This weekend I shot the family activity using 24mm SLR lens... and this reminded me of how fun the super wide angle lens could be. Now I am seriously thinking about getting a super wide angle lens for my M6. I am tempted by some of the creative perspective distortion effect but I also think by the end of the day the keeper is probably still the less distorted 28mm or 35mm images. It is still very nice to have some super wide angle photos in a portofolio. So far my M6 setup only go down to 28mm while my SLR, 24mm. And I have never use the external viewfinder. I also hardly carry M6 with a SLR.

My question: Is there some kind of comparison shots of the same scene using these lens on the net, in particular 15mm, 21mm and 24mm focal length? At what focal length would you think it is too wide (your subjective opinion)? Would a SLR be a better candidate for the super wide angle because you can actually see the images?

Thanks in adanve. Your feedback is appreciated.

Chi

-- Chi Huang (chihuang@yahoo.com), June 05, 2001

Answers

Hi,

I have had a 24mm Nikon lens some years ago and liked it, but was not in love with it. I guess around the time the Leica 21/2.8 ASPH hit the street a few years back, I decided to purchase one. I genuinely like the perspective when I am high up (looking down) or down low (looking up). Also, vertically it enables you to get close to a tall object and get everything in it (much of the time). If you are locked into a tight spot it works well. I have shot it at 1/30th of a second at dusk with excellent results. I basically shoot travel, portrait, family and some street photography on a non-professional level.

Distortion on this excellent 21mm/2.8 ASPH really kept in check. I use the viewfinder (which sits on the hot shoe mount on the M6) essentially as a guideline. It is not perfect, but does the job. I had the good fortune of being in Xian, China last month and I stuck the camera out of my narrow window from the 4th floor of the hotel in the early morning and clicked. It yielded some outstanding pictures. This lens is one great piece of glass.

The pictures are really quite sharp across the f stop range. Since infinity on the camera comes pretty close in, you can almost leave it on infinity and shoot like a point and shoot in many cases.

I know that I like the 21mm better than the 24mm. However, I have never used the 15mm, so I have no basis of an opinon. I am sure as your post fills in, people with far more experience than I will get you some internet sites to compare the 15 vs. 21 vs 24. I endorse the Leica 21mm/2.8 ASPH, based on my experience. I do not believe and SLR would be a better candiate for the wide 21mm. To me, it is results that count and this lens delivers. Good luck with your decision.

Eddie

-- Edward Steinberg (es323@msn.com), June 05, 2001.

Hi! At present I only own the M 21mm but spent weeks working out which I should buy first (M 21 or 24mm), because I too was absolutely unsure. I had as Nikon 24 and liked it. Here are a few notes (mostly for M and R), in any old order.

(a) In 10 books I read, famous/favourite photographers usually say that if they could only have one single wide-angle it would certainly be a 24mm. (b) In 16 Leica-Forum contibutions in German and in English the statements were exactly 50-50 in this regard: 8 said "21mm is better because it is more dramatic" and 8 said "24mm is better because 21 is too dramatic". (c) I think if you ask 100 people, 90 will say for sure that it depends on you for your own decision, what you want to shoot. Isn't that great news? (d) I also asked people working at Leica here in Germany if they would tell me which they sold more. I thought "The more sold, the better". But... 21mm is so old and 24mm is so new (at least the Ms) that nobody can say from sales which is "better". (e) However, they and others still gave me the most important detailed information: 21mm is usually better than 24mm for architecture, interiors, wide landscapes. 24mm is usually better than 21mm for portraits of people groupings, reportings like in newspapers and magazines. (f) A small advantage of 24mm (at least in the M field) is that it is somewhat less expensive than 21mm. But if you end up preferring 21mm, then buy a 21mm. (g) As far as money goes, I have seen many more used 21s than 24s for sale. Also, now that the 21 ASPH is here since 1997, some real 21 friends may have wanted to get "up to date with ASPH". The 24 being so new and soley as an ASPH means that if anybody ever bought it, they are still "up to date" with it. (h) A fair-to-middling advantage of (M) 24mm is that it is possible to view here without using the viewfinder. For 21mm, its viewfinder is more useful/necessary. (i) I went to the factory in Solms for a day and tried out both (for my M6) all day. This costed me nothing except for the trip there and back. I hope your distributors offer this too. (j) My own personal tip to you here is the following: Since Leica is expensive, just take advantage of this. Go to a Test-day there or anywhere at Leica. Or go to a good store, and, after promising you'll buy at least one of the two, first spend all day trying out both.

Hope some of this is of help. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), June 05, 2001.

How about this? You already have a 24, so why buy another? That leaves 15 and 21. 15 is REALLY WIDE! You ought to be able to develop an opinion whether you want one after one roll of film, so can you borrow one and shoot some film with it first? Let me caution you that the view through the finder is very different from what goes on film (with the lens things at the edges get so bent out of shape that the you can't actually use the corners for something that's important to you if it's something like a head--but the finder doesn't show this strangeness, so on film it's a surprise, and not a good one), so be sure to really shoot some pix, not just look through the finder. I'd get the 21, myself, because I find me 15 to be a lot of fun, but not a general-purpose lens that I use a lot--in fact, I don't think it even belongs in a comparison with the 21 and 24. Or buy both 21 and 15--that makes sense. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), June 05, 2001.

The "distortion" (different perspective rendering) of your 24mm SLR lens seems already to bother you, so I wonder how long you'd be happy with an even wider lens? The optical finders, by the way, inroduce curvilionear distortions not present in the lens or final image, so the finder alone doesn't give you a very good idea of what the picture will look like. Unlike an SLR, the optical finder is good for framing only. Actually, I feel that the one advantage of wide- angle lenses on an SLR, as opposed to a rangefinder camera, is that you can see what you're doing!

Take Michael's advice and borrow or rent a couple of lenses first to see how you like them. Once the novelty wears off, extreme wides tend not to get used quite as much. My personal opinion is that a 24mm is wide enough.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 05, 2001.

If you have a 28mm or Tri-Elmar, the 21 is a better choice than the 24. If you don't have a 28, then the 24 is a good compromise. Get the 15 anyway. It's relatively cheap in Leica dollars, takes up very little space or weight, and has a personality all its own.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 05, 2001.

I've had the Heliar 15 for a while now. It does a great job and is very attractively priced, but I find its coverage is a bit too much for general purpose use. I tossed the 21-24mm debate around a lot, ended up borrowing a friend's 24mm for a couple of weeks and loved it, bought it. If I didn't have the 15 already, I'd have gone for the 21mm, but the 24mm is handier for my use as a short normal.

50mm seems like a heck of a long lens nowadays...

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), June 05, 2001.

Thanks for all the sensible and detail answers. After reading all your answers and balance with the money I can afford, I will probably get the 15mm Heliar first simply because it is cheap, small, and light weight. I would still uses my 28mm or 35mm for general purpose lens though. Following the Leica M philosophy, I would try to stay away from getting too many lens and perhaps trade in the 28mm for the 21 or 24???... the temptation is defintely there... :-)

-- Chi Huang (chihuang@yahoo.com), June 06, 2001.

If you all adore Leica, then you are probably into the earlier Magnum Photography. So, for these candid pictures, you can't do without a Leica M 21mm Super Angulon!! The perspective is not exactly what makes it worthy; it is its impeccable local contrast, 50-Summicron- type-of (apparent) sharpness, and its classic leica silver grains on your negative that sets it apart from anything you have seen through the history of 135 format.

This applies to silver films only. If you shoot chromogenic films, then you will probably do better with new ASPH lens. And beware, if you are getting the F4 Super Angulon, you must ensure that it comes with the hood IWKOO!!! If you get the hood separately, be prepared to pay an extra 500usd on it, provided you can find one!!!

-- TK (danteparquix@yahoo.com), June 08, 2001.