I'm looking at the super-wides and bouncing back and forth between the 24mm and 21mm Elmarits for use on my .72x M6 TTL. I'd like to limit myself to just one of the super-wides, and would appreciate input from those who have used both as to what your practical experience has been with these lenses.

As I understand, the .72x viewfinder's outside edge is close to the view of the 24mm lens - very convenient, if not absolutely accurate for framing purposes, whereas the 21mm lens definitely would require use of the auxiliary finder. How accurate is that assessment of the viewfinder requirements? Can you really get by without the auxiliary finder for the 24mm lens?

For a person who is less keen on extreme wide-angle perspective distortion, but where the 35mm lens is sometimes just not wide enough, is the 24mm sufficiently wide to cover the situations you've found yourself in? If you have both, which do you find yourself using more?

If your preference is for the 21mm lens, what is your opinion on the choices between ASPH and pre-ASPH for the M6 TTL? Is the optical difference with the latest ASPH model worth the price difference over a used pre-ASPH (in excellent to mint condition)? And, which of the pre-ASPH versions should be avoided for use with the M6 TTL?

Thanks for your thoughts.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 06, 2002

Answers

Ralph,

I just traded a 24 mm Elmarit for a 35 mm Lux. What I can tell you about the superwides in general is that you have to be EXTRA careful to keep the camera level otherwise you get prominent keystoning. I think the reference to the 24 mm and Leica rangefinder windows is directed towards the 0.58X version. On the 0.72X version you can just barely make out the 28 mm framelines. The advantage of the 24 is that the finder that you have to buy separately doesn't exhibit as much distortion as the 21 mm accessory finder.

But like all things in life... you either warm up to it or you don't.

In my case. I didn't.

Cheers,

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 06, 2002.

Of course, one thing that I noticed about the 24 mm is that light falloff at maximum aperture is virtually negligible.

Bokeh isn't all THAT bad as well (not that you'd expect to see alot of bokeh with a superwide).

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 06, 2002.

If you are only going to have one lens wider than 35mm, a 24mm might be a good choice. If you will eventually buy a 28mm or Tri-Elmar, the 21mm makes more sense. In any case, and with the 28mm as well, I prefer the accessory finders because they render the scene in more of the same spatial perspective than the body finder, which presents the world more or less as a standard lens sees it. Of the 21's, only the Elmarit-M and Elmarit-M-ASPH allow metering with the M6. The earlier lenses (21/4 and 21/3.4 Super Angulon)have rear elements which protrude so far into the body that they block the meter cell. However, optically the 21/3.4 is a better-corrected lens than the 21- Elmarit-M pre-ASPH. If the price of admission to the 21ASPH is too high, you might consider the 21/4 Cosina-Voigtlander which is reputed to have a similar performance to the 21/3.4 Super Angulon, but meters on the M6 and costs around $400 including a finder. I own the 21ASPH and a late 21/3.4 S/A. The latter accompanies me backpacking due to its small footprint and light weight. For landscape images I use the 135mm lens to take meter readings anyway. Otherwise the 21ASPH is my hands-down favorite. Since I have always carried some form of 28mm lens, I've never used the 24.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 06, 2002.

I've owned the 21 pre-asph, 21 asph and 24 asph. Here are my impressions:

1) The .58 VF outer edge is close to the coverage of the 24, but actually a bit larger, so in actual use I advise using the BL finder for accurate framing. (BTW, the magnification of the 21 and 24 finders are identical, with the bright-lines on the 21 being at the extreme edge of the finder's view, while the 24's are slightly inboard. Thus you can use the outer edge of the 24 finder for the 21.)

2) IMO, either the 21 or the 24 make good compliments to the 35. However, the 24 is clearly a superior optical performer to the 21 -- especially at f2.8, and f4.0 -- and hence I find myself using it more often. Compared to the 24 asph, the 21 asph simply comes up short. It is not in the same class optically. The 24 is right up there with the 90 APO, and IMO, even slightly out-performs the 35 asph's.

3) As to the 21 pre-asph vs 21 asph question: I found that my 21 pre- asph was actually sharper at f2.8 than the 21 asph.(!) The 21 asph then jumped ahead at all other apertures. While a well respected Leica lens-tester makes the asph 21 sound like the only version worth considering, I did not find the actual differences between the two 21's to be highly significant. Especially given the roughly $700 extra I gave to own the asph version. The pre-asph has an E60 filter size, while the asph adopted the E55 of the 24, which I find a bit more convenient -- though in truth I rarely filter the super-wides. The asph may show a bit less fall-off as well. The only 21 pre-asph that will meter properly with the M6's is the immediate pre-asph E60 version. The earlier SA's will not allow for metering with the M6 or M6TTL as they sit too deep into the body. In short, I would recommend the 21 pre-asph without hesitation -- for someone who wanted a 21. But you do get a little more performance (for a lot more $$$) with the asph.

4) I think your ultimate decision will boil down to what you want the super-wide to do. For tight interiors, the extra breadth of the 21 can make the difference between getting and missing the shot. For general super-wide uses, the difference between the 21 and 24 is usually made up taking a half-step backwards, and the 24 distorts human features to a slightly lesser degree than the 21.

For my uses, if I could only have one, it would be the 24. No question.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 06, 2002.

Ralph: I would say that 24mm is quite wide enough whenever the need is to have a wide enough angle of view to include enough of the subject, such as for panoramic shots and architectural views. In my experience anything wider just increases the risk of including the unwanted, like telephone poles and wires, No Parking signs, etc.

I feel that focal lengths of 21mm and wider are of more use for deliberate, creative emphasis of the foreground. To use them well requires a special effort to deal with the extra foreground in a meaningful way. These remarks are true of the 24mm, of course, but not to the same extreme as with the 21. The 24 would be a more useful, and more often used, travel lens.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 06, 2002.

PS: Very nice shot John! One of your best, IMO -- love the composition and expressions! Thought you said the 24 wasn't working for you?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 06, 2002.

Ralph, I have used the 21mm focal length for some years now, preferring it for its foreground emphasis. I have used both R and M versions of this focal length and can tell you that the 21 ASPH lens is a tremendous performer. That being said, if you are not accustomed to using this focal length, perhaps a 24 would be more user friendly. The 24 gives a more normal appearance, while being wide at the same time. That, plus it is the best 24 ever made. I recommend that you borrow/rent both to compare them. I am planning to purchase the 24, finding it different enough from the 21 to justify the expense.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), January 06, 2002.

Thanks for the excellent input, everyone. Sounds like the 24mm may be a better choice for my style, but I'll try to find a rental source to try both.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 06, 2002.

Trying to be objective: For the 21 vs the 24 mm, I think it depends a lot of the lenses you already own. If you have or plan to get a 28 mm, go for the 21 mm. Otherwise, the 24 mm might be a better choice. Due to the extreme constraints under which super-wide lenses are designed, the 24 mm is probably better than the 21 mm in absolute values.

Being totally subjective: A super-wide is never wide enough. I am totally engrossed in my recently acquired 21mm. I've been using this focal length for about 3 months and currently it's the one I use the most. I do mostly street photo, although I'm also shoot anything else (landscape, patterns, ...). With the 21, I'm able to get people from head to toe (portrait mode) shooting them from 3 to 5 feet. I love it. Originally I wasn't sure I would really like this focal length: I first bought the Voigtlander/Cosina 21/4 Color Skopar. One of its biggest plus (besides the huge price difference) is its size: Very small and light, it's the kind of lens you can carry with you everywhere. Unfortunately it handles flare very poorly. If I had been shooting only occasionally with it, I might have kept it. I sold it and bought the latest Elmarit 21mm. In comparison with the Voigt. , it's huge and heavy, but I cannot find faults to it: Handles flare incredibly well, no visible light fall-off at full aperture... I love shooting in 21mm even more than before.

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), January 07, 2002.

Half (or all?) of this has already been said above, but if I could only ever have two lenses, maybe they would then be a 28 plus a 75. But I already have three and that means 21 and 35 and 50 (the next one being a 90). So if you only have two and one is already a 50 and no 35, then whether you get a 24 or a 21 will depend on what you want to shoot most, e.g. landscapes or architecture.

Just in case you don't already know my own, personal punch line, I'd love to buy every single lens Leica has ever produced, try them all out and then I can tell you for sure which ones I use most...

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 07, 2002.

Michael,

I "hear you" regarding wanting to buy every lens Leica has ever made. That's largely the impulse I'm trying to resist. I already have the 35mm 'Cron, a 50mm 'Cron and a DR, a 75mm 'Lux, and a 90mm Elmarit-M. These compliment the existing Nikon, Hassy, and 4x5 systems, all of which have the obvious other uses. Thus, I'm trying hard to pay attention to that other voice in the back of my head that's chanting, "Be sensible. Be sensible." ;-)

At this point (thanks to the additional input from this group), I'm leaning heavily toward the 24mm. I tend not to like extreme wide-angle distortion, but have found the 28mm to be not-quite-wide enough with the Nikons (and the 20mm Nikkor to be a bit too wide for conventional use). Of course, after the 24mm, who knows. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 07, 2002.

I don't have a 24mm, but have 21,28, and 35mm in the R stable. With the M the 35mm is always a favorite, so my instinct would be to go for a 24mm, as I rarely use the 21mm with the R. I find that the increase in field of view is rarely so different that my 28mm R shot is "invalidated". Equally, however, the 28mm and 35mm are less useful together - I rarely take both with me when carrying the R, so I suspect, should I get a wider angle for the M (where I always have a 35mm), I would seriously consider the 24mm.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 08, 2002.

Dear Ralph:

I just purchased an M7 with an Elmarit 21 Asph as my FIRST lens choice. I enjoy the lens and its great sharpness. It does have noticeable light fall off at the corners in some shooting situations.

I shot all focal lengths with my Nikon F4, F5, and F100's from 18mm to 300mm with fixed focal lens and zooms. Over time, the 20mm Nikkor AF became my favorite focal length under 105mm. Now my Elmarit 21mm gives me the extra wide feel for expressive shots that are UNLIKE the 24mm. This lens allows for more impactful shots and fits my shooting style perfectly. Shots that cover foreground to background flow with realism. Also consider that a racecar at your feet will be covered by 21mm and NOT by 24mm or more. The 21mm works for me and tripod exposures in low light on Fuji Provia 100 have been nothing less than phenomenal. The lens captures so much detail and color on Provia, I have moved away from Velvia so as to render a broader range of middle tones without oversaturation.

Just a note from an avid outdoor photographer.

Mick

-- Mick Hetman (mhetman@aol.com), January 27, 2003.