Re: [Leica] Re: Which third lens? 24 or 50

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Bob (and Fernando)

I must second the enthusiastic comment regarding the 21mm Asph. I was at
first frightened by the idea of dealing with a second viewfinder. In
reality, it does simplify life by giving an extremely easy (and large)
way of composing the image. I never had any parallax or framing problems
with it, even with quick 'n dirty shooting. The 21mm allows very easy
pre-focusing because of its gigantic depth of field. So at the end of
the day, one only has to check the exposure once in a while in
viewfinder nr 1. That is all. It would be even easier to use if the M
provided aperture priority automation of course.

The resulting images are extremely 'lively' (focused action all over the
frame), sharp (of course) and totally immune to flare or distortion.
This is the lens that makes me believe some of the rap regarding the
'superiority' of Leica designs: compared to the 20mm Nikkor I used
previously, there is a real, obvious, quality leap in the final images.

It is a pleasure to use, a fun way of including people in the forefront
of the image without anyone noticing, an easy way of making a boring
subject look unique and spectacular. All in all, maybe the most useful
lens in my M setup....

Alan


RBedw51767@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Fernando:
> 
> Please don't overlook the wonderful 21mm Aspheric.  I haven't decided which is
> my favorite lense, the 21 or the Noctilux.  The 21 is extremely easy to use
> because of the viewfinder and it's clarity.  The only negative part of the
> viewfinder is that you need to go back to the M6 viewfinder to check meter
> readings.  There are no rangefinder images to align.  The depth  of field is
> so deep that focusing accuracy is not an issue.  You can take marvelous
> pictures in the tightest of places and the sharpness is right there with the
> 35/1.4 Asph.  Needless to say, I love it.