Re: [Leica] 21mm or 24mm?

["James Scott" <SCOTTJJ@sverdrup.com>]

I purchased the 21mmASPH when I first purchased my M6 about 18 months ago. I purchased the 21 because I had previously used a 20mm Nikkor with great success. The 21mm lens is absolutely outstanding! The lens is convenient to carry and produces a result that appears three dimensional. It is a wonderful lens to use for architecture and landscape. It took me a brief while to get used to the separate viewfinder.
I also have the 20-35mm Nikkor zoom. Unfortunately, the Leica 21mm has spoiled me so much that I'm always a little disappointed with the zoom's results.
I know that Galen Rowell and John Shaw speak highly of the 24mm lens length. For me, I couldn't do without my 21mm.

>>> Austin Burbridge <LIGHTandPOWER@ibm.net> 04/23 12:38 AM >>>
I would appreciate advice and opinions about this happy dilemma.

I want to get one of the very wide-angle lenses -- the 24mm ASPH or the
21mm ASPH -- for my M6. Although I've read Erwin Puts articles and looked
at the scanty materials on the Leica site, I'm having trouble working out
which would be better. (I used to have a Canon F1 and a 20mm and I liked
the compositions, although the quality and speed of the lens left much to
be desired. I like the emphasis and the context whic a very wide angle of
view gives. I've also used a 28mm lens, which was not wide enough for the
look and feel I enjoyed with the 20.)

My first inclination would be -- all other things being equal --  that
'wider is better'.

But are all other things equal? Is the linear distortion of one
significantly less than that of the other? Vignetting? Other qualities?

And, is wider indeed better? What would be the thing you prefer about the
look of a 24mm composition, as opposed to one formed with a 21mm lens?

And, among those of you who have already made such a choice, between the
24mm and the 21mm, what were your considerations?

AUSTiN.