fov.
i sold the cv 21 and zm 25 and bought the zm 21/4.5 because i liked the smaller size and didn't need the speed of the 2.8.

with a 21 you must be comfortable moving in very close to your subject and if you're not then get the 25.

 

[Rob-F]

A good rule of thumb is to make each lens 1.4 times the shorter focal length. Leitz came up with this rule when they introduced the 280mm Telyt lens. Why 280mm? They explained that 280mm was 1.4 times 200mm; and in turn, 400mm is 1.4 times 280mm. That meant that the 280 was exactly in the middle, geometrically (rather than arithmetically) between the 200 and the 400. It also means that each lens covers exactly half the area of the next shorter one.

Why does each lens cover 1/2 the area of the next shorter one? Because area is a second-power function. If each shorter lens covers twice (2 times) the area of the longer one, then the focal length ratio must be the square root of 2: 1.414.

So now let's apply this to wide-angle lenses. 50mm is 1.4 times 35mm. And 35mm is 1.4 times 25mm. And for all practical purposes, it is 1.4 rimes 24mm as well. So there is an argument in favor of a 24 or 25mm when you already have a 35mm.

Now for the practical user field report. I like to use a 24mm with my Leicas that have .58 finders. I find it very easy to level the camera with the built-in framelines, and to estimate the additional coverage of the 24mm, compared to the camera's 28mm frameline and to the finder edges. I will probably still use an external finder, but whether I do or not, I can shoot easily with the camera finder.

When traveling by air, I want to carry minimum gear. So depending on where I am going, I will either carry a 24-35-50 (and maybe 75 or 90); or else a 21-28-40 (and maybe a 75 or 90). Note that the 21-28-40 combo also conforms (loosely) to the 1.4x rule.

 

[dreamsandart]

Having a 21mm for many years as my 'wide-angle' lens it works well for what it is intended. But its not a lens you can carry by itself unless 'wide-angle' is your only purpose. When the 24 became available I got one and it fits into a wide-normal two lens kit perfect for me along with a 35 or 50. Distortion is fairly low (slight barrel in shorter distance) and it doesn't have the dramatic receding background of the 21mm either, so can be used better as that 'wide-normal' walk around lens by itself when things are too close for a 35/50. If your are doing architectural work the 24/25mm lens is also easier in a RF camera to see and keep things level so you don't get the distortion of lines especially at the edges of the frame ( a 21 and RF combination is really hit and miss, you think you have it until the film comes back). 24-35-75 would be a good spacing of focal lengths if you are thinking of an 'ideal' kit.

I have the original 24mm Leica finder for the lens. Its a clear and bright view, depth of field on a 24 is very forgiving especially at f5.6-8, you can judge the distance and set the lens even at 2.8 using the lens barrel markings and then just move up to the finder, or if you get the hang of it focus and move up to the external finder for framing, its easy.

 

[ymc226]

Thanks for all of the advice. Presently, after reading all of the responses, I am leaning toward the 24.

Unfortunately, I have 2 0.72 MPs so I will have to get an external VF. What is the difference between the 2 Leica external VF, the round one that is adjustable for 21, 24, 28 and is half as costly as the new brightline VF that is rectangular and specific for either 21 or 24 or 28?.

 

[Al Kaplan]

There really are no universal rules. Everyone of us sees things in our own unique way. All of the math in the world won't affect how you see. Leitz (Leica) got saddled with a 21mm focal length because they wanted to market something wider than their 28mm, Schneider had a great 21mm lens design, and Leitz started selling Super Angulons in Leica mount. There was no magic involved with the decision. It was all Marks and Pfennigs.

As for "one size fits all", I hardly ever shoot with anything but my 15mm Heliar these days, still do some shooting for clients, and they seem to like the results. I usually also carry a couple of other bodies with 85 and 35mm lenses and sometimes bring a 135 for emergencies.

 

[Debusti Paolo]

My leica gear is : m6 titan with 75 summilux & 21 elmarit asph.Next lens will be (I hope..)the 35 summlux asph. hope it helps

 

[Gadge]

Rob-F

Yours was a very well constructed and interesting answer. Although, how Leica calculate logical lens steps in their entire lens range is not quite the same as a users needs from a modest three lens collection.

The only real answer, of course is the OP to go and try both and see which view they enjoy, if either! But for an internet chat room response, they could not have got better, albeit different, viewpoints than the ones that you and Al Kaplan have provided.

Gadge

 

[notturtle]

Thanks for all of the advice. Presently, after reading all of the responses, I am leaning toward the 24.

Unfortunately, I have 2 0.72 MPs so I will have to get an external VF. What is the difference between the 2 Leica external VF, the round one that is adjustable for 21, 24, 28 and is half as costly as the new brightline VF that is rectangular and specific for either 21 or 24 or 28?.

You might want to look at the CV finder for 25mm which will do fine for 24mm too. At $128 it is is both well made and very bright. I personally would not pay Leica finder prices because I dont think you get anything approaching value for money. I use the CV 21 finder and like it a lot and hear the Zeiss finders are even brighter, but have no experience with those.

 

[Papercut]

A finder is a finder, hence one may not find (pun intended) the Zeiss to be worth the extra money, but wow are they bright!! After looking through the Zeiss 28 finder, I wanted to go buy two of them and tape them permanently to my glasses: colours more vivid and everything brighter than with my unaided eyes. Truly remarkable if you ask me. 🙂

You might want to look at the CV finder for 25mm which will do fine for 24mm too. At $128 it is is both well made and very bright. I personally would not pay Leica finder prices because I dont think you get anything approaching value for money. I use the CV 21 finder and like it a lot and hear the Zeiss finders are even brighter, but have no experience with those.