Thanks to all who have helped me re: "My Next Lens". I have decided to retain my old 90 Summicron and purchase a wide angle, either a 21 or 24. As I stated previously, travel, street, and family photography constitute the preponderance of my activity. Several of you have responded personally to this issue and I thank you all. I would like to know of the experiences of others who own/use these two lenses and their recommendations. Again, thanks for your time.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), July 07, 2001

Answers

Max, I'm a great fan of the 24 but I often find it a bit constricting. If I was about to make the choice now, I'd go for the 21 without hesitation.

For me, the voigtlander 12 would also be an option for a wide angle. You just have to get in very very close.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), July 07, 2001.

If choice were limited to these 2 lenses, then I prefer the 21 over the 24. I like the 24, but the 21 is more "liberating". Image-wise it's tough to tell any difference between them.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 07, 2001.

92° vs 84°, what a dilemma, I canīt make an opinion since the only time I have used a 24 has been in a Nikon, and I liked it, it was like the 28 of a Leica, I have use the 21 in a leica in was for a long time a favourite, it must be a subtle diference, 3mm or 8° may make a difference in caracter, Iīve been very interesting in understand that subtle difference. Rob, so you like the idea of the 12mm too, I didnt think of that lens as an option to me until watching that advertisement of the girl in the red hot pants over the sand, if thatīs the 12 I want one, even I donīt know what for yet.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 07, 2001.

IMO, the 21 and 24 are very close in perspective, and as stated earlier, the 21 offers a tad more freedom, but is perhaps a bit more difficult to use; get level and square with if oyu will. However, the 24 asph is lazer sharp corner to corner. I have not seen any images from the 21 asph, but it is difficult to imagine that it could equal the 24 asph in quality -- if it does, I'd buy the 21 for the extra freedom.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 07, 2001.

Differemce in character between these lenses... my feeling about the 24 - and its great advantage IMO - is that it's a lens whose wideangleness can be very tightly controlled. You make it look like a normal and you can make it look like a wide, just like the 35 in fact. I find to be very versatile and can often not distinguish the 35 from the 24 in scans, in terms of that zoomy wideangle look. On the other hand it's there when you want it. The 21 on the other hand - I don't have one but my wife uses the nikon 20 a great deal and I'm sure the leica has similar characteristics in this respect - is _always_ wide, I should think.

I think the 35/24 make a perfect team, but as I said in my previous post, I often find myself wishing for a bit more with the 24.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), July 07, 2001.

I would go with the 21ASPH. You can always crop it to a 24mm image if need be, but not the reverse.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 07, 2001.

I suppose my major concern has to do with the finished product, the printed image. As far as distortion v. "normalcy" of image, which lens comes out on top?

-- Max Wal (mtwall@earthlink.net), July 07, 2001.

Max:

For "normalcy" IMO you should DEFINATELY stick with the 24. The exaggeration in the 21 is very noticeable, and as Rob pointed out earlier, the 24 can be used in such a way that it renders almost "normal" views.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 07, 2001.

Max:

I used a 24 on a Nikon years ago and loved it. I now have a 28 Elmarit on my M6 and would consider a 24 to supplement it in the future. I would go for the 24 over the 21 due to the perspective offered by the lenses. Try the old standby and borrow or look through a lens. Pay attention to shooting with an upward angle and the perspective it offers you. You might like what you see, but only you can tell.

Cheers.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), July 07, 2001.

Heck, if you want to eliminate distortion and render a more normal image, then don't go any wider than a 28mm. Both the 21 and 24 can be made to distort the image, intentionally or unintentionally. Both lenses require practice to control, the 21 a little more practice. But once you are committed to an ultra-wide perspective, the 21 gives you more of that capability. I use both lenses, the 21 more often.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 07, 2001.

This is a very interesting thread! I too am trying to decide between the 21mm ASPH and the 24mm ASPH lenses. Then there are also the Cosina/Voigtlander 12mm, 15mm and 21mm lenses beckoning with very low and tempting prices! There is one thing I have decided upon - I will get the new Leica 21-24-28 finder. One finder for 3 wide angle lenses. Quite a bargain (by Leica standards!)...................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), July 07, 2001.

I have the 15mm voightlander, and have borrowed the 24mm for a day. Put simply the 15 is very wide and therefore distorted, it is fun, light small and cheap, and the viewfinder is fantastic. The prints are however just not leica quality, good but not special. Also the exposure needs to be taken carefully. The 24 has all that you would expect from a leica, and surprisingly does not produce images that 'seem' that wide. For me I want the wide perspective of the 15 wihtout the dreadful distortion of people at the edge of frame, and the quality of a leica.....err impossible I guess.

-- Richard (richard@designblue.co.uk), July 07, 2001.

Max, without looking back for the earlier thread, I think your widest lens so far is a 35mm. I find that the step from 24mm to 35mm is a Goldilocks size step--not too far apart, and not too close. The 24mm will cover a field of exactly twice the area as the 35mm. With the 21, you might feel there's a "hole" between lenses. I find that my 21 gives me breathtaking shots when such a wide angle of view is appropriate; but it's not often appropriate. Given the comments above about the 24's optical performance, I'd be tempted.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 07, 2001.

I think a lot of environmental portraiture in National Geographic's been taken with a 24.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 08, 2001.

I use a 21 and would feel very constrained by a 24. But a friend of mine prefers the 24 because, since both focus to .7 meters, he can shoot 'tighter' framing with the 24, a valid point.

The 21 is a 'classic' Leica focal length, dating back to (??) about 1960, so a lot of longtime Leica shooters are 'used' to it. In my case, in my SLR youth I found Nikon's 20 2.8 and 28 2.8 to be much better than their 24, and developed my taste that way.

Also, if I'm going to put up with the headache of accessory viewfinders I want something spectacular in return. Picking something between a 21 and a 35, I'd just as soon go with the 28 and get the use of the built-in finder.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 09, 2001.

People who use the Hexar RF report you can use a 24 without a finder...basically the whole viewfinder is just slightly smaller then the fov you get from the lens.

Would this be true of using a 24 on an M6? Would it matter which version (.58, .72, .85) you had?

Thanks.

-- Tom Van Veen (thomas@bigdayphoto.com), July 09, 2001.

Tom van Veen:

The .58 Leica finder can approximate a 24 frame...but not the others - they can barely squeeze in the area of a 28 (.72) and 35 (.85). If you use the Hexar RF or .58 Leica, you can get away with a 24 - but see some other posts on this site regarding focusing the wide bodies at the long end...

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 09, 2001.

I can only speak of Leica 21 asph I have. I found I use more often than Leica 35 asph. The 35 asph becomes too 'normal' once I get used to the 21's perspective. I guess all the lens has its place. Try to explore it and never look back once you descide. My three most used Leica lenses are 21, 50, and 90. Remember the French photographer, Jeanloup Sieff. He was once using the leica 21mm lense only. Check out his photo book.

-- kenny chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), July 10, 2001.