RE: [Leica] which wide angle lens?

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	B. D. Colen [SMTP:bdcolen@earthlink.net]
> Sent:	Friday, November 13, 1998 11:09 AM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	RE: [Leica] which wide ange lens?
> 
> 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....
	[Buzz]  
	Greetings, B.D.--

		You are right about the close focus matter.  However, what I
very often do is use the smallest aperture that I can on the 21 and trust in
the DOF.  More often than not, I do get the effect I want, even if the
framing is a tad haphazard.  The bigger problem I have with the 21 on an M
is exposure.  I find that I can't at all trust the camera's reading since I
can never guess the area covered by the reflective spot with the 21,
especially when shooting fast.  So, more often than not, I estimate the
exposure.  With a film like XP-2 or Tri-X, more often than not I guess well
within the film's latitude for the area I want to be 16%.  I never had the
patience to master the Zone System.

			Buzz