I'm trying to complete my 3 lens kit for M10R. The 35 FLE is mounted 95% of the time. I added CV 90 f2.8 for portraits and any tele. I had a 50mm Zeiss which just wasn't my thing. I want a UWA to complete the kit. I was set on a 21mm, but then I started to look at some of my older Sony pictures with the 16-35 GM. I actually prefer the look of the 24-25mmish for everything include landscape. There is more realism to 24mm compared to 21 or wider. There is almost zero distortion. Now you run into the issue of not being wide enough, but overall 24mm seems to be more versatile. The Q system is more or less 25mm. After using Q2 for almost a year, I'm very comfortable with that 24mm-25mm range. It's great for almost everyday shooting especially in tighter spaces.
Now I'm lookin at like the older 24mm Elmarit ASPH. The 24 Elmar is f3.8. I feel it's just too slow for low light situations. I may still end up with a 21mm, but just want to see how others feel about this subject. 24mm for a lot of people is like in the no man's land.
gordec wrote:
I'm trying to complete my 3 lens kit for M10R. The 35 FLE is mounted 95% of the time. I added CV 90 f2.8 for portraits and any tele. I had a 50mm Zeiss which just wasn't my thing. I want a UWA to complete the kit. I was set on a 21mm, but then I started to look at some of my older Sony pictures with the 16-35 GM. I actually prefer the look of the 24-25mmish for everything include landscape. There is more realism to 24mm compared to 21 or wider. There is almost zero distortion. Now you run into the issue of not being wide enough, but overall 24mm seems to be more versatile. The Q system is more or less 25mm. After using Q2 for almost a year, I'm very comfortable with that 24mm-25mm range. It's great for almost everyday shooting especially in tighter spaces.
Now I'm lookin at like the older 24mm Elmarit ASPH. The 24 Elmar is f3.8. I feel it's just too slow for low light situations. I may still end up with a 21mm, but just want to see how others feel about this subject. 24mm for a lot of people is like in the no man's land. ...Show more →
I like 24mm, but if I have a 24mm or 25mm I feel the need for something like 18mm. If I have 21mm, then I don't feel the need for something wider. That is why I have the 21 SEM. That is just me, however.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I like 24mm, but if I have a 24mm or 25mm I feel the need for something like 18mm. If I have 21mm, then I don't feel the need for something wider. That is why I have the 21 SEM. That is just me, however.
I think there is always the worry that you need wider, but I think I may end up using 24mm a lot more than 21mm. It has more everyday appeal and should cover more landscape situations.
I've personally preferred 20mm/21mm over 24/25mm whenever I've used both lenses since I think everything you described about 24mm lenses, I get with a 28mm or 35mm lenses as well. I like 21mm over 24mm for the more dramatic perspective and you also have enough resolution to crop down from 21mm to 24mm.
Maybe get the Voigtlander 21mm f1.4 as a sharp relatively low cost fast 21mm prime. I went with the 21mm SEM but I don't think size matters all that much since you need a EVF or optical viewfinder anyways to see the whole picture. If you want to go 24mm, it certainly seems like there are good lenses in that category too.
I find the 21mm Super-Elmar images to incredibly good. When shot level distortion is surprisingly low. The handling is also just about perfect. The gap between 21mm and 35mm works out well for me. It has made my 28mm mostly redundant and rarely used.
That said the Fl difference between 21mm and 24mm is small, so the 24mm to 35mm gap is fine too. But with an excellent 21mm and a 61mpx M11 I can crop to 24mm when I want to and suffer no IQ penalty. I cannot go wider when I need to.
I just went through the same thing as you with my M10-R, @1bwana1@ suggested i look into the Leica 21 Super Elmar... i was hesitant based off of the f3.4 aperture but in practical use f/3.4 is perfectly fine hand held at night with the m10-r sensor. I'd suggest having a 21 in your kit. As stated above if you have a 35 and a 21 you'll probably never need to touch a 24/28
I have never felt that there was a "hole" between the 21 and 35mm focal lengths. Also, I've been happy with the Elmarit 21 ASPH and, therefore never lusted for the Super-Elmar 21.
Mitch Alland wrote:
I have never felt that there was a "hole" between the 21 and 35mm focal lengths. Also, I've been happy with the Elmarit 21 ASPH and, therefore never lusted for the Super-Elmar 21.
Lovely images
How close are you to the subjects to get frames like this at 21mm? I'm guessing around 3-4 feet?
^ Thanks. As you say, quite close in the 2nd image, and a little further away in the 3rd one. These two are "no finder shots," with the camera held at chest level — and looking directly at subject when pressing the shutter.
gordec wrote:
I think I like the 24mm perspective more. It's more true to life. I'm ok either way I think. For 21mm, there are lot more options from CV and Zeiss.
I was not happy with the VM 21mm. The Leica is hugely better in my experience.
gordec wrote:
I think I like the 24mm perspective more. It's more true to life. I'm ok either way I think. For 21mm, there are lot more options from CV and Zeiss.
Don't forget the Zeiss ZM 25 f/2.8. It is a really nice lens as well.
1bwana1 wrote:
I was not happy with the VM 21mm. The Leica is hugely better in my experience.
Which 21mm? I have the f3.5 one and i found very very good nothing to envy the leica lenses. actually that lens brought my faith back into voigtlander.
gordec wrote:
I'm trying to complete my 3 lens kit for M10R. The 35 FLE is mounted 95% of the time. I added CV 90 f2.8 for portraits and any tele. I had a 50mm Zeiss which just wasn't my thing. I want a UWA to complete the kit. I was set on a 21mm, but then I started to look at some of my older Sony pictures with the 16-35 GM. I actually prefer the look of the 24-25mmish for everything include landscape. There is more realism to 24mm compared to 21 or wider. There is almost zero distortion. Now you run into the issue of not being wide enough, but overall 24mm seems to be more versatile. The Q system is more or less 25mm. After using Q2 for almost a year, I'm very comfortable with that 24mm-25mm range. It's great for almost everyday shooting especially in tighter spaces.
Now I'm lookin at like the older 24mm Elmarit ASPH. The 24 Elmar is f3.8. I feel it's just too slow for low light situations. I may still end up with a 21mm, but just want to see how others feel about this subject. 24mm for a lot of people is like in the no man's land. ...Show more →
I have the 24mm elmarit f3.8, and yes it might seem slow, but honestly its never been an issue with the m10 which has relatively good high iso.
I found the lens to be outstanding....
I also have the 21mm skopar f3.5 from voigtlander also little great lens which brought my faith back to voigtlander, nothing to envy the leica lenses.
Between the 2 i find the 24mm closer to a standard pov, easier to use.... the 21mm already starts to feel quite wide.
I guess it depends what you want to shoot. For me the 24mm can replace a 28mm, but the 21m coudnt.
So if you want something that would work as a wide lens but also for documentary work, i would go for the 24mm if you plan to shoot mostly at 50mm and need a lens just to cover the wide view i would go for the 21mm.
Alan Schaller shoots mostly with a 24. Not that anyone should blindly follow what another shooter does but if you want to see a 24mm wielded well.....
Kit building is an art form, in itself and can take many many tries to get right. Most lens sets are built on ratios. A 24/50/100 would be a 100% ratio. A 28/50/90 is around 80%. That's really what you're trying to work out. What compliments your preferred 35mm the most. Remember that if you double the focal length, you double the size of the subject in the frame and halve the apparent DoF.. I like a 28/50/90 (about 75%) on an M and a 28/55/90 on my Hasselblad (I'd really like a 110 f2.5 but this is close), which is both wider than what I shoot on an M. Generally, if I go wider I'll add an 18 or 21mm (or a WATE most likely) rather than switch to a 24mm on my M's. My Elmarit 24 doesn't get a lot of use. I'm keeping it though.
24 has the advantage that for non glasses wearers you can kind of get away with out an auxiliary viewfinder. It's basically the whole RF frame. And it sounds like you're happy with that FL. See if you can find an Emarit, used. Great lens. small. Still repairable.
I also have a feeling if you do go for a 24 with your 30, you'll swap out the 90 for a 75 eventually. 35 to 90 is a big jump.
Fred tested the Q lens and found that with corrections it's a 26.7mm. So wider than 28 but not a 25.
