Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Lucien_vD wrote: > > > Better a 24/2,8, really impressive !! 28/2,8 superb but close to 35mm and > 21/2,8 not so impressive. > > Lucien > BELGIUM Thank you Lucien (and Bill) for your comments. While I don't doubt that the 21/3.4 enjoys an advantage in performance over the 21/2.8, based on your experiences, the 21/2.8 has the advantage of allowing metering with the M6, if I understand correctly. In Brian Bower's book "Leica M Photography" there are several images made with the 21/2.8 and printed as full page or double page reproductions and the results appear to be quite satisfactory. Although I agree that the 28 is not much wider than the 35, it is, in my experience, just enough wider to be of more use in architectural shots. For a focal length that is VERY wide, I think I would prefer to go right to the extreme of the 21. I have also condsidered giving up the 35/2 for the 28 (and no 21mm) as I wish to keep my M kit as light and fast working as possible. Having too many lens choices at hand can lead to confusion when a photo opportunity presents itself. Mike Gardner