Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] which wide angle lens?
From: Jeffrey Hausner <>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:52:30 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	B. D. Colen []
> Sent:	Friday, November 13, 1998 11:09 AM
> To:
> Subject:	RE: [Leica] which wide ange lens?
> 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....
	Greetings, B.D.--

		You are right about the close focus matter.  However, what I
very often do is use the smallest aperture that I can on the 21 and trust in
the DOF.  More often than not, I do get the effect I want, even if the
framing is a tad haphazard.  The bigger problem I have with the 21 on an M
is exposure.  I find that I can't at all trust the camera's reading since I
can never guess the area covered by the reflective spot with the 21,
especially when shooting fast.  So, more often than not, I estimate the
exposure.  With a film like XP-2 or Tri-X, more often than not I guess well
within the film's latitude for the area I want to be 16%.  I never had the
patience to master the Zone System.