Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/08

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] 21 and 24 M [was: Hello. Sorry long]
From: "Sam Krneta" <skrneta@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:16:53 -0600

Such a complicated hobby, isn't it? But then I need..........

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Guy
Bennett
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:50 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] 21 and 24 M [was: Hello. Sorry long]



I'll weigh in briefly on this one...

I was using a Nikon before getting a Leica and had a 20/2:8, which was a
fantastic lens. When I bought an M6 and shelved my Nikon gear, the
question
of a wide angle lens came up. After just a bit of hemming and hawing, I
went with the 24. My reasons: I had already worked with a 20 and loved
it,
but felt it was just a bit too wide most of the time. The 24 had the
advantage of being wide (the 28 view to my eye looks almost normal), but
without the exageration of the 21. At any rate, the 24 is a great lens.
Tack sharp and with little distorsion. A joy to use. Produces great
images.

That said, I'm wondering if I should have went with the 21. Reasons: I
guess I do like the exagerated look of the wider angle after all! I'm
not
in any way dissatisfied with the 24, but occasionally miss the special
quality of the 20/21 focal length. If I had to do it all over again, I
think I might go with the 21...

Guy

P.S. And no, I can't justify having both!



>Alistair - Can't tell you about the 24, but the 21 ASPH is nothing
short
>of amazing, in terms of lack of flare, edge to edge sharpness, AND, for
>a 21, comparative lack of distortion. I originally had the 21 pre-ASPH,
>and while it is a nice lens, the additional investment is well worth it
>- the improvements are apparent to the 'nekid' eye. I also use a Sigma
>20 1.9 ASPH on my F100...It has two definite advantages under certain
>circumstances - it focuses down to 8 inches - from the film plane. And
>it is a full stop faster than the M lens. On the other hand, there is
no
>question the M lens produces less distortion than the Sigma, and then
>there are the other obvious advantages of the M...
>
>B. D.
>
>Alastair Firkin wrote:
>>
>> And finally a question. Can I get a little feed back on the 24
Elmarit
>> ASPH and the 21 Elmarit ASPH? Likes and dislikes are welcomed.
>>
>> Thanks and sorry about the length of the post.
>> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>>
>> Sam,
>>
>> I have the 21 and if you can only have one, go WIDE. It is a great
>> lens, though I know others like and swear by the 24 (and I like mine
>> on the R) the 21 is a magical lens -- some say harder to use, but I
>> find all lenes "hard". The wider 21 opens up opportunities, so I say
>> to myself "hard is challenge".
>>
>> Cheers
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html