Stuart Richardson
Active member
Isn't that the point though? That it is a special effect for most people? I certainly won't say that the 21 or 24mm summiluxes are bad lenses, they are not in any way! But the Elmars, Elmarits and Biogons ARE better optically at the apertures super wide angle lenses are mostly used for. They are also smaller, lighter and MUCH cheaper. They are a better option for almost everyone. I will be quick to note that they are not the better option for everyone, but if you do not already know that your work truly benefits from having 1.4 to 2.5 at 21-24mm, then it probably is not the best option for you. Of course, it is easy to say, well it's nice to have the security of having 1.4 in a super wide, but most photos would be better taken either with a more moderate wide angle or with a smaller aperture. Given how good the low light is on digital now, there are not that many situations where these lenses are necessary. Heck, they didn't even exist in the M system before a couple of years ago, and pretty much everyone was very happy to work with their 28/2's and 35/1.4's for the lowest light wide angle work.
Those of us with a lot of experience already know how much nicer it is to shoot with a compact, light 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.4 or f/2...the lenses are optically fantastic, they are light and ergonomic, they are much easier to work with since they don't have a fussy external viewfinder. It is easier to work quickly and with confidence in low light when you can focus and frame with one fluid motion. But someone just coming to the system might not know these advantages, so they just see that the 21mm and 24mm are wider and faster and more expensive, so they figure they must be better. That's not the case, and it is a road to a 7000 dollar mistake for most people! That's all I am trying to say.
Those of us with a lot of experience already know how much nicer it is to shoot with a compact, light 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.4 or f/2...the lenses are optically fantastic, they are light and ergonomic, they are much easier to work with since they don't have a fussy external viewfinder. It is easier to work quickly and with confidence in low light when you can focus and frame with one fluid motion. But someone just coming to the system might not know these advantages, so they just see that the 21mm and 24mm are wider and faster and more expensive, so they figure they must be better. That's not the case, and it is a road to a 7000 dollar mistake for most people! That's all I am trying to say.