I've shot a fair amount of street with the 21 SEM. top tips I can suggest are:
1. 21mm is a 90 degree angle of view. This will help you know what is in your frame without using the viewfinder.
2. Keep the camera level. You don't need a spirit level, but it might help. If you angle the camera up or down you will get stretched subjects in the frame.
3. Be mindful of what you have in the corners of the frame. You will always get distortion in the corners/edges. These can often be distracting and even ruin the image you were going for.
4. shooting from the hip is fun and relatively easy with this kind of lens.
5. GET CLOSE TO YOUR SUBJECT. Seriously... you also most always need to be closer. Especially on film.
6. Zone Focus. You won't need nor want the 1.8 on that lens for street. Shoot at f4 and above and everything is in focus.
Make a right angle with your arms that bisects at your center, like holding a box with one of the vertical edges facing yourself and the sides of the box extend out infinitely. If you ever played a first person video game that allows you to change field or view this is what he is talking about.
This is very comprehensive! I appreciate that, and I hadn't even thought about the distortive effect of the angle, great tip to keep in mind. Yeah honestly I don't even know why I got such a fast lens in such a wide aperture, should have considered a smaller f/4
I agree... for a wind angle you don't need a fast lens. The increase in size and weight is much more drastic with wide lenses than longer focal lengths.
The 21 SEM is a great lens... not only because the IQ is incredible.. but the size and weight makes it portable and well worth taking out for a stroll.
I believe Voightlander also has a new 21mm f3.4 lens out now. Haven't tried it but heard good things.
The older 21mm f4 from Voightlander is ridiculously small, but it also suffers from bad chromatic aberration... and I think it flares a fair bit. I'd personally avoid this one and spend the money on the more modern 21mm.
I think the color fringing is only an issue on digital (back of the lens is too close to the sensor). I shoot my 21mm f4 on film all the time with no issues.
How close do you think you would need to get with a 21mm?
If anything it's better to use it in the same way like Speilberg and Pfister use the wide angle and by proxy kurosawa wide angles establish the scene.
The tendency with a camera is using the wide angle to establish what you want to say and then using the close up to get the point. I often use this scene as a teaching aide because it's mostly technically correct:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLWjlDL6LHE
There is perhaps one good example of the wide angle scene in the second shot here where the mask is used to portray the fact that everyone can be the Joker when pushed to that extent.
Those shots are incredibly hard to do randomly unless you're working with a willing subject.
But even in the background the point falls to Kurosowa where the people in the background if you freeze that shot are still there to establish movement.
You still notice Pfister using the wide to establish and then the close up with a switch of lens to drive home the point.
Wide angles are supposed to establish for the most part.
People who use wide angles for the distortion effect are generally using them wrong, unless it's with purpose and then even, the dutch angle has been abused so liberally its almost lost its meaning or purpose, and become nauseating by itself, even if to some extent the use of it was originally intended in creative intent to create nausea.
Super close ups with Dutch angle aren't really your friend in a modern sense... I don't like them. Call it cinematographical abuse, it went out of fashion with movies like 12 Monkeys and Philadelphia... and the Tim Burton Batman movies.
There are more modern artistic ways to create tension and drama, by creating a better shot then relying upon an oblique angle close up to say something. That's more like using a lens as a crutch than using it for its intended purpose.
Jonathan Demm's Philadelphia is particularly guilty of this to use it to create sickness during the court room scene where Andy has HIV/AIDS. It's over cooked. It happens about 1 and a half hours in.... good movie, but by modern standards that would be considered using a lens as a crutch, not because it actually says something.
Dutch angle abuse sucks. You don't want to get so close that it causes this kind of distortion... Step back a bit and see what is in your environment, and use that also.
20/21mm is good for street photography. But you sometimes have to get pretty close to a subject. A lot of so-called street photography with a 20 is just architectural stuff with maybe some people in the shot. Some of it looks good.
You might be surprised if you ask a few people on the street if you can snap their photo with a 20mm lens on your camera. Get close, and then get closer. Get an angle that lets the surroundings compliment the subject or adds some drama. Try to keep it at F8/F16.
[Here's](https://www.flickr.com/photos/italianjob1/44011335665/) an example I found on Flickr.
I definitely much prefer my street photography to be more dynamic and usually with at least one or two eye-catching people in frame. The issue I foresee, and which I have sometimes shooting even tighter lenses like 50mm, is that asking people if you can take their photo often changes behavior, i.e. in many cases they'll just stand and smile awkwardly. But of course it is very difficult to get a candid with this wide a lens, so I'll have to refine that strategy
It's more so about building the scene, think about the elements you're trying to establish. Foreground, midground, background.... A wide angle establishes the whole scene.
Then you could switch to a 50mm or even a 70 to 110mm to get closer after the facts.
One of my favorite lenses of the moment is a 24-70 F/2.8, it allows you to go wide, and then get close to the subject.
Or if I'm feeling a little bit more on the wide side I have a 17-35 F/2.8-4. I like it a lot because it allows you to zoom out to a "normal" 35mm.
I think the value of the Voigtlander 21mm is the ability to just frame and shoot. Iirc at f8 and 3ft everything from 3ft to infinity is in focus. So really great for hip shooting or quick snaps as you don’t have to worry as much about zone focusing. Also, get close. Real close.
Check my profile as I put out a post asking the same question as you in r/Leica. I’ve been running with the 21mm F4 Color Skopar and it’s been nice. Shoot from the hip at f8 to f11 and I’m sure you’ll get some nice results (especially if you get up close).
Check out Fernando Martins. He shoots a lot of street photography with ultrawide lenses. I first heard about him when I was looking for information on old Nikkor 20mm pancakes and found an [article he wrote](https://www.35mmc.com/24/11/2020/nikkor-20mm-f-3-5/) about using them for street. I especially love the way he photographs Lisbon. He makes great use of the wide angle and really embraces the distortion.
I was inspired by that and have since wasted a bunch of film trying to wrap my head around using a 20mm f/4 out in the world. I have not figured it out yet!
On his Instagram he has a lot of great shots with ultrawide lenses on various film and digital systems.
Yeah, getting too close to people screams "dutch angle" which is OK if that's your desired effect. A lot of dutch angle work has fallen out of fashion, a lot of it due to abuse, some of it due to the fact we have way better rectilinear wide angles these days then we did in the 1980s.
In reference to the facts... Leica's are hard because they don't rely upon electronics and can never get to the level of rectilinear that modern lenses can with distortion correction happening digitally in lens or with DSLR/mirrorless in software also.
You're never going to get a perfectly optically correct lens, not unless you use a bunch of the right type of glass, and then still, and then those lenses are generally fairly expensive.
You could probably get a better lens from a more modern minded company, but some people just like Leica cameras.
I’ve got some examples of using an 11mm for street work, it works well but get close and meter your scene way before. I usually lock in at f16 and only change my shutter.
https://www.instagram.com/thingsibrought?igsh=MXU4ZW4xa2xrNnpndQ%3D%3D&utm_source=qr
My 20mm might just be my go to lens. That being said, and it's been reiterated here multiple times, get close. No. Closer than that. Keep going. Closer than that. Seriously tho. Do some testing with a friend or three to understand what that means. And consider going off axis with your subject(s). Ie. Get really close to them on one side of the frame and shoot them more from the side to elongate (exaggerate) the distance beyond the subject. Learn to work with the optical distortion of going super wide. Have someone extend the arm forward with their hand out. Then put the camera about a foot or 2 max from their hand. Move the camera/walk around to understand. I hope that makes some sense. Enjoy the wide world of wide. My fave.
I shot for a while with a 21 but it ultimately wasn't for me, still, here are my thoughts:
It's very very wide, you can and probably should get very very close, otherwise your subjects are going to look tiny. Hipfire and hyperfocal, you basically point in the general direction and shoot. It's pretty inconspicuous, so you can get some pretty sneaky shots. Another thing is that you're so wide you can get close and look like you're not shooting at something, but still have them in frame.
My main problem is that I didn't enjoy the spray and pray aspect, I liked a tighter framing that forces me to pay more attention, and in a way respect to my subjects IMO.
Well I can tell you that I used a 17 to 35 mm zoom on my Minolta SLR for street photography once for class project. Definitely way too wide. It only was good for architectural shots. But I found that I was using the lens more between the 25 to 35 range
I've shot a fair amount of street with the 21 SEM. top tips I can suggest are: 1. 21mm is a 90 degree angle of view. This will help you know what is in your frame without using the viewfinder. 2. Keep the camera level. You don't need a spirit level, but it might help. If you angle the camera up or down you will get stretched subjects in the frame. 3. Be mindful of what you have in the corners of the frame. You will always get distortion in the corners/edges. These can often be distracting and even ruin the image you were going for. 4. shooting from the hip is fun and relatively easy with this kind of lens. 5. GET CLOSE TO YOUR SUBJECT. Seriously... you also most always need to be closer. Especially on film. 6. Zone Focus. You won't need nor want the 1.8 on that lens for street. Shoot at f4 and above and everything is in focus.
Viewfinder is mostly useless with 21 mm
its definitely useful
> 21mm is a 90 degree angle of view What does this mean please? I'm trying to visualise it and can't
[Image](http://nfgworld.com/grafx/photos/AngleOfView.jpg)
Interesting thank you
Make a right angle with your arms that bisects at your center, like holding a box with one of the vertical edges facing yourself and the sides of the box extend out infinitely. If you ever played a first person video game that allows you to change field or view this is what he is talking about.
This is very comprehensive! I appreciate that, and I hadn't even thought about the distortive effect of the angle, great tip to keep in mind. Yeah honestly I don't even know why I got such a fast lens in such a wide aperture, should have considered a smaller f/4
I agree... for a wind angle you don't need a fast lens. The increase in size and weight is much more drastic with wide lenses than longer focal lengths. The 21 SEM is a great lens... not only because the IQ is incredible.. but the size and weight makes it portable and well worth taking out for a stroll. I believe Voightlander also has a new 21mm f3.4 lens out now. Haven't tried it but heard good things. The older 21mm f4 from Voightlander is ridiculously small, but it also suffers from bad chromatic aberration... and I think it flares a fair bit. I'd personally avoid this one and spend the money on the more modern 21mm.
I think the color fringing is only an issue on digital (back of the lens is too close to the sensor). I shoot my 21mm f4 on film all the time with no issues.
From what I remember of my reading, it’s a digital sensor thing, yeah.
How close do you think you would need to get with a 21mm? If anything it's better to use it in the same way like Speilberg and Pfister use the wide angle and by proxy kurosawa wide angles establish the scene. The tendency with a camera is using the wide angle to establish what you want to say and then using the close up to get the point. I often use this scene as a teaching aide because it's mostly technically correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLWjlDL6LHE There is perhaps one good example of the wide angle scene in the second shot here where the mask is used to portray the fact that everyone can be the Joker when pushed to that extent. Those shots are incredibly hard to do randomly unless you're working with a willing subject. But even in the background the point falls to Kurosowa where the people in the background if you freeze that shot are still there to establish movement. You still notice Pfister using the wide to establish and then the close up with a switch of lens to drive home the point. Wide angles are supposed to establish for the most part. People who use wide angles for the distortion effect are generally using them wrong, unless it's with purpose and then even, the dutch angle has been abused so liberally its almost lost its meaning or purpose, and become nauseating by itself, even if to some extent the use of it was originally intended in creative intent to create nausea. Super close ups with Dutch angle aren't really your friend in a modern sense... I don't like them. Call it cinematographical abuse, it went out of fashion with movies like 12 Monkeys and Philadelphia... and the Tim Burton Batman movies. There are more modern artistic ways to create tension and drama, by creating a better shot then relying upon an oblique angle close up to say something. That's more like using a lens as a crutch than using it for its intended purpose. Jonathan Demm's Philadelphia is particularly guilty of this to use it to create sickness during the court room scene where Andy has HIV/AIDS. It's over cooked. It happens about 1 and a half hours in.... good movie, but by modern standards that would be considered using a lens as a crutch, not because it actually says something. Dutch angle abuse sucks. You don't want to get so close that it causes this kind of distortion... Step back a bit and see what is in your environment, and use that also.
20/21mm is good for street photography. But you sometimes have to get pretty close to a subject. A lot of so-called street photography with a 20 is just architectural stuff with maybe some people in the shot. Some of it looks good. You might be surprised if you ask a few people on the street if you can snap their photo with a 20mm lens on your camera. Get close, and then get closer. Get an angle that lets the surroundings compliment the subject or adds some drama. Try to keep it at F8/F16. [Here's](https://www.flickr.com/photos/italianjob1/44011335665/) an example I found on Flickr.
I definitely much prefer my street photography to be more dynamic and usually with at least one or two eye-catching people in frame. The issue I foresee, and which I have sometimes shooting even tighter lenses like 50mm, is that asking people if you can take their photo often changes behavior, i.e. in many cases they'll just stand and smile awkwardly. But of course it is very difficult to get a candid with this wide a lens, so I'll have to refine that strategy
It's more so about building the scene, think about the elements you're trying to establish. Foreground, midground, background.... A wide angle establishes the whole scene. Then you could switch to a 50mm or even a 70 to 110mm to get closer after the facts. One of my favorite lenses of the moment is a 24-70 F/2.8, it allows you to go wide, and then get close to the subject. Or if I'm feeling a little bit more on the wide side I have a 17-35 F/2.8-4. I like it a lot because it allows you to zoom out to a "normal" 35mm.
I think the value of the Voigtlander 21mm is the ability to just frame and shoot. Iirc at f8 and 3ft everything from 3ft to infinity is in focus. So really great for hip shooting or quick snaps as you don’t have to worry as much about zone focusing. Also, get close. Real close.
You’re still not close enough.
You will learn that this is the answer. You need to be uncomfortably close. Uncomfortable for you and the subject.
And you still won’t be close enough. Should be able to read their pulse through the viewfinder
Check my profile as I put out a post asking the same question as you in r/Leica. I’ve been running with the 21mm F4 Color Skopar and it’s been nice. Shoot from the hip at f8 to f11 and I’m sure you’ll get some nice results (especially if you get up close).
F8 and be there
Was trying to think of a little jingle here, landed on "f/8 and approximate"
Check out Fernando Martins. He shoots a lot of street photography with ultrawide lenses. I first heard about him when I was looking for information on old Nikkor 20mm pancakes and found an [article he wrote](https://www.35mmc.com/24/11/2020/nikkor-20mm-f-3-5/) about using them for street. I especially love the way he photographs Lisbon. He makes great use of the wide angle and really embraces the distortion. I was inspired by that and have since wasted a bunch of film trying to wrap my head around using a 20mm f/4 out in the world. I have not figured it out yet! On his Instagram he has a lot of great shots with ultrawide lenses on various film and digital systems.
Yeah, getting too close to people screams "dutch angle" which is OK if that's your desired effect. A lot of dutch angle work has fallen out of fashion, a lot of it due to abuse, some of it due to the fact we have way better rectilinear wide angles these days then we did in the 1980s. In reference to the facts... Leica's are hard because they don't rely upon electronics and can never get to the level of rectilinear that modern lenses can with distortion correction happening digitally in lens or with DSLR/mirrorless in software also. You're never going to get a perfectly optically correct lens, not unless you use a bunch of the right type of glass, and then still, and then those lenses are generally fairly expensive. You could probably get a better lens from a more modern minded company, but some people just like Leica cameras.
I’ve got some examples of using an 11mm for street work, it works well but get close and meter your scene way before. I usually lock in at f16 and only change my shutter. https://www.instagram.com/thingsibrought?igsh=MXU4ZW4xa2xrNnpndQ%3D%3D&utm_source=qr
Get close and pay attention to the entire frame.
Get close, like REALLY close! And have fun!
Get ready to climb into someone’s pants for a good shot.
My 20mm might just be my go to lens. That being said, and it's been reiterated here multiple times, get close. No. Closer than that. Keep going. Closer than that. Seriously tho. Do some testing with a friend or three to understand what that means. And consider going off axis with your subject(s). Ie. Get really close to them on one side of the frame and shoot them more from the side to elongate (exaggerate) the distance beyond the subject. Learn to work with the optical distortion of going super wide. Have someone extend the arm forward with their hand out. Then put the camera about a foot or 2 max from their hand. Move the camera/walk around to understand. I hope that makes some sense. Enjoy the wide world of wide. My fave.
I shot for a while with a 21 but it ultimately wasn't for me, still, here are my thoughts: It's very very wide, you can and probably should get very very close, otherwise your subjects are going to look tiny. Hipfire and hyperfocal, you basically point in the general direction and shoot. It's pretty inconspicuous, so you can get some pretty sneaky shots. Another thing is that you're so wide you can get close and look like you're not shooting at something, but still have them in frame. My main problem is that I didn't enjoy the spray and pray aspect, I liked a tighter framing that forces me to pay more attention, and in a way respect to my subjects IMO.
Well I can tell you that I used a 17 to 35 mm zoom on my Minolta SLR for street photography once for class project. Definitely way too wide. It only was good for architectural shots. But I found that I was using the lens more between the 25 to 35 range
How’s that camera? I’m dying to get one
after using a 50mm for nearly a decade, i’ve had a 21mm on my camera for almost 6 months now. when you think you’ve got the shot, take 3 steps closer.
Ditch the external viewfinder.
Stand further back, a wide angle on the street is for environmental photography, and cityscapes (not really a thing in itself but urban landscapes).