24 mm or 28 mm ?

[bjarke_vejby]

I have a 21 mm elmarit and a 35 mm lux. I'm very happy with the 35 mm,

nearly always knows the output, but some times i nead a more wide lens. The

21 mm is a nice lens, but to extreme to my taste. Now, i want to sell the 21 mm

and buy either a 24mm or a 28 mm. I dislike the extreme wide-look. Is the 24

mm extreme ? Is the difference between the 35 mm and the 28 mm

significant ?

[geddert]

the difference between 35 and 28 is significant... and then again, so is the difference between a 28 and a 24. are you happy with using an external viewfinder on your 21? if so the 24 is a fantastic lens, its the best wide angle i have ever used, and i wouldn't define it as "extreme" though everybody views these things differently. It has been reported that the 28/2 is an even better lens - though i haven't used it. I personally HATE the external viewfinder and sold my 24 because of it. thus my vote would be for a 28cron - which as a bonus gives you an extra stop. If you don't mind the external viewfinder you can't go wrong either way.

[xavier_dalfort]

On a M serie, I would vote for a 28mm.

 

Using a 24mm on a R serie, I like to play with the perspective.

 

As you, in the past though a 21 is extreme. I had for some days a 20mm Pentax SMC on a P30 and although it was fantastic, it was difficult to use, too much distorsion.

 

If you don't like extreme, keep the 35mm and forget anything below. JMHO...

 

Cheers

[Rob F.]

What Matthew said. Also: the 28mm is not an extreme lens. It's best thought of as the threshold, or crossing-over point, between mild and extreme. I might point out that a 28mm is numerically already halfway between a 21 and a 35. I like using it with both the M and R. In fact, I have at least one 28 for every 35mm system I have. I also get a lot of use out of a 24, though I only have one for my Nikon system. (The 24R is no better than the 24mm Nikkor, so I can't see the expense.) Like you, I find myself not using my 21 much. I seem not to like to bother with the external finder. I think I'd have the same reaction to the 24 on the M. I understand the 21 and 24 finders are optically the same, so I guess the 24 finder would have curvilinear distortion, like the 21 finder has.

[todd_phillips1]

First off, I love my 21.....(pre-asph). But it's not right for everyone. I don't want to upset Matthew, but the difference between a 35mm lens and a 28mm lens is NOT that great...just one big step backward to reach 28mm (and I'm quoting Bill Pekala of Nikon Professional Services from a lecture to the Professional Photographers of America).

 

My own feeling is that 35 and 28 are too close. A difference, yes, but (as said) not that much. I would opt for the 24. I have never used it, but it is supposed to be one of the blue chip Leica lenses.

It will not have the "extreme" angle of the 21 and the negs/slides should be razor sharp! IF I ever replace my 21, it will be with this 24! And I have a 35 (4th version) that lives on my camera!

[dford]

Bjarke - the only thing extreme about the Leica Elmarit-M 1:2.8/24 Asph is the image quality. There is little to no distortion as with the 21mm. I too have a 35mm and sold a 28mm Elmarit because it was too close in perspective to the 35mm. I wanted something wider without the lens distortion of a super-wide. The 24mm ASPH is as wide as you can go on the M before the lens effects become the predominant feature in your pictures. I use mine on either an M2 or M3 with the external finder. After prolonged use with the external finder, I dread using the camera viewfinder because the external finder is so much clearer.

[ralph_barker]

I went through a similar "inner struggle" a year or so ago, Bjarke. I ended up with the 24mm Elmarit-M, notwithstanding the inconvenience of the external viewfinder, partly because I didn't feel that the 28mm was sufficiently wider than 35mm to justify it. I've been very pleased with the natural, undistorted, non-wide-angle look the 24mm provides.

 

You can see a number of examples with that lens on my Leica-Gallery page at http://www.leica-gallery.net/rbarkerphoto/folder-2463.html

[henry_ting2]

IMO, Leica provides a gallery of lens for the M is a bit of an overkill.

First of all, to be familiar with all the lens, one have to use it fairly substantially enough to develop an "eye" for all the different lens size. Bare in mind, the M viewfinder is not a "wysiwyg" from a perspective point of view. Secondly, in owning the different spectrum of all the lens, you almost always have to have dedicated viewfinders to cover the entire range. To a point, it becomes a burden on the "M"'s photography doctrine of "capturing the essence of the moment". Sure you can change viewfinders, lens etc for the individual moment, but being able to have a mental picture of what lens does what takes a lifetime dedication (in having an eye for the lens' perspective), and then being able to be armed and ready with the right combo, is a daunting task. I can't do it and if someone claim to be able to do that on the fly, more power to them.

 

When I started on the M system (some 25 years ago), armed with just one lens (50mm) I was able to capture quite extraordinary pictures. Now that I'm semi-retired and in the interest travelling around the world in pursuit of my love in photography, I started acquiring just about every M lens in existence.....but now I found out my pictures does not improve at all. In fact, owning the assorted amount of lens and bodies have a direct detrimental adverse effect in trying to get good pictures. All IMHO of course :):)

[george_b1]

I believe Henry is correct. I have used the 50mm for 58 years, and a 50mm Summicron is my preferred lens. However, there clearly are times when you need a truly wide angle lens (indoors, cathedrals, museums, crowded and narrow steets, etc.) and, for us, the 24mm Elmarit ASPH is ideal. Yes, you need an auxiliary viewfinder - - but, IMHO, the results will be more than worth it. The 24 is an awesome lens.

[jason_b.]

I've struggled with the issue also. I am currently using a 24/2.8M and I do not

find it's wide angle distortion to be too nasty, even for people (both sigle and

group shots). I have used the 21mm, and this lens did bother me. One thing to

consider with the 28mm is your height. I'm 6'4", and pointing the camera down

while photographing inside causes the corners of picture frames, doors, and

windows to get pointy. And because the 28mm isn't really that wide, it looks

weird. The 24mm just looks wide angle, and somehow is acceptabe in its

wideness.

 

I know the above sounds strange, but It's what I've found. Also, a

photographer I know who is a master of the 28mm (and quite tall too) has this

to say: "When using the 28, don't move closer like you do with the 35. Stand

where you would stand for a 50mm. See the perspective of a 50, and just

compose a wider field of view." Nuf said.

[kristian dowling]

Well I have a 35mm and was intrigued by the 24mm focal length, but didn't want to use the external finder. Therefor I purchased the Summicron 28 ASPH and changed my body to a 0.58 TTL model.

 

I know people say the 24mm doesn't distort much, but put people in the corners or edges of the frame and see what happens- even worse, tilt the lens up or down. The 28mm controls tilting and perspective distortion much better, and is noticeably different to the 35mm focal length. By the way, Trent Parke (Magnum) is soley using ony a 28mm lens on his M6 now- see http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf.aspx?E=29YL53ZOJKY8

 

Good luck with your decision.

[cameron_sawyer]

Try them both before you buy, or buy them both and sell the one you wind up not liking.

 

The 28 has the great advantage of built-in framelines in later M's. External finders add bulk and they're another piece of gear to carry.

 

The 28's angle of view is 65 degrees horizontally compared to 54 degrees for the 35. The 24 covers 74 degrees. So you might find that the 28 is too close to your 35 to be worth changing lenses.

 

I find the 28 to be almost a normal lens for my use, and I use mine a lot. I have the CV 28/3.5 which is extremely compact and so is perfect for daytime travel photography.

 

The 24 is already a lot wider, and gives a noticeable wide angle effect. I use mine very little, because when I want a really wide shot I usually use a 15.

 

 

The CV 28/3.5 is is a really great lens, by the way, both optically and mechanically, I recommend you check it out.

[michael_kastner]

This has got to be one of the oldest questions of all time here, and I don't hold it against you. It's similar to comparisons 50 vs 35, 35 vs 28, especially 24 vs 21 bla bla. The only real thing you can really do -- and SHOULD do for that money -- is try out both and see which one you'll end up using most. Don't forget the old saying (in your case): some say "24 is too dramatic", others say "28 isn't dramatic enough".

[bjarke_vejby]

Thanks guys.

 

After reading all your good advices i made up my mind and - in my

lunchbreak - bought a nice used 24 mm ASPH at the local Leica-dealer.

 

My decision was based on the following:

 

1) The gap between the 28 and the 35 is to small (in my opinion).

 

2) I choose to believe, which is the opinion of the majority of the members,

that the 24 mm is not extreme.

 

3) Actually, i like the finder for wideangle shots, very clear, and mostly the

DOF will solve the problem with focusing.

 

4) If - and that is what everybody says - the 24 lens is outstanding even wide

open.

 

5) Of course one allways needs the exstra stop, but if so i'll grap the Lux

anyhow.

 

5) Some of you said, try both. I agree, but the dealer offers 3 month return right

on used gear.

 

BTW, the shop offered a sh..price for the 21 Elmarit pre ASPH plus the 21

finder, UV and Hood, so this lens stays in the bag until someone in this forum

should want to make an offer ? Thanks again.

[michael_kastner]

I don't get it:

<br><i>... but if so i'll grap the Lux anyhow</i>

<br>There are no Leica M-Luxes lower than the 35 mm.

[bjarke_vejby]

Michael. If i need a night shot without flash, none of the two lenses will do

anyhow, and then i'll have to "grab the (35) lux" instead.

[michael_kastner]

Okay, atsa fine. I thought you were talking about the 24 or 28 ;-)

[gregory_bell4]

Hello Bjarke

 

Someone told me once " there's a 24 inside every 21, and a 24 inside every 28......as long as you are prepared to crop a little bit ". From a purely focal length point of view this is true, but does not consider other differences between the lenses such as resolution, speed, etc......or the other issues involved with cropping. However, you can't ever make a 21 out of a 24, but the reverse is true. This may or may not be useful to you depending on the type of photography you pursue.

 

Angles of view can be deceptive, and are not something my mind relates to easily as a photographer. I ended up choosing lenses on the basis of how much the frame encompassed with each lens ( along its width )rather than angle of view. By using a protractor I drew out the angles of view for each lens from a single point on a piece of paper and used it to work out how much width of a surface, such as a flat wall, would be included for each lens at a set distance. So at a distance of, say 4 metres, the 21 covered x metres of the wall, the 24 covered y metres, etc. This allowed me to see more clearly what the differences of each focal lenght is in practice, and how close the 28 is to the 35, relative to the 24 vs the 28, etc....based on how much you really get onto the film when photographing a scene.

 

I ended up with 21, 35, 50, 90, 135 lenses. YMMV.

 

Best of luck with your choice.

[gregory_bell4]

Sorry, the above should read.........." There's a 24 inside every 21, and a 28 inside every 24..........". My apologies.

[michael_bender]

It's more practical to use your own body parts to estimate the size of the image. For example, 40-42mm is my forearm from elbow to the wrist, when extended forward as if I am looking at a wrist watch (with the hand excluded);<br>

21mm is the full view of one eye (the second is closed), if you do not roll it.<br>

That is the most practical way to estimate the result before you raise the camera to the eye - you do it for a fraction of a second to register, timing it with the right moment and after the composition has been created in your head. It is not possible to photograph otherwise among people - you'd make everyone stare and pay attention to you, if you started to change exposure, then focus, then move a bit looking through the viewfinder etc.etc. making everyone around duck for cover.

[bjarke_vejby]

Gregory

 

" there's a 24 inside every 21, and a 24 inside every 28......as long as you are

prepared to crop a little bit "

 

Look at this pict from White Lion Pub in London, it's cropped from 21 to

approx. 24 mm. I dont like it. I'm quite sure that the distorsion would be non-

existing with a 24 mm or a 28 mm. But a 28 mm could not take this specific

pict. in the narrow street.

[henry_ting2]

By the way, Trent Parke (Magnum) is soley using ony a 28mm lens on his M6 now- see http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf.aspx?E=29YL53ZOJKY8

 

Christian, thanks for showing us examples of being able to "see with a lens". I just don't think anyone can master all the focal length sizes if one is to swap lens on a regular basis.