Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]For what ever it's worth: While I use a 50 mm on ocassion, I find that my 35 is my "standard" lens, allowing me to either get closer and include more in the frame, or back off and get more in. I also like the perspective it offers. I owned the 21 pre-ASPH for a while (traded it on the 35 summilux ASPH). There are times when a 21 is great to have - perhaps even indispensible. But if you aren't doing a lot of shooting in tight settings, I found it to be a luxury. A 24, on the other hand, is a terrific wide angle which I used alot when I had the Nikon version on my F3 - It's much more radical than the 35, but a more realistic view than the 21. If I could afford it, I'd grab one for my M. However, and I throw this out for discussion, I find that while the wider lenses are easier to focus on the rangefinder than on a non-autofocus reflex, they have one very distinct disadvantage - and that's their inability to focus close. With a 24 or 20 on a reflex, you can usually focus down to about 13", which means you can really fill the frame with a subject - sorry to sound like a one-man-band, but take a look at what Gene Richards does with the Olympus 20 f2....Because the M lenses only focus down to about 28", there's less ability to do those "in your face" kind of shots....