I am thinking either the 24/2.8 or the 28/2. I was looking at the angle of views for the two, the 24 has an 84 degree angle of view, the 28 has a 76 degree angle of view, and the 35 has a 64 degree angle of view. So the 28 gives 12 more degrees, and the 24 gives 20 more degrees.

I plan to use the wide angle mainly for landscape and interiors while being a tourist. I've checked out some of the Voigtlanders, but think they're a bit slow.

I like the speed of the 28/2, but wonder if there'll be enough difference between the 28 and 35 to justify buying it. But, I'm thinking 28 should be wide enough for most of what I want to shoot.

Any input is welcome, thanks. This seems to be a common question, but I didn't see it in the context of choosing in relation to already owning a 35mm.

-- Fred (yuma@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002

Answers

Fred, Also bear in mind that with a 24 you need to use the finder, whereas a 28 can be used with existing viewfinder frame (thats if you have a .72 viewfinder magnification). Both are superb lenses, but as you already have a 35, a 24 would be a better bet i reckon.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 23, 2002.

28mm is a fine landscape lens but too restrictive for interiors. 21mm is the best for interiors but more limited for landcsapes. This is why I carry a 21 (or 15) and a Tri-Elmar. To me, 35mm and 24mm are both seldom-used focal lengths: too in-between. I almost never use 35mm setting on the Tri-Elmar, and the only time I use a 35mm prime is the 1.4ASPH for low-light use only. However if I were shooting a 35 like you, I would go for the 24mm as the 2 focal lengths do complement each other better than 21 or 28. Don't be swayed by the idea of using the in-camera finder with a 28mm...for photojournalism it might be ok, but for composition of interiors and landscapes you still need thte accessory finder with a 28, to preview the "look" that lens delivers in terms of perspective and potential distortion.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

I have to agree with Jay- I don't use a 35mm lens very much at all- I find it "too in-between", as he said. I use a 50, a 28, and a 21 most these days. I used to use a 24 a lot, and loved it- I used it as my only wide angle. I have since gone to a 28, when I don't want a really extreme wide, and the 21 when I do- (and sometimes 15 when I'm feeling the need to see A LOT). So my 24 sits in a bag a lot. But it could well be the answer you are looking for if you do like and use the 35mm lens.

If you are doing critical work- architectural interiors, for instance- I will side with the crowd that recommends accesory finders for any wide angles. Maybe you should consider getting the new 21-24-28 Leica finder and use it to judge which look you ilke best?

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Get a 24 or 25. The 28mm is too close to the 35mm. I use the 24mm, 35mm, & 85mm combo or 21mm, 28mm, 50mm, 105mm lenses.

I have 3 Voigtlanders 15mm, 21mm, & 28mm. All are excelent lenses. The 21mm & 28mm make a nice combo.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), April 23, 2002.

I went through a similar process a few months back, Fred, and opted for the 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH. I've been pleased with the decision - the 24mm's reach has pulled in shots that wouldn't have worked with a 28mm lens.

There are several other discussions on this topic in the archives - scroll down to the bottom of the main index and click on the Next Lens category.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), April 23, 2002.

Jack Flesher (Jack I hope you don't mind), mentioned to me the rule of 1.5, something I didn't know about. It has to do with spacing focal lengths in multiples of 1.5

So in this instance 24 times 1.5 would be close to 35, then 50, then 75, then 105. The 90 I guess is a compromise.

What's this rule all about? I don't know. I hope it helps you. The rule says get the 24, but that's just a cold-blooded rule.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 23, 2002.

fred, you could try the voigts<<<$$$ than leicas. if you like the view and insist on the L go for it and sell the V. even at a 50% hit on resale it isn't a big actual amount. i agree 21 is a bit too wide sometimes (i have a 21 L), 28 (sold mine) seems to close to the 35, 24 sounds about right (never had one).

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Fred- If you decide on the 24, Jack Flesher advertised one, with finder, near mint, $1575, OBO. See his April 19 post.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

I have a Voitlander 15mm and just love it. How often do you think you will really need to shoot wide open. You probably will find that you will shoot at f8.0 or f11.0 most of the time any way. Don't shy away form theses fine lenses just because they are not Leitz lenses. I am a system guy just like every other Leica fan but believe me this lens is outstanding value for the money. I should get your consideration.

Bill (owen777@swbell.net)

-- William F Owen (owen777@swbell.net), April 23, 2002.

Fred: Be careful basing your decision too much on the field of coverage. The numbers you quoted are based on the diagonal field of view, not horizontal or vertical. I got caught on this years ago. I have settled on a 28, 50 and 90. I occasionally wish for wider, but $$$ keep influencing me.

FWIW

-- Mark J. (logical1@catholic.org), April 23, 2002.

I too love the 15mm VC. Check out my recent post. http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008qjh

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

Thanks for the responses. More food for thought indeed! Guess I'll keep ya posted, thanks again.

-- Fred (yuma@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

FWIW my basic combo is 21/35/90. I have a 28 2.8, I don't use it much, but it's useful if I want "as wide as possible" without resorting to the accesory finder. Plus it's sharper in the corners than my 35 'cron.

And there are lots of established Leica photographers who use the 28/35 combo almost exclusively - Alex Webb, Mary Ellen Mark, David Allan Harvey, to name a few.

But certainly a 24/35 combo is workable, and I would find the 28/35 too close together if I didn't also have a 21. The 28 is usually the first item I unload when I want to lighten the gadget bag.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 24, 2002.

Thanks for the info Andy! Good to see my idea of a 28/35 isn't so rare.

-- Fred (yuma@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

if you´re working well on the 35 and feel it is your lens, then is a very good idea the 28, it won´t take you out of concentration and will be wider.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Interesting point Mr. Watson. Didn't really think of it that way, thanks.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

I agree with everything said above so here are just a few notes in case you're collecting these opinions (the following compares 21mm with 24mm so you might try to extrapolate here a little):

21 is usually "better" than 24 for architecture, interiors and wide landscapes. 24 is usually better than 21 for portraits of people groupings, reportings like in newspapers and magazines.

As re real slogans, real 24-freaks often say that 21 is too dramatic, whereas real 21-freaks say that 24 is not dramatic enough.

A slight advantage of an M 24 (in contrast to a 21) is that it is more easy to view here without using the viewfinder.

I also asked people working at Leica here in Germany if they would tell me which they sold more. I thought "The more sold, the better". But... 21mm is so old and 24mm is so new (at least for Ms) that nobody can say from sales which is "better". Getting back to 28, the 2/28 is the newest of them all.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 25, 2002.

Ah, this wide-angle choice provokes plenty of viewpoints and interest. Thanks to all.

-- Fred (yuma@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Interesting thread here, I am in the same boat as well. Got the 35 lux, and find the comment about the 28/2 and my 35/1.4 matching well interesting.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.

To me, the 35mm focal length is only "in between" when compared to the 28mm, which became obvious to me when I bought the Tri-Elmar; on the other hand, I find 35mm to be very different from 50mm. Whilst it's useful to have all three focal lengths in one lens, if I were buying individual lenses I would go either for 21mm, 28mm and 50mm or 24mm, 35mm and 50mm. Either of these series offers very useful spacing of focal lengths, IMHO.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 28, 2002.

I love these questions! "I'm buying a watch today,shall I buy one that tells the time?","I'm thinking of buying a strap for my M3,which strap will look best?"

Have you got a zoom lens Fred? Set it to 24mm and then 28mm,when you've done that you will have a pretty good idea which is best,then you can come back and ask everyone whether black is better than chrome.

-- Phil the logic (philkneen@manx.net), April 29, 2002.

You're a retard, Phil the il-logic f*ckhead. Hahaha...

-- Fred (yuma@yahoo.com), May 09, 2002.

While you may not like Phil's delivery, he's absolutely right. Choice of focal length should only be based on personal style, comfortable working distance, and subject matter. The best way to determine this if you don't already have a good idea is to go out and test.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 09, 2002.