Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Buzz - Ditto. I found the built-in meter to be virtually useless with the 21. And you're right about the incredible DOF giving you a way to get closer than the 28", but that's a pretty iffy way to live. I'd kill for an M 21 or 24 that could focus down to about a foot, like the reflex lenses. BTW, can one of you LUG technophiles please explain why the rangefinder lenses don't focus closer? I assume it's a simple explanation. Thanks...B. D. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jeffrey > Hausner > Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 11:53 AM > To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' > Subject: RE: [Leica] which wide angle lens? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: B. D. Colen [SMTP:bdcolen@earthlink.net] > > Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 11:09 AM > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > 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.... > [Buzz] > 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. > > Buzz >