Beemermark
Veteran
When you go wide a few mm makes a big difference. 21 takes captures a much larger scene then a 25mm. Going to 18 mm it seems like it doubles again.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
True. I've noticed that 'difference' with my Fujinon 14/2.8 and 18/2.0.
As much as I personally dislike saying it, the Fuji 14 outperforms the Nikon 20. I use the Fuji much more for my travel photography than I jeer did the Nikon. It has less distortion and sharper corners.
My camera dealers says it was the luck of the draw, I just got a ' good Fuji' and an 'average' Nikon, whatever this means in technical terms. My take on this is, the Fuji is a newer lens than the Nikon.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is personal.
I can't use 28 on FF. It just not my thing. I have tried 25 it was even more odd to frame.
Both demanded me moving my eyes corner to corner and again to analyze the framing.
It was taking too long for the street or just static.
21 is just as I see without pereferial, blurred corners.
Nothing to frame.
Made 90 degree by your palms, everything from it and towards is going to be in the frame.
But, again, personal. I see zero use for 50, except bokeh or huge distances.
On zooms I stay mostly wide. Like 16 a lot for indoors and street events.
21 or wider are great to get to the object and have no observation from outside side effects.
Just watch the corners, if something too close it will be distorted.
I can't use 28 on FF. It just not my thing. I have tried 25 it was even more odd to frame.
Both demanded me moving my eyes corner to corner and again to analyze the framing.
It was taking too long for the street or just static.
21 is just as I see without pereferial, blurred corners.
Nothing to frame.
Made 90 degree by your palms, everything from it and towards is going to be in the frame.
But, again, personal. I see zero use for 50, except bokeh or huge distances.
On zooms I stay mostly wide. Like 16 a lot for indoors and street events.
21 or wider are great to get to the object and have no observation from outside side effects.
Just watch the corners, if something too close it will be distorted.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Sounds like bias to me. Fuji does not make junk. Also, this bad copy, good copy stuff is blown out of proportion most of the time.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
What Dogman said. This is close to my own experience. My 24mm lenses will almost always satisfy my need for a wide lens. I have 35, 28, 25, 24, 21, 20,, 18 and 15mm. My Goldilocks wide angle lens is usually my 24mm. When 24mm is not wide enough, I don't reach for a 21 or 20; I go for the 18 or 15. My reason for owning a 21mm is for the magic of the 21mm Super-Angulon, more so than for its focal length.
raid
Dad Photographer
Digital FF cameras may need special lenses when going that wide. My Zeiss Halogen 16mm/8 fits the M9 and M10, but there is a purple smudge at the edges. It works perfectly fine on the M3 and M6. I can use my Canon FD 17mm/4 on the M9 and M10 without any issues with Canon Adapter B to ltm and then with ltm/M adapter. Since you are using a Canon film camera you should have no issues with using a 21mm lens.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I like wides because of the perspective. Here's a 21mm perspective example.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
In days past, I've used a 24mm and 21mm interchangeably and never missed one when using the other. But I have noticed it when shooting a 25mm against a 21mm. It doesn't sound like much, but every digit makes a difference when you start getting that wide. A 21mm might actually do it for you.
Leica M11-P, 21mm Ultron f/1.8 VM. In this case, a 25mm would have been too tight.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Yes, while you could have foot zoomed back to fit everything into the frame, the photo would be losing some of the depth it has and makes it compelling.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I find the 21mm gets you into real perspective or depth to a photo much better than a 24-25mm. When Robert Capa said “If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough” he was talking about making the viewer feel they were really there. That's the depth of the frame one gets from being close as you can do with a 21mm. Those who struggle to deal with wides call it "distortion" but it is perspective or depth to some of us. So, it's what floats your boat.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Just for grins, I set up the M10 Monochrom at 4 feet from my cluttered bookcase and shot one frame each with 10, 21, 28, 35, 43, and 50 mm lenses to give examples of the FoV range. Sorry, I don't have 25, 24, 19, or 15 mm lenses at present to make the set "complete", but I hope this is useful ...
flic.kr
enjoy! G
FoV-Comparison 2024
Sample photos using 10, 21, 28, 35, 43, and 50mm lenses on FF (Leica M10 Monochrom) for Field of View examples
flic.kr
enjoy! G
Last edited:
Alpsman
Well-known
I certainly couldn't walk past this photographer without having a photo taken of me.
trix4ever
Well-known
Just for grins, I set up the M10 Monochrom at 4 feet from my cluttered bookcase and shot one frame each with 10, 21, 28, 35, 43, and 50 mm lenses to give examples of the FoV range. Sorry, I don't have 25, 24, 19, or 15 mm lenses at present to make the set "complete", but I hope this is useful ...
FoV-Comparison 2024
Sample photos using 10, 21, 28, 35, 43, and 50mm lenses on FF (Leica M10 Monochrom) for Field of View examples
enjoy! G
Wow, that 10mm is crazy wide, makes my 15mm look like a telephoto lens...
Great comparison, thank you.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You're welcome. Indeed, it's so wide it becomes quite difficult to visualize what to shoot with it! I bought it when I had the CL body, with an APS-C sensor. It's a good lens, just have to work at expanding my vision when I take it out.
G
Wenge
Registered User
i think 28mm like the Q Leica cameras are maybe an option to consider renting, for me it fits my Q2. Tried a 21mm on Sony and for me it was awkward, but that's just me and for others it might be a good landscape option, just depends.
raid
Dad Photographer
Reading the posts here made me switch on my M10 from a 75mm 1.4 Summilux to a 17mm 4 Canon FD. Let wide angle rule today.
Dogman
Veteran
This.
And you can get the girl with the great legs in the picture too.
But seriously, the beauty of wide angle lenses comes through when used up close to the subject. The distortion look can be avoided--Bob's photo is an example of this. But the wider the lens and the closer you get, the more careful you have to be to avoid an exaggerated perspective.
......................
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Since the subject was a flat field, do you think the photos would look any different if you would have just "foot zoomed" with a one fixed focal length lens?
JeffS7444
Well-known
35-40-50mm are my "core", but every so often, I get the itch for a different perspective, and at times that has lead me to 16 and 8 mm fisheye lenses, and a 15 mm rectilinear. These crazy-wide lenses allow me to capture more context in close quarters (car interiors, etc) than I might otherwise. And they can be stealthy too, as the camera does not need to be pointed directly at the subject. But I regard the wider lenses as occasional treats, rather than everyday items.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Aside from the fact that that wasn't the point of the exercise... nor is there room for such movement in my office ... I think it pretty obvious that if you are using rectilinear lenses and photographing a flat field with them, you can make one take almost exactly the same image as another by changing the camera to subject distance, up to the limits of flat field and perspective distortions. Of course, you can simulate moving back and forth to adjust framing by just doing a crop on an image from an ultra-wide lens to make it have the same image area as a longer lens. For instance:
full frame with the Pentax 43mm
cropped image section from the Ultrawide 10mm
So, was there a particular thing you were looking for regards this simple FoV demonstration? The whole point was to illustrate the difference in FoV using different focal length lenses shooting the same subject from a fixed viewpoint.
G