In light of the responses to Damond's Question, "Which wide-angle for landscapes?", I am a little befuddled. I had made up my mind that my next lens would be the 21, although I really don't know why. Respondents to questions will often ask the questioner as to what purpose he/she will use a particular lens. For those of us who are new to photography in general, and Leica photography in particular, we may not know why we have chosen a particular lens, especially those at the far ends of the objective spectrum. Maybe some of us just assume that all "bonafide" Leica photographers should have at least two bodies and a bevy of lenses that will cover every conceivable situation, and the quicker we get those articles tucked away in our equipment bags the faster we will proceed toward photographic legitimacy. Perhaps our questions, especially those pertaining to lens selection, could be more adequately and accurately answered if we, the questioners, do not assume that the Leica M system is all things for all situations. We know that it is not. Having said this, I think I would be better served (economically and otherwise) if my questions about future lens considerations are phrased something like this: "Why would I ever need a 21mm lens?" And that, my erudite colleagues, is a question I need some help with. Thanks again.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), August 14, 2001

Answers

You would need a 21mm (or wider) lens if....you're trying to get as much of a room as possible in the shot, and your back is already against the opposite wall....you're trying to photograph storefronts head-on in a narrow street, and again your back is against the opposite wall....you want to shoot a group of wildflowers 6ft away with an expanse of snow-capped mountain range in the distance, and everything needs to be sharp....you want to photograph a classic E- type Jag at 3/4-view from low down near the front bumper, get the whole car sharp, and play up the swooping lines....you want to depict your nosey brother-in-law like the late Jim "Ernest" Varney....you want to photograph an interesting dish at a restaurant on vacation with as much of the background ambiance as possible....the list is ends with your imagination. You won't really know why you need a 21mm lens until you've shot film with it. Good thing about Leica lenses, if it doesn't suit you, someone will buy it at a reasonable price.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 14, 2001.

Thanks, Jay. An illustrative answer that hits the mark. Max

-- (mtwall@earthlink.net), August 14, 2001.

There will be lots of different responses to this one! To me, the 21mm is the choice for getting in the middle of things--a short subject distance. People activities in a small space; a cluster of rocks or trees close to the hiking trail, etc. It also begs/demands big enlargements to recreate the perspective of the photographer from a normal print viewing distance. For pure wide angle of view, I much prefer a panoramic camera or panoramic technique with normal lenses.

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), August 14, 2001.

Max,

If you are asking the question, maybe you don't need one. I think you should be able to articulate the problem you are solving by buying another lens, otherwise be prepared to spend a lot of time selling used gear that you thought you HAD to have. Even something along the lines of, "to play around with perspective" is valid. But just because Johnny has one might not be a real reason.

One could live quite well with a single Camera and a lens or two. I myself started 30 plus years ago with a mechanical SLR, and a 35, 50 and 135. Many thousands of Dollars later, I have two closets full of literally dozens of cameras and 50 plus lenses, and I probably sold off half again that amount. Today on a typical photographic outing, I will have either a 35, 50 and 90 for my Leica M6, or a 24, 35 and 105 for my Nikon F3. It was easy for me to be swayed by all of the rhetoric about why I "need" a lens, but in the end I am happy and productive with set ups that are surprisingly close to what I started with. I would love to have back the money spent trying to buy talent and skill by acquiring more gear. The money would have been better spent on film and travel.

Just use your camera with what you have and soon you will know what you need. If you are constantly being pressed into the wall trying to get everything in, or finding your normal subjects are not filling the frame, then the next lens in your arsenal will be known to you. The answer is that you may never need a 21mm lens, while others use this daily. Only you will know what you need. Some people have been only using a 50mm lens for many years and can run rings around the guy with a bag-o-glass.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 14, 2001.

This is a good question, because I have also sometimes "collect focal lengths" when putting together a system, and often ended up with a few lenses I really have no need for.

Some examples of using a 21mm lens successfully:

A tall photo journalist I knew used to get in tight in the crowd of what he was covering, hold his camera up as high as he could and just aim it in the general direction using a superwide angle lens that was scale focused. He often had to crop to get the image he wanted, but he would get something printable this way most of the time.

There is the obvious interior shots, where a 35 or even 28 isn't going to do much good most of the time unless you have developed the ability to shoot through walls.

The "down in a spectacular canyon" shots I mentioned in a previous thread, like Yosemite valley, where I captured the river with large rocks in the foreground, a meadow and trees in the middle area, and all of one of the massive outcroppings like Cathedral Rock in the backround-all in sharp focus. The other shots I took that day with a slight wide and normal lens were nice but nowhere as powerful as the ones with the superwide. All the big enlargements I chose were from negatives taken with a lens that had an angle of view the same as 21mm in 35mm format.

My experience is that the wider you go,(especially with landscapes) the more difficult it is to get good results with a lens. Backround clutter, boring foregrounds, foreshortened main subjects, tilted horizons, etc are all obstacles to overcome when you start capturing 90 degrees or more of a scene.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 14, 2001.

Max:

I have to agree with all of the excellent advice you have received above. While Jay's answer is the most direct one to your question, the others allude to the fact that YOU need to decide which lenses you will NEED to solve a particular photographic problem. Unfortunately, you have posed a question that is not easy for anybody else to answer but you. As I recall from earlier threads, you are planning a trip for next spring and are in the process of "assembling" your ultimate travel outfit. I also recall that you already have a 35, 50 and 90 and were looking for something a bit wider. Might I suggest you step out with your camera and your 35mm lens and about two or three rolls of film. Shoot any and every wide view in sight, making the best use of the "wide-ness" available with your 35 lens. Shoot in an area with which you are familiar. Use the preview lever on your M to get an idea of how the 28 would render the scene; for an idea about the 24 press your eye all the way against the eyepiece and use the edges of the vf frame. Use color print film so you can take it to your local 1 hour lab for processing and get them back while the shots are still fresh in your mind. Finally, look 'em all over. You should find you are a bit more familiar with the limitations the 35 imparts to your style when you are going wide; or you might surprise yourself and find it doesn't really limit you at all... But at least you'll have a better idea of why YOU need a 21 - or a 24 or whatever!

And, for whatever it's worth, I went ahead and got a 21 asph to test against the 21 pre-asph and the 24; so in a few days I should be able to post those results.

Untill then,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 14, 2001.

Al: I don't hold to the philosophy that if one raises the question (re: the 21mm) then one probably doesn't need it. I may not "need" it, but how do I know that I might not like to have it for what it can yield, unless I am knowledgeable of the characteristics of the lens and its application? That's the reason for my question. Too many publications, including those by Leica, assume that the inquiring person/purchaser has a more advanced level of knowledge and experience than they often do, and perhaps they are justified in their aumption. However, that doesn't change the facts, and that is why this forum is so valuable. One can raise questions without feeling embarrassed, or intimidated. I certainly appreciate those who get to the heart of the matter with a minimum of editorializing. I appreciate your contributions, Al. Max

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), August 14, 2001.

In some sense, all you need is one lens and your feet, if all you're thinking of is a lens that covers more or less real estate at a single distance. The essential value of a wide angle or telephoto lens is the perspective it gives between near and far objects, like the way the telephoto TV lens compresses the difference between pitcher and batter in a baseball broadcast, so they're almost the same size, where with a wide angle, standing five feet behind the pitcher he'd still be the same size, but the batter would be tiny and the background would be the whole stadium. That's the type choice you can have if you have a selection of lenses.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), August 14, 2001.

Thanks, everyone, for your answers. As I reflect upon my question, perhaps I should have asked, "In what situations might I choose to use a 21mm lens, and why?" That might have clarified matters. Nevertheless, you all were very helpful, as always. I am grateful to you. Max

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), August 14, 2001.

Max,

You have it backwards. You don't want a 21mm, you want a 12mm. This lens is actually difficult to use correctly and effectively (use without cheap gimick shots) but WOW does it ever pull everything in. I actually find lots of ocassions where I want it. It basically gives you what you see directly and in your peripheral vision at the same time. You feel as though you could walk into the photo.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), August 14, 2001.

There is no end to need or more accurately "perceived" need. The mind is ever looking for distraction , that is the source of the problem, the ever insatiable monkey mind.

There is much truth in the saying the less you need, the more you have.

Oh I NEED a hubble telescope to take pics of distant stars..........

-- Yip (koklok@krdl.org.sg), August 15, 2001.

sometimes, you just need a 21mm lens to do silly things like this:

A 1997 Self Portrait on Black Rock Playa

life is a party. :-)

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 15, 2001.

Sure, there are uses for a 21mm lens, and a 1200mm lens for that matter. But I read your questions differently. Is it more like "I have the cash and I want to expand my Leica system, I think I want to go wider, but I'm not sure what to get next?" To tell the truth, I am in a similar situation. I've been selling some other stuff on Ebay and I now have a tidy sum to spend. Mind you, this is the camera slush fund, not family money. It must be spent of phot geat or it will be an opportunity lost forever. Got the picture. My problem is that I don't really want enything else. I have an 0.58 with both the 35mm and 50mm crons. Gee, should I get a 90mm, naw, never feel like I need that; should I get a 28mm, naw, that's too close to 35 and I don't like the frame lines; how about a 3E, naw, that's just covers the same lengths I have, how about a 24mm, naw, that requires an external finder and I never used my 24 Nikkor anyway, how about a Motor-M, heck Leica's aren't supposed to have motors, hmm, how about an SF-20 flash, naw, my Metz is more powerful, gee, maby I should get a second M, now that's kind of enticing, or maybe a real sweet Kameraleder case or a ...

Been there doing that, I suggest we just go out and shoot the gear we have ;-)

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), August 15, 2001.

>> Been there doing that, I suggest we just go out and shoot the gear we have ;-)

I'm in a similar position. I have *almost* too much gear in my Leica kit. I'd occasionally like a 21 instead of the 15 or 24 ... but not enough that I'd spend the bux for one. Already got two bodies. Already got a RapidWinder for one ... maybe for the other? A 75 Summilux would be nice but would I use it much?

A quandry. . ;-)

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 15, 2001.

>I'd occasionally like a 21 instead of the 15 or 24 ... but not enough that I'd spend the bux for one.<

You know, I think Godfrey made an excellent point here... If you have a 24 (or 21), there will certainly be times where you could make the shot a little better with the 21 (or 24); but probably none of us would consider carrying BOTH the 21 and 24 when traveling lite. So perhaps the answer Max, is to buy the lens you think best suits your needs now, use it and see if it does what you want. If it does, great! If not, then as Jay suggested, quality Leica gear almost always has a ready-and-willing buyer available, and it would be relatively painless to sell the 21 and obtain a 24... Might cost a little bit, but in the long run it is all just a journey anyway, right?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 15, 2001.

When I saw some of van Gogh's paintings, I think he is wide-angle guy. Here is the painting I like in such wide angle view: http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0463.htm. I think if a wide angle lens used like this tells a lot stories. I think 21mm lens is fun and difficut lens to compose. And later you will know only a 21mm lens can do it for you.

-- kenny chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), August 16, 2001.

You might try picking up a used 21mm finder and sticking it on your hot shoe. Then when your out and about shooting you will be to determine if the perspective is right for your style of shooting. If so, you already have the finder, if not you can get most of your money back.

Regards Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), August 17, 2001.

Kenny: I see what you mean about the Van Gogh. The nearest corner of the pool table is drawn forward towards us just as it would be with a wide angle lens.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 17, 2001.

Only a tiny note as I just now discovered your question, having been off on vacation in the Tuscany as you dropped your posting here. Max, I've always thought of this but never as an answer to a question, and it's not much more than the important essence contributed above by Michael Darnton: wide-angle is wide-angle and tele is tele -- har, har -- the funny thing here being that only the one term includes that word angle, whereas only the other term implies the word distance. One can always try to look at it simply the other way around. A wide-angle lens (while emphasizing angles) can more and more reduce the objects' sizes (from up close to far away), whereas a tele lens (while emphasizing magnification) can more and more narrow their angles (between close up and far away).

I see I'll likely have to apologize for the above truism, but here are two examples: a 21 (or 24 or 28 or Heliar 15 etc) can in fact magnify the real subject up front, not having to consider very much what is left behind. A real tele on the other hand can not only reach those houses on the mountain-side over there, but can offer the whole picture the sort of style seen in a naive painting.

To make a long story sort, since I myself (personally) prefer wide-openness-grasp to untouchableness-ascent, I stick to my 21 (A) and 2/35 (A). Maybe I'll get a 28 or 24 too some day, but not a 135. BTW I always find it somehow neat when I hear people continually saying "an M is a wide-angle camera, anyways".

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 24, 2001.

Max,

Deciding what lens to buy is always a quandary, made more so by the high Leica prices. Before I switched to Leica, I had a 50 and a 28 and found the 28 to be of limited use - just not wide enough when shooting indoors. I subsequently owned a 24 Nikkor which became my favorite lens, esp. when shooting inside when I wanted to include people and their surroudings.

After switching to the Leica system, I purchased a 21mm super angulon at a bargain price and then traded it for a 21mm pre-asph that would allow me to meter through it on my M6. I like the ultra-wide because it is a great lens for telling a story and you can include a lot of information in your picture, though you've got to get up close when putting people in the foreground. It is, however, a challenging lens with which to work and I am still learning.

You don't want to shoot too far from your subject or shoot down on them. The lens can, occasionally, distort or curve objects along the edge of picture frame. Nevertheless, I find the perspective so dramatic when used effectively that I cannot see trading it for anything else, and my only other leica lens is a 50mm.

-- Peter B. Goldstein (peter.goldstein@us.cgeyc.com), September 24, 2001.

Here we go again. I forgot to say this, too. Last time I did was long ago in the Leica Customer Forum (which I visit less and less and less...).

Following what had been said there on 21 mm vs 24 mm, and what has been said here too, the amazing statistics on the two lenses go something like this: out of the 30 people working on the topic, 15 say that 21 is definitely their choice because it is more dramatic than the 24, whereas the other 15 say they certainly prefer the 24 because the 21 is too dramatic.

I'm not sorry, but I will say that this too sort of proves that only you can decide here.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 24, 2001.

Few subjects actually demand such a wide angle of view. Landscapes seldom do. The 21 can impart a surreal, or even grotesque, perspective to a landscape by stretching out the foreground space. This can be used creatively, and to see a familiar subject in a new way. It can also be used inappropriately. Galen Rowell has written that the 24mm is an important lens in nature photography. I have found this to be true. I find less need for a 21; but I'm not ready to sell mine because I want to spend more time getting to know it. My experience so far has been that I ma not need it that much; but when I need it, I really need it. I use mine for architectural subjects, seldom for nature. I like it for bridges, and for the Greek architecture of the Denver Civic Center.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 24, 2001.

Thanks Bob, this is the now the right time and place for me to admit something. I also should have said it earlier. I too will someday get me a 24 (it's only a question of having the dough). (a) It is (I think) just like the "35 vs 50" question: if it is to be your very first lens, then it's certainly okay to ask who prefers what. But then after you have one of those two -- and do remain an M-addict -- it may well become only a question of time or money or number of other lenses, until you get the other one too. (b) Getting back to statistics (which I somehow loathe, although they sometimes are inevitable), even any 50:50 story (like my 15:15 report above) can also be used -- as you admiringly say, Bob -- inappropriately. Like if for the lenses X and Y, I myself (or you Bob, or you Max, etc etc) am even only 1 out of 30 M-addicts who really needs the "unusual one" (or whatever), I should just get it. It can't ever be (at least it won't always be) the "wrong one".

I shall now shut up until I (too) have both (of these wide-angles), and have used both for five years (even if my own usage-ratio here also ends up as only 1:30).

So. Now I've said it. Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), September 25, 2001.