Which wide angle lens to buy 24 or 28mm

G

Guest

A real wide-angle lens is missing in my portfolio, 35mm is the smallest lens I have. Nevertheless I sometimes would like to get more on the picture. As I own a .85 M6, I have to buy a viewfinder even if I decide to go for a 28mm. Now I wonder what is the best combination? Which lens and viewfinder to go for?
Thanks for suggestions!
 
G

Guest

While I own and love my 21 f2.8, of late I have been looking at a 15mm CV lens. Quality may not be up to Leica standards, but then the price isn't that high either.

For what I shot, the 21 has served me well, but the 15 just seems like more fun. May just be a fade I am going through.

I do not think that the 28 or 24 (I have owned 20, 24, 28, and 35 in the Nikon system) and found that the 28 did not give me enough difference to make it worth carrying too often. The 24 was OK, but 35 to 20 was a meaningful difference.

A lot depends upon what you shoot, how you see things and how deep your pocket book is.

You might think about a 21 and then a 12mm (again from CV). Explore, experiment, for me, it is one of the fun things about photography.

Good luck and keep us informed of what you do and how you make out.

B2
 
G

Guest

If you already have a 35 then I wouldn't get a 28 (unless you know you'll soon buy everything). But I would get a 21 or a 24 from Leica. The choice IMO deals less with angles, distances and persectives themselves, but more with exactly what you want to shoot here and how often. For ex&le if I shoot only architecture, then I'd get a 21; if only landscapes, then 24. Of course, you can play around here! You have to try them both out first. My favourite saying here is that 21-lovers say that 24 isn't dramatic enough, while 24-lovers say that 21 is toooo dramatic.
 
G

Guest

I added the 24 to my 35, taking the view that 28 was just too close and I wouldn't want both. And it's a great lens!

I agree with Michael's comments; I'd just add that the 24mm finder can double up for the 21mm by using the outer limits of the finder and ignoring the bright lines. I think I've read somewhere that they are the same finder optically anyway and that one has framelines and the other doesn't. In other words, whether you get the 24 or 21 lens, get the 24mm finder!
 
G

Guest

Hi Himitsu,
I agree with the previous messages. I own both the "21" and the "24" and find the "21" best only for interiors and the only using the attached level on the viewfinder. The "24" is MUCH more versatile. Even when tilted, the perspective is marginally distorted. In crowded places, the "24" works wonders. If I no longer did interiors, I would unload the "21" in a heartbeat.
 
G

Guest

I'd go for a 24. The 28 isn't much wider than a 35, and the 21 is a specialty lens that few people either need or master. Years ago I had a 25mm East German Zeiss Jena Flektagon on a Pentax and got some great photos with it. I unloaded it when my last Pentax body died from old age. Now I wished I'd kept it, using it as a scale focus on my Leicas with the available adapter and a Voigtlander finder. On the other hand I'm not sure that I'd go for the price of the Leica glass as the lens really wouldn't see much use and the Voigtlander seems to be highly rated.
 
G

Guest

Thanks for all your tips. I decided to go for a 24mm and can tell you it is lots of fun. Even though I am struggling quite a bit to get used to a new perspective I already like the feeling of closeness. Once I got some reasonable results, I will share them with you.
 
G

Guest

Himitsu, I just got a 24 also. I would be interested in seeing how you use the lens in future. If you can, post some shots in the Gallery of this forum. I'll try to do the same.
 

jaber

Member
Not much word on the 24 2.8 ASPH. Puts describes it as a quantum leap forward from the R and Nikons' (which I have). He also says its phenominal and unbeatable in 24's. Yet again, he says no M user should be without it. Anyone have experience with it? How does it compare to Nikons'?
 
D

davidchong

Recently bought a 24 ASPH-M; awaiting results from 1st four rolls- let you know shortly; but not in a position to compare against Nikkors. Cheers, David
 

jaber

Member
Not much word on the 24 2.8 ASPH. Puts describes it as a quantum leap forward from the R and Nikons' (which I have). He also says its phenominal and unbeatable in 24's. Yet again, he says no M user should be without it. Anyone have experience with it? How does it compare to Nikons'?
 
L

leica_cl_m

Yes, the 24 ASPH - I gave my nice 21 classic away for that... The 24 is very contrasty - 2 weeks ago it reproduced strong light at Milano / Italy - "stronger" than i remembered, but it is fine.
It has the "good" tradition of the pre-asph lenses ("glow", "bokey"), but it acts neutral from open to about 8 or 11. It is very modern "open", but i like this lens.
Giselher
 
Top