I know how you feel. I found that my 35 wasn't wide enough, but a 28 was too close, so I found a really nice Zuiko 24 f2.8 at FFordes on sale for 89 Pounds.
It's supposed to arrive today, and I can't wait to try it out.
I want to go wide: 21mm/28mm. RF or SLR
If you want to go big and wide get a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm f/4.5 lens hehe it's supposed to be basically the same as a Zeiss Biogon if that makes you Leica guys any happier its basically a 21mm view in 35mm framing terms. A used lens and camera should only throw you back about $2,000 or so, maybe less if you're patient on eBay haha. Good luck!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
I love wide angle lenses. My kit will always have one of at least 20mm. When I used a digital camera (Sorry for swearing ) I bought a Sigma 15-30 and it was used for most of the time. When I went back to film it was a real killer! Although not the sharpest of lenses open wide, from about 5.6-8 in all focal lengths it is superb and gives me so much more scope for what I like doing best in my style of photography.
However with a wide or super wide I find that you have to watch out for the verticals, distortion, getting your feet in the shot and with a low sun getting your shadow in too. They are an acquired taste but go for it. The Zuiko F3.5/21mm is a cracker as someone has already said.
I love the 24mm length in prime lenses. Also, I find the Tamron SP 24-40AF to be a VERY good lens.
I've used a 24 mm Nikkor for decades for everything from weddings to news reportage. I wouldn't be without one.
For the last 8 years I have been using a Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH on my M7's.
True the RF is easier to focus but with 24-21mm, unless close in you can zone focus easily.
Hands down the SLR is much easier to workwith for framing and alignment to avoid the dreaded curved linear lines and skewed focus. Indeed an external finder on an M MUST be offset because the hot shoe on M cameras IS NOT overthe lens centerline and you will geta horizontal rotation about a vertical axis if using anything other then a Leica/Leitz viewfinder.
I do occasional weddings using Leica M equipment and the last wedding party was so large, I used my Nikon Fm3a with 24mm and flash for group scenes. For the M, I have to resort to a handle mount METZ flash because the Viewfinder takes up the hot shoe and NO ONE makes a double hot shoe anymore. This also negates TTL flash on the M7.
The 21mm f2.8 ASPH Leica lens is sharp with great depth of field, it makes an excellent lens with the M7 for candid work, with zone focus, all one has to do is 'point & shoot'.-Dick
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would recommend the Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8
one of the best wides I ever used.
But then, the 28 and 24mm Zuikos are superb, too. The 24mm I have is a great lens.
Good choice. The OM 28 3.5 is super sharp at just about all apertures and a 21 is a better "super-wide" then a 24 IMO. I hardly ever touch my 24mm lenses, I almost invariably want it wider or find that it's too wide.
Originally Posted by msbarnes
Sometimes I post my photos on flickr
Sometimes I update my tumblr
Thank you for all the comments.
I'm not so interested in the Mamiya RF system. I was but then I realized that I prefer 35mm (3:2) normal and wider lenses and 6x6 (1:1) for normal and longer lenses. I know that I can crop and such but too many systems is too much money! I've pretty much settled on 35mm rf, 35mm slr, and 6x6 tlr for now. I find those the most useful, perhaps more systems in the future but I want to build my 35mm kits right now.
Yeah I've read that the 28mm f3.5 is sharper than the 28mm f2.8. I don't really care to research too much on which is sharper and the difference in speed to me, is not that much. I use my Rollei 2.8E and my Rollei 3.5E at f/4 and f/5.6 mostly. Anyways I intend on using my 28mm f3.5 and 21mm f3.5 simply to learn the focal lengths, and then take it from there.
Judging from the comments I guess there is good use for SLR and RF wide angles. This is kind of why I have both systems: one compliments the other. I'd prefer to choose one system but I don't want to live with the limitations of RFs nor do I want to live with the limitations of SLRs.
I wouldn't even call a 24 a superwide. I think of 21 as the longest of the superwides.
Originally Posted by eurekaiv
Interesting that back in the 70's, 28mm and 24mm lenses were often called superwides (as in my 28mm EBC Fujinon-SW, bought in 1978) and 21's and shorter were ultrawides. I think now ultrawide is probably 15mm and shorter. I think of my 17 as a superwide, not ultrawide. I suppose that's debatable.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
I like the idea of super wides. Have the awesome 21/2.8 Biogon for my Contax G2 and the 15/4.5 Super-wide Heliar for my Leica bodies......but I suck at shooting ultra wide! :-(