Re: [Leica] 21 or 24 mm M lens: advice sought

[Andre Jean Quintal <megamax@abacom.com>]

At 14:30 +0000 31/01/99, Christer Almqvist wrote:
>I am getting myself a 21 or a 24 mm lens for my M6 and would like to hear
>what you folks think is the "better" one for me.
[ . . . ]

	If you consider the situation from a strictly
photographic and "imaging" way, which focal seems more useful?

	If you are not in wild architecture photography nor
have an "extreme" photo style, it would seem to me the
24 mm focal would be on the camera much more often.
Yet the exceptional properties of super-wide lenses
of a 21mm could get you a winning shot you'll forever
be proud of.

	I don't really understand why you would resist
an "ASPH" lens, which sort of comes through from your statements;
nor deny yourself the stratospheric levels of performance of
the current generation of LEICA optics, of which many "ASPH".
There may well be new, outstanding, non-ASPH LEICA optics designs
that outperform the ASPH and exotic glass formulae, at a later point.

	Mr Puts' comments about the 24mm ASPH
and that focal length proper make me vote for it,
regardless of price (comparable with a 21mm) or brand,
just for its general usefulness. To me, if I may, focals
below 24mm sort of fall in a fringe zone where a lot of
creativity may emerge, great masterpieces even,  but I tend
to think it rather expensive a lens if not used quite often.
Perhaps owning one would alter my view; even then,
I'd tend to go SLR at such hyper wide focals.

	My vote: the LEICA 24mm ASPH for
		its inherent technical excellence,
		its sure-fire creative tool potential.

	A 21mm would come at a later stage, con$idering the price.

	Andre Jean Quintal







- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   "Only when it's dark enough
    can you see the stars."

	Martin Luther King jr