Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This morning i typed these ideas out on my first cup of hung over coffee off list. As things are a bit slow I'd like to inflict it upon you poor suckers who've got nothing better to do in your spare time but read it: When i shot Nikon from '73 to '93 i had only a modest set of from 24 to 200mm lenses. There was only one time what i was hired to shoot a row of stores and i couldn't quit get them all with my 24. I thought I'd rent or get a Hassy superwide someday so that would not happen again and i always wanted one anyway. But it turns out the Horizontal (not diagonal) angle of view on the 38 Biogon is the same as a 24 on a 35mm camera. 74 degrees. Perhaps the diagonal angle of views match between the a 21 for 35mm and the 38 Biogon for 6x6 i believe that was my impression. But diagonal angle of views i don't relate with that much as the horizontal. So the horizontal angle of view of a 21 is 81 degrees. Only 7 degrees wider than the 24. 3.5 degrees in either direction. How could this be possibly worth it? I have a hunch it will against apparent numeric logic be worth it. There is a 9 degree dif between the HAOV's of the 28 to 24 11 between the 35 and 28 16 between the 28 and 21 on the other hand I'm into doubling up. I often use two bodies. So i have 2 90's. And other such examples. I could have my 21 on one body and the 24 on my color body for some "jobs" or situations. I've got a feeling there will be a "classicness" in feel in using the 21mm focal length. I'll run my negs tomorrow, the last day of the year to take a peek at them. I've been shooting all Neopan 1600. By the way in the 4x5 world horizontal angel of view wise: a 24mm lens matches the 4x5's 75mm lens within a couple of degrees. A 21mm lens matches their 72 mm lens within a couple of degrees. Would these 4x5 people think of getting a 75 AND the 72? Probably not! they'd get the 75 with it's 78 degrees angle of view. And then the 65m lens with its 86 degree angle of view. Which in 35mm format would be a 19 mm lens. And our 15 or 16mm lens matches the 4x5 formats 47 or 58mm lenses just out in the past decade. So Oliver, you've got me on my first cup of coffee what can i say?! One of my first lenses for Nikon was my 24 2.8 ai i got with wedding money in 1977 and i took on our honeymoon. Later when i got a cheap 28 AF i thought of it as a "corrected" 24. A 24 minus the watermelon heads at the sides. But our Leica glass is less retrofocal and all around a more premium deal. So a 28 would not be a corrected 24. As a matter of fact the 24 might surpass in older 28 Elmarit in such concerns. But certainly not surpass the 28 Summicron I'd think. Right now i see a 16mm Hologon for the Contax G being sold used at Pro Photo for 15 or 16 hundred bucks. Having it adapted for the Leica might cost what? http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/contax_hologon.htm But the Heliar 12 Ed Schwartzreich showed me some impressive images from. I've got my eye on that lens as well. But not so much the 15 Heliar. By the way our 12mm Heliar with it's 113 HAOV matches up fairly well against the 4x5 folkes 35mm lens within a few degrees. So we 35mm format shooter have nothing over the 4x5 shooters. And they of course can sure off the back of the camera. I'll make a point to show off differences between my 21 and 24 in uploads. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.markrabiner.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html