[Leica] Re:

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

hello b.d. and norm,

thought i'd put in my 2 cents worth on the subject of 21 vs 24...

i bought my m6 with the 50/f:2 and later got the 35/f:2 asph, both of which
are fantastic, imho. as i tend to favor the shorter focal lengths, the
'next lens' was going to be either the 21 or the 24; i wound up choosing
the 24. i'd heard what a great lens the 21 was, but felt it might be a bit
too wide for me, and as i had used a 20 with my nikon, i felt i knew more
or less what i would be getting into if i got the 21. in fact, my 'next
[nikon] lens' was to be a 24, but at that point decided i had too much
money :), so bought a leica instead...

i now shoot with the 24/35/50 combo, and am very happy with it. this past
summer, i toted an m6 with those lenses (all chrome) all over paris and
amsterdam, hauling them around every day in a domke camera satchel. (btw, i
never once felt nervous about having my equipment with me, nor was i ever
robbed, followed, etc., or worried that i would be...) i found that i used
the 35 and 50 most (and pretty much in that order, as most of what i was
doing was 'street shooting'); the 24 saw less action but was superb when
used: contrast is high, distortion minimal (but still present, so you've
got to be careful), and vignetting - even when shooting wide open with a
filter and hood - is negligible.

i'm not sure why, but leica wide angles seem a little 'wider' to me than
the nikon lenses of the same focal length. i had no problem adapting to the
width of the 35 or 28 when using a nikon, but with the leica 35, i really
had to work at it - it seemed wider than it was. i don't know if it is the
effect of seeing outside the bright line frame in the viewfinder, or that
of having a second, smaller frame also visible (which makes that first
frame seem pretty wide), or what, but i feel i get a lot more in the image
than i do with the nikon 35, for example. it goes without saying that the
24 seems *really* wide to me, wider than my nikon 20. i've had it only a
couple of months, and haven't mastered it yet. i'm finding that i really
have to work at it to get the best from that lens.

b.d., should you opt for the 24, i would recommend getting the finder,
unless you're someone who doesn't care a fig about framing the image. it's
true that, at more than $200, the plastic finder will not put a smile on
your face, but i think it would be really difficult to shoot without it.

to come back to your original question, i would get the 24 and the 75,
since the 21 and 24 are too close together for my likings, and i would get
the extra 2 stops with the 75.

good luck with whatever you choose and keep us posted on the acquisition!

guy


>I've been using a (latest) 28/50/90 combo for a while, switched to the
>24/50/90 trio; and love it.
>I NEED the 35 now though, since the jump from 50 to 24 is too much
>sometimes (Don't you
>Just love that rationalization?!).
>
>I use the 24/50 most of the time, rarely the 90, but when I need it, it's
>the best thing in the world
>for what it does!  Could live with the 24/35/50 for 90 percent of the work
>I do, but won't sell that
>90/f:2.8 for love or money, now that I have it and its paid for!
>
>Norm


>I hate question like this, but I'll pose it anyway:
>
>Suppose you already had a 35 1.4 and a 90 f.2...You could add either a 21
>ASPH and a 24ASPH....a 21 ASPH, or a 24ASPH, AND a 75 Summilux. You shoot
><SNIP>
>extra stop, and settle on one super wide?...Help Me Before The Insurance
>Check Comes!
>
>B. D.