Re: [Leica] Advise on 21/2.8 or 24/2.8 Asp.

["Bud Cook" <budcook@ibm.net>]

IMHO, the 24mm is more useful than either the 21 or 28 lenses.  I spent a
year photographing Europe and had 35, 28 and 24mm w/a lenses and I used the
24 almost exclusively.  I currently have two 28mm lenses but I'm going to
get a 24 (either R or M) before I return to Europe this summer.

The 24 gives you nearly the scope of a 21 with the more natural perspective
of a 28.

BTW, you implied you wouldn't need a finder with the 24.  How do you plan to
do that?

Bud Cook
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ferdinand U. LuDo <fld@mozcom.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 11:05 PM
Subject: [Leica] Advise on 21/2.8 or 24/2.8 Asp.


>Hello Luggers,
>
>I'd just like to ask guys your opinion on whether which of the two lenses
>would  be most useful for trips to Asia, Europe and USA. My photography is
>usually varied from landscapes, to buildings, to churches, mosques, etc...
>I'd like to add either one of the two to my 35-50-90 M lens combo.
>
>Back home, in the Philippines, I hardly use my 20/2.8 USM (Canon) so that's
>why I sold it. However for travel photography esp. to those places
>mentioned above I know that 35 would not be wide enough, would the 24 be
>appropriate or the 21/2.8? I know both lenses are very good but my question
>is more on usefulness. Personally I'm inclined to using the 24 because: 1.)
>price 2.) can get away without a finder 3.) easier to use than a 21mm. But
>if it will fall short on a lot of occasions, I won't mind on the 21/2.8
asp.
>
>Many thanks to this group! Without this group, I would have a hard time
>choosing what lens to buy for my current M line-ups.
>
>More power to you all,
>
>Ferdinand
>