21mm lenses

[mrisney]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrisney/4820922147

Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 2.8/21 for Contax G.
Distortion is minimal, even have used it for portraits, small, amazing lens.

[Louis Cantin]

Foigtlander 21M on a R4M

[sparrow6224]

Roger -- wow. Those are stunning shots. You have controlled the shadows and highlights on an Ansel-Adams kind of level; really beautiful (of course I suppose the trick would be to print them that way but I know nothing, yet, of that art so cannot say). Is that developer you mention a divided developer like Acufine? What EI / ISO did you shoot the Tri-X at? How long in what formula did you develop? Obviously I'm hankering to try the same approach.
Thanks
Vince P

[philosomatographer]

I have no RF 21mm, but there is no question about it in my mind as to the most spectacular SLR 21mm lens - The Olympus OM Zuiko 21mm f/2.0. It's virtually glued to my OM-3Ti as my daily walk-around combination (I see wide...) and, though not stellar at f/2.0, it's pretty decent, and it's spectacular from f/4.0 on. This tiny lens is about the same size as anybody else's SLR 50mm f/1.8, and has very little distortion compared to even the giant Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (it's closest "competitor"). If you shoot Olympus OM or Canon EF SLRs, I can't recommend this little jewel enough.

(all three are scanned darkroom prints, 8x10in)

[helenhill]

21 Super Angulon

[helenhill]

21 Super angulon ...

[helenhill]

Thank You Thomas ...
Ii think we both fell in love with the 21 SA's 'character'

But I too no longer use that focal length much
At present I am flirting with a 28mm
And continuing to be Strong & Steady with the 50 Lux & 50 color skopar
Cheers- H

[umcelinho]

I can say of the one I have, the ZM Biogon 21/2.8. I use it with a CV 21mm plastic viewfinder. Very versatile due to the 2.8 aperture, a bit on the large side but pleasing to use. Beautiful tones, and wide open it gives some 3dness (is that even a word?).

[sparrow6224]

I think the word you want is 3D-itude. Some oldsters might call it depth but that's boh-ring.

[sparrow6224]

PS I want that Zuiko 21/2 badly but as mentioned higher up the last one I was watching sold for near $1000. Yikes. I picked up the Zuiko 21/3.5 instead which also has a good reputation, though not AS good, but haven't given it a proper run yet.

Anyone use the Minolta Rokkor 21mm lenses? They had a very fine reputation but I don't know which is which.

[PMCC]

Any other fans of the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 for Contax G?

[ZeissFan]

I have a 20mm Nikkor that I bought in the 1980s for my Nikon SLR. Nice lens although it shows some barrel distortion.

I also have a 21mm Biogon for the Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinders of the 1950s. Excellent lens, although very heavy and very little distortion. Pretty much, none.

[umcelinho]

zm biogon 21/2.8


below the station by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


brooklyn bridge by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

bokeh at 70cm

21/2.8 bokeh by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


ped xing by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


corner by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by PMCC

Any other fans of the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 for Contax G?

One here, a magnificent lens indeed, perhaps the best of the Gs.


via Tapatalk.

[The Meaness]

21/4.5 c biogon or 21/2.8 contax g (adapted to m) are my dream 21s...

check flickr - you can study the differences between the m mount 21s until the day you die.

M Mount group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/


Helen & Marcelo - great shots!

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by PMCC

Any other fans of the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 for Contax G?

Yes, this is the lens that makes it worthwhile to buy a body just so you can use this lens. I am keeping mine.

One of the few lenses that I have never read a negative comment about. In fact I have never heard anyone say they thought there was a better 21mm. As good, yes. Better, no.

[sparrow6224]

Check this out, 21mm fans. Apparently only 700 of these babies were made. Bjorn Rorslett praises it but likes the modern VC 21/4 for Nikon S mount better. Which I didn't know existed either....

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-S-2-1cm-21...item4aaa58adab

[sparrow6224]

You could sell the Nikkor and spend the month in Rome taking pictures with the VC.... and whatever else you feel like bringing. The 50 and the 85....

Or you could sell the VC and buy a sweater.

[Phil_F_NM]

21mm Super Angulon f/3.4 "There is no substitute."
Both taken with the SA:





After that one, the ZM 21mm f/2.8 takes second place in my book but it's too big for my taste and isn't a SA. Great lens, but the SA takes the cake here IMO.

Phil Forrest

[helenhill]

I Agree with Phil ..a 21 SA is a Must have ...must Try at least once in your Life

[Ronny]

Very nice P, Helen - As always!
Ronny

[rogerzilla]

Originally Posted by sparrow6224

Roger -- wow. Those are stunning shots. You have controlled the shadows and highlights on an Ansel-Adams kind of level; really beautiful (of course I suppose the trick would be to print them that way but I know nothing, yet, of that art so cannot say). Is that developer you mention a divided developer like Acufine? What EI / ISO did you shoot the Tri-X at? How long in what formula did you develop? Obviously I'm hankering to try the same approach.
Thanks
Vince P

Thanks.

Aculux is Paterson's standard fine grain developer. 13 minutes at 20 deg C. They are scanned negatives so obviously I've had to adjust the brightness and contrast because they're very grey straight off Vuescan (it doesn't understand that I metered from the mid-tones and *most* of the scene is actually supposed to be dark). In the old days I would print everything on grade 3 Record-Rapid and that's the look I'm trying to get.

To be honest, I'm not totally happy with the negatives. Kodak have reformulated Tri-X and it doesn't seem to achieve its full speed (I rated it at 400 ASA and used a hand meter). The negs are rather thin, although when you're taking pictures of largely black things in dark sheds, you expect fairly light negs. Grain is also excessive, although there is shadow detail if you look for it.

What Tri-X does achieve is remarkable sharpness despite the hevay grain; without any artificial sharpening, the scans are far crisper than from any digital camera. The grains obligingly seem to line up around the fine details.

Now I'll let you into a secret. The scans are very slightly "toned" as if they'd been dipped in selenium toner, by using the Colorize control in Photoshop (the one in Paint Shop Pro does exactly the same thing, so there's no need to spend lots of money on software). This gives them the warm look and the impression of deepened tonality. It's an optical illusion which I discovered a little while ago.

[sparrow6224]

I do my vuescan set to RGB rather than b&w -- I should try doing it the right way to see if I get better scans -- but then I have lots of tones to play with. Generally everything has a yellow/red cast much as what a Selenium wash would add, only often too much so.

Anyway thanks for the info. Have you tried Neopan 400? I find it very beautiful these days.

[Pablito]

Originally Posted by sleepyhead

I have used the CV 21/4, but sold it because it just seemed "character-less".

Perhaps the best characteristic a lens can have.

[philosomatographer]

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM

After that one [21mm Super Angulon f/3.4], the ZM 21mm f/2.8 takes second place in my book but it's too big for my taste and isn't a SA. Great lens, but the SA takes the cake here IMO.

Phil Forrest

Hmm - for 'character' and '50s charm' - maybe - but in technical respects, the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 ZM, and even the Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 (SLR lens) will eat if for breakfast - not so much resolution-wise, but contrast, modern coatings, light falloff, etc.

The Zuiko 21, while no match for the Biogon 21/2.8 whatsoever, is much smaller though (and it's an SLR ultrawide that's a stop faster - quite an engineering feat - length is 44mm, 21/2.8 Biogon is 75mm)

Anyway, I love the 21mm focal length!