Would like to purchase a wide angle lens in the range of 21 mm to 24 mm. Advice of makes and models would be appreciated as well as pro/cons. Do I really need optional viewfinders? Price not an issue but would like to dave $$. Thanks Don

-- Don M (Maldos@home.com), February 08, 2002

Answers

Don,

I went through the same exercise recently, trying to decide between 21mm and 24mm options for my M6 TTL. The initial discussion in response to my query is at this link.

I ended up deciding on the 24mm Elmarit-M, and have been very pleased with the lens and its less extreme wide-angle effect compared to the 21mm. I reported on my first venture out with the lens (on the afternoon after its arrival) in this thread. There are previous discussions on the matter in the archives, as well, found by scrolling down to the bottom of the main indx page and cliking on the topic "My Next Lens".

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 08, 2002.

If *initial* price is not an issue I would stick with good second- hand Leica lenses because on resale they will return pretty much your entire investment and so end up not really costing any more than the 3rd-party lenses. Your biggest decision will be choosing which focal length you want, and although I or anyone here can proffer convincing arguments for any of them, in the end it is a personal decision only you can make. And it is far from a static decision, as most here will attest. Most of us have bought and sold a king's ransom in lenses over the years, most of those who haven't, will.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 08, 2002.

If you can tell us what you are intending to shoot we might be able to give better advice. Lots of good points in earlier postings. In most cases 24mm is quite versatile and wide enough. Having said that when you need a 21mm, nothing else we do. If you have no other wide angle lenses, go for 24mm. If you have 28 or even 35 then go for 21. In my SLR system I have all the lenses in the available focal lenghts from 21mm to 50mm. On an assignment that needs wide angles I have to pack the lot. (I am not a zoom man)

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), February 08, 2002.

Don:

Truth be told, you cannot make a bad decision here. The 24asph is a superior performer to the 21asph in terms of pure resolution at every f-stop, but both lenses are second to none in their class. If you shoot a lot of interiors the 21 is probably a little better choice, and if you shoot more people the 24 distorts them a little less.

IMO, you will want a finder for accurate framing. And FWIW, the 21 and the 24 BL finder are identical except for the frameline position. Since the framelines on the 21 are at the very edge of the frame itself, the 24 BL finder can be easily used for either lens; framelines for the 24, edge of view for the 21.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 09, 2002.

IMO, a 20 or 21 is usually too wide and often overused, but I have one anyway.

-- Tom Nutter (tmnphotos@erols.com), February 09, 2002.

OK.

I have a 21 pre-ASPH f/2.8. It is big - the wide-angle equivalent of the 75 Lux, right up to the 60mm filters. 8^(

The ASPH 21/24 are more compact but actually heavier. (55mm filters)

RE: finders. I've been experimenting with going finder-less with the 21. But it's really a little too wide for even a .58 viewfinder to cover - I get headaches trying to peer into the corners - plus my BIG 21 blocks a lot of the frame. (However the local Leica rep sez her husband uses the 21 without a finder all the time).

The .58 finder (or the Hexar's .6) will do a very good job of framing a 24/25 without the headaches of the 21 if you just use the black edges instead of the frame lines (the 24 brings up 35 lines BTW, while the 21 brings up 28/90 lines).

If you can live with f/4 and no Leica mystique the V'lander lens are ultra-compact and have less light fall-off and at least as much image quality (excepting linear distortion) as the old Super-Angulons - plus they'll meter with an M6.

I'm giving serious thought to picking up a V'lander 25 to make a tiny package with my Tele-Elmarit 90 and 35 'cron - and to use with the built-in 28 framelines. My 28 (1980 version) is also a little large. I might give it a year and see what I've done photographically - possibly then trade the 21/25/28 for a 24 if it makes sense at the time.

I would have to agree the best raw image quality for the M between 20mm and 28mm is the 24 - as good at f/2.8 (esp. corners) as my lenses at f/ 5.6.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 09, 2002.

>...I have a 21 pre-ASPH f/2.8. It is big - the wide-angle equivalent of the 75 Lux, right up to the 60mm filters. 8^(...< BUT, the 21asph and the 24asph are essentially the same size, and both take E55 filters.

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 09, 2002.

Hi Don,

Question: Do you have a 28mm lens that you use a lot and adore? If you do you might possibly wants something substancially wider for those occations when 28 isn't enough. In that case I'd go with the 21.

The 24 is a good compromise between the 28 and the 21. If you do go 24 under this option, whereby the 24 is your standard super wideangle lens, the Leica 24/2.8 is the only way to go. It is quite expensive and heavy, but if it is going to substitute for a 28 and 21, the expense, if you can afford it, is worth it. The build quality and the optical quality is great -- as has already been said here.

Now suppose you have a well-used 28 and you'd like to jump to the 21. Here you might consider the Voigtlander 21/4. It comes with a finder and it is only just a little more expensive than the Leitz finder alone. It is tiny, handles well and is optically quite good, if not quite as good as the Leica 21/2.8 ASPH.

If you choose the Leitz 21/2.8 (either ASPH or older not ASPH) and still want a 24, you might try the very inexpensive and tiny Voigtlander 25/4 which you have to scale focus.

Somehow I think that carrying a 28, a 24 and a 21 is overkill -- about a 1000 g.'s worth if you use Leica lenses.

I've been known to carry a 28, 25, 21, 15 and Olympus 16/3.5 with special adaptor all together. The new Voigtlander 12/5.6 just might do me in. But I'm nutz; don't do as I do.

If you are going to have but one wide angle lens (outside the 35) go with the 24.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 09, 2002.

Don - I had the same purchase decision to make recently. I have the 35/2 pre-asph, the 50/2, and the 90/2.8. I used the same rationale as when I first got into M photography - bought an inexpensive Canon G rangefinder, found I liked using it, then picked up an M6 classic.

This time I bought a mint/used 25/4 Voigtlander w/finder. I found I really do like the focal length, don't mind using the finder (great view), and use the lens a good deal. I may eventually trade up to a 24 asph, but for now the Voigtlander does just fine.

-- Ronald Blachly (theblach@swbell.net), February 09, 2002.

I went for the 24, and haven't looked back. I have stepped back a couple of times to get the extra coverage that the 21 would affoed. Small price to pay.

Marvelous lens. Often amazed at the lack pf distortion. Unless you relly put it in someones face, its difficult to tell difference in some shots with a 35.

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 09, 2002.

thanks to all who have posted and have helped me come to a decision. My current kit conists of : 0.58 and 0.85 M6 bodies with 35/50/90 lenses. I will add the 24 mm to this kit for my tavels to Italy this May. Thanks again. Don

-- Don M (maldos@cox.net), February 11, 2002.