RE: [Leica] which wide ange lens?

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

For what ever it's worth:

While I use a 50 mm on ocassion, I find that my 35 is my "standard" lens,
allowing me to either get closer and include more in the frame, or back off
and get more in. I also like the perspective it offers.

I owned the 21 pre-ASPH for a while (traded it on the 35 summilux ASPH).
There are times when a 21 is great to have - perhaps even indispensible. But
if you aren't doing a lot of shooting in tight settings, I found it to be a
luxury.

A 24, on the other hand, is a terrific wide angle which I used alot when I
had the Nikon  version on my F3 - It's much more radical than the 35, but a
more realistic view than the 21. If I could afford it, I'd grab one for my
M.

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....