I want to go wide: 21mm/28mm. RF or SLR

[kivis]

I have a Leica Super Angulon 21/3.4 on my Leica M3 and a CV 20/3.5 on my Nikon F. The Leica renders better has less distortion. Has more to do with the a RF works with wide angle because that CV is sharp as a tack.

 

[GRHazelton]

Vivitar made a 19 mm f3.8 which is/was inexpensive and pretty good. Reasonably low distortion, and at mid apertures pretty sharp. The lens is nicely made, all metal, and feels good. Plus, it uses 62mm filters, as opposed to the 77mm monsters that Newt_on_Swings mentions in his post about the Vivitar 19-35mm.

While I've had this lens several years I haven't used it all that much. As others have noted it "sees" so much that framing must be careful to avoid junk in the pic, and the inevitable convergance of vertical and horizontal planes if the film plane isn't lined up with the subject can be alarming...unless that's the effect you're after!

 

[puketronic]

Optically, How do the Zuiko 21mm f3.5 and f2.0's compare with the RF ones (Leica 21mm f3.4, Zeiss 21mm f2.8, CV 21mm f4.0)? The Zuiko wides are good, but are they that good? SLR lenses are usually compared to SLR lenses for obvious reasons. I know this is apples and oranges but I see pros and cons for both setups as well.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

It has been a long time ago, but I remember the 21 f3.5 Zuiko being a nice lens. The only other wide I had was the 24 f2.8; I don't recall being very enthused about it. I had just traded off my Leica outfit at the time, an unfortunate trade necessitated by my job, so was coming from a 28 f2.8 Elmarit which was a pretty good lens.

 

[wblynch]

For SLR cameras I feel the OM Zuikos are very good. But I don't believe they can match the best rangefinder wides. Even the lower priced CV seem better than the 30 year old Zuikos.

I'm sure the Pentax, Nikon, Canon and Minolta SLR lenses are as good as the Olympus.

I have OM but not rangefinder and I have always wanted rangefinders for their lenses but was never willing to pay for them.

 

[jakeblues]

I love the 24mm length in prime lenses.

I agree here. I have a Pentax 20mm, a Minolta 24mm, and have owned a few 28's. 24mm is my most used focal length for general walkabout photography.

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.

I have found that I feel about 24mm the way most people feel about 28mm and vice versa. With 28mm lenses, I always find I'm wishing for either 35mm or 24mm (essentially the same way you feel about 24mm). I do like 20mm and wider as well, but these lenses often feel a bit more specialized to me.

 

[trojancast]

I usually find my 35mm is wide enough most of the time. If I need wider, I go to 24mm, but not often. Personally, 24 is a nice comprimise between 21 and 28.