21, 25 or 28mm for next lens?

[gadge]

<p>Steady boys! It is Christmas after all.<br>

Peace and goodwill to all Photo.Net'ers<br>

Happy Xmas<br>

Gadge</p>

 

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>If ya want wide, go w-i-d-e. Get the 21. But of course there is wider.</p>

<p>Take a look at Flick.com. There will be groups with samples of all of these lenses. It may make your choice easier.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>If ya want wide, go w-i-d-e. Get the 21. But of course there is wider.</p>

<p>Take a look at Flick.com. There will be groups with samples of all of these lenses. It may make your choice easier.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Robin we both know that the VF inside the camera viewfinder and external VF are rough approximates, probably only accurate at infinity so I found this on Mamiya's site that shows the coverage of their 50mm lens, I am only interested in the width of the angle of acceptance and the 35mm equivalent.</p>

<table border="1" cellpadding="5" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td colspan="2"><strong>Super Wide Angle 50mm f/4.5 Specifications</strong></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Lens Design</td>

<td>10 elements/6 groups</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Angle of View</td>

<td>84°</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Minimum Aperture</td>

<td>22</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>35mm Equivalent</td>

<td>25mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Minimum Focus</td>

<td>3’ 3.4" / 1m</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Maximum Magnification</td>

<td>0.063X</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Minimum Image Area</td>

<td>35.2 x 43.7" / 895 x 1111mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Filter Diameter</td>

<td>67mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Lens Hood (supplied with lens</td>

<td>Bayonet</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Dimensions (L x W)</td>

<td>3.16 x 7.83" / 55 x 72mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Weight</td>

<td>16.2 oz. / 460 g.</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The VF is really nice. And for $25 its a steal. No distortion and solid metal construction. Also, since I wear glasses its bright.</p>

 

[35mmdelux]

<p>24, 35, 50. my 2-cents. Im shooting with 20-35mm AFD and I find 24mm about the widest I use.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Paul I have the same lens and rarely use it since I bought the 24-85mm F2.8-4.0 for the same reason. I have studied many of the landscape books out there and they show pictures mostly made with lenses no wider than 24mm. </p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>Hello Harvey,</p>

<p>Really wide angle lenses are good for taking photos from the edge of a volcano ridge or in absolutely cramped quarters. I used to really like the 21mm but in actual practice the 24mm is more than adequate for my "vision." (My F6 provides a true FF view and man this is wide.) For my MP, I am looking towards eventually getting the Leica 24mm/3.8 ASPH lens. After all my trial and error (error being the operational word) Im down to 24/35/50mms. Im good.</p>

 

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Paul, you know that the Xpan and its most common lens is really a medium format lens with 24mm cover, however it looks wider because of the Panoramic aspect ratio. Some of the P and S have 9/16 aspect known as HDTV setup. This would be great for SLR and RF serious cameras to have too, its close to the 2/1 pano minium ratio. Cropping the top and bottom to get a wider look with a 24mm lens gives you less forground and sky and that cinemascope look like Lawrence of Arabia and Passage to India that were such great looking films.<br>

I have the same 25 (Biogon), 35mm(Sumicron) and 50mm F2 (Hexar) and if I think I need them I take the 21mm (voigtlander) and Leica 90mm f2.8. Really if I didn't have a zoom lens I would not have known what to buy, the zoom is a great way to find out what you shoot. If you keep a journal of your exposures then you see patterns in your photography that let you know where your eye is at.</p>

[ray .]

<blockquote>

<p>I have read that there isnt much difference between the 35mm and 28mm...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually there can be quite a bit of difference between 35 and 28. </p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Actually there can be quite a bit of difference between 35 and 28.<br>

Yea 7 degrees more, but 25mm lens is 20 degrees more.</p>

[ray .]

<p>Too many numbers, not enough pictures Harvey. Where are your pictures? Easy enough to post. Let us know if you need some help with it. All that great wisdom of is a waste if the end result isn't shared. </p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>If I want to post them I do on Flickr, where is it written this is a photo club, I belong to one too.<br>

I am here to help answer and pose questions to help people who seek advise. <br>

Ray you are a grinch and you will not ruin my holiday. Ho ho ho, now go back to drinking whatever it is your on.<br>

BTW, there isn't much difference between 35mm and 28mm. Look at the picture with the frame lines. 24/25 - 35 -50 are a good distribution of lenses to carry in a kit. A 35mm and your feet makes a 28mm view possible.</p>

[c_levett]

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >Oh I don't know about that. I'm with Ray on this one—7º can be awfully significant in practice. I can think of many occasions when I've felt the need to change for a 35 to a 28... 21 being too wide for what the picture required.</p>

<p >One time in particular, springs to mind—had I just "used my feet" I would have fallen about 1000 metres straight down a vertical precipice.</p>

<p >In this instance I considered the benefits if changing focal length and, thereby, saving a couple of days climb back up from the abyss which was covered in impenetrable subtropical rainforest undergrowth. </p>

 

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>Paul, you know that the Xpan and its most common lens is really a medium format lens with 24mm cover, however it looks wider because of the Panoramic aspect ratio. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I looked at some disturbingly wide angled shots recently. They were in the 3:2 ratio, but really wide (I think 12mm) in full frame digital. I would rather the film be wider, shot with a less wide lens.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>Between every focal length: 19-21-24/5-28-35-50-etc. there is a perceptible change in the imaging/pictures/perspective you get. <br /> <br /> Anyone who either frequently uses their lenses in the 0.3-2m or close to infinity cannot deny this.<br /> <br /> In certain work environments (heavy or fast-moving machinery for example) you may get your composition with a 35mm but would disturb the worker or even put your own life at risk trying to get a 'similar view' with a 28mm. (You may exchange the numbers for your field of experience.) <br /> <br /> All these focal lengths are still around because they do make sense - at least outside pnet. <br /> <br /> I still think a 24/5mm makes the most sense in your situation, Steven. <br /> <br /> Cheers, Pete</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>PCB I agree with you, I think the first Leica or compatible lens should be either a 28mm or a 35mm but not both because move your feet and change your focus and you can add or subtract the 7 degrees easily. I one day will get for my Pentax LX their beautiful 31mm lens that splits the difference. Pentax has their LTD lens line that consists of some oddball FL 31mm, 43mm and 77mm all metal very refined lenses. Oddball FL but frankly they make sense grouped together. If we go to 4 lenses then 25/35/50/85mm makes sense.</p>

<p>Tom I agree with you on the Pano wides looking better. Thom Hogan wrote a piece on his site about how he gains extra pixels using a PC lens on his Nikon and shifting 11 degrees left, taking a shot, the shifting 11 degrees all the way to the right and taking a second shot. Thom then merges the photos by stiching them. The end result he prints wide. This is one way around having too much sky and foreground and getting a rectilinear wide angle shot. I think that 2.5:1 like the Xpan is about a perfect pano aspect ratio.</p>

[ray .]

<p>Harvey, did you fail reading comprehension? Or do you just enjoy engaging in double talk? Have you used a 28 and 35 extensively enough to have any idea what you're talking about?</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Ray you have not contributed anything of substance, you are a sick guy who has nothing to say. You have pick fights with me and in person you would likely run away. Read and learn what others who answer with more than insults. I have yet to see a post of yours that reveals you know anything. Are you a pimpley punk kid you write like one.</p>

[ray .]

<p>28 and 35 are not necessarily interchangeable lenses in the way Harvey suggests. Wider lenses open up space, longer ones compress it. 28 and 35 have different looks and are different shooting experiences, plenty different enough for a photographer to have both. A street shooter with a 35 could gain from getting a 28.... or a 24/25. Either way, it's up to you steven.</p>

[c_levett]

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >re 24 and 21 FL </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Don't think anyone has mentioned the M7 only brings up the 35 Frame Lines for the 24 mm FL lens. (think that's correct, the 24 is the only FL I don't have and the only one I've never used) Until the advent of the M8, which does have dedicated frames lines for 24mm, (I think that's correct also) it was probably the reason the 24 FL was not particularly popular with M shooters.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So assuming steven's M7 is the 0.72 model it has lines for the 28 but not the 21 and 24.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you have the need to go with auxiliary finders ... then the additional view of a 21 might make the use of add-on-finders more palatable. (personally I don't mind them but some hate them)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That might influence steven's decision making?</p>

<p >I fully agree with what Ray says regarding the respective 28 and35 FLs</p>

<p >I often carry both 28 and 35 FLs ... in my book the seemingly small difference, you (Harvey) demand is so, is usually quite significant in practice.</p>

<p >Harvey ... I'm sure you have a solid technical background—but I'm not convinced by your on-forum writings, that you are overly conversant when it comes to actually working with Leica M cameras.</p>

<p > </p>

<!--EndFragment-->

 

[ian_porter1]

<p>I use Leica R, and in the wides I have a 21 and a 28 to go with my 50. The 21 and 28 seem to me to be a good pairing, but if I had a 35 as my widest lens, I think I'd look to get a 24 to complement it - to go to the 21 might be a little too much of a 'jump', although I do use my 21 a great deal.<br>

Ian</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Paul and Thomas and Ronald and Neil and Ian and others agree with me. Look at what they said above, even you don't know more than all of us do you. Others also in this thread agree with us. I learned about 35 and 28 lenses since I either have them on 3 35mm systems or Zoom lenses that cover the same FL. Either is fine but carrying around an extra lens all day when you shoot two camera bodies is not helpful. <br>

Sometimes I carry an slr and my M4p and when I do I limit myself to 3 lenses for the rf they are spaced about 20 degrees exceptance angle apart from eachother. 25/35/50 , the rest I do with my slr 24-85mm and 70-200mm and TC.</p>

[mike_smith58]

<p>The difference between a 35mm and 28mm lens is Not 7 degrees it's 12 degrees. It was quoted wrong way back there and it keeps showing up incorrectly? 12 degrees is lots! I shoot 90mm, 50mm, 28mm, 21mm and 15mm. The 28mm is my all round normal lens. The two on either side are just extras. I agree with one poster you have to find your normal eye, how you envision the shot, for me it's always been the 28mm. I see in 28mm since boyhood. just a heads up....mike</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In astro work we would used square degree sometimes;<br>

<br /> a 35mm lens on a 24x36mm frame is 38x54 degrees; say 2050 square degrees;<br>

<br /> a 28mm lens on a 24x36 frame is 46 x66 degrees; ie 3040 square degrees;<br>

<br /> all to slide rule accuracy; thus a ROUGH SWAG with a 28mm Nikkor on a Nikon F we got 3/2 more sky area than a 35mm lens on a Nikon F.<br>

<br /> Thus a "seat of the pants" back of the envelope swag was a 28mm lens is really 50 PERECENT more sky or area than a 35 mm lens.<br>

<br /> Ie if one shot a crowd with a 35mm lens and it filled a frame; one might capture 20 faces with a 35mm lens; and 30 faces with a 28mm lens.<br>

<br /> Thus for some applications a 28mm versus a 35mm lens is not a subtle thing; a massive one; a 50 percent jump.<br>

<br /> If one shoots an aerial shot straight down with a 28mm versus a 35mm lens; ones picture shows roughly 50 percent more land area in the shot.</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>Obviously only you can pick the lens, and there will be disagreement. However, just reading the posts and see which arguement strikes a cord with you.<br>

I love my 21mm for landscapes and architecture but I think it's a little too wide for a lot of street photography, because of the distortion. I've used it for street photography, but you to be a lot closer to the person and perhaps make sure that there aren't people at the edge of the frame (depending on the lens distortion).<br>

I'd go with the 25.</p>