21mm M-mount lens choice

[kokoshawnuff]

Originally Posted by Tom A

I am working on a comparison between the new SE 21f3.4, the old SA 21f3.4 and the C Biogon 21f4.5 for some future postings.

Looking forward to it Tom

[Richard G]

That beauty shop shot sure shows your command of this focal length. Great in every way.

[RichardB]

I have both the Zeiss 21mm and the Leitz (12 012) marked plastic 21mm finder with lock. I use the Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH lens.
After the recommendations of this Forum, I purchased the Zeiss finder and immediately noticed a rotation about the vertical axis in my work. A quick look at the finders revealed, the M mount center-line in relationship to the accessory/flash mount confirmed that the M accessory mount is offset from the M lens mount center-line. A simple drawing will show that this arrangement with the Zeiss finder will introduce the a fore mentioned offset. Using an object that was about the proportions of a 35mm frame, I tested both finders and the offset is readily visible. I Posted this on this Forum and was derided.
I do not use the Zeiss finder anymore and would upgrade to the newer Leica 21mm finder if it didn't have M8 frame lines.
The Zeiss finder is a nice piece of work but it is not meant for the Leica M.-Dick

[semilog]

I've just posted a gallery of travel pictures taken with the 21 C-Biogon. All are on Superia 200, and the scans are by my lab (hence the over-sharpening).

I'm still learning with this lens; click on the photo to see the rest.

[MCTuomey]

You're learning fast ...

[Requin]

Hi RichardB

Leica' lens centerline and accessory shoe centerline have an offset, same thing with Bessa R. Maybe it's not only the finder. How come Leitz and CV can't align these two centerlines?
Any suggestions?

[Shab]

Some shots with the C Biogon T* 4.5/21 and the M9:


ISO800 + F5.6 + 250seconds





Sincerely, This lens is becoming my favourite lens!

[MCTuomey]

Shab, no problems with the 4.5/21 on the M9 (red corners etc)?

[Shab]

Mike, there are problems yes. But when I bought the lens I knew it and wanted to use it on B/W. There isn't any problem. :-)

I will try Cornerfix for colour photos... but at the moment I haven't tried it.

[semilog]

Time for an update. So, that lovely little 21/4.5... First lens I've ever lost by dropping it .

Anyway. After an absolutely wonderful interaction with Zeiss Germany (who replaced the wrecked lens for a very reasonable price, all considered) I have switched to a 21/2.8 Biogon. f/4.5 was just too slow for Seattle winters and the stuff I like to shoot.

First impressions.

• Aperture ring has a noticeably better feel than one on the Biogon-C. (Especially after I dropped the Biogon-C. )

• Focus ring is well-placed and rock-solid, smooth, perfectly damped, and with no backlash.

• As on the Biogon-C, minimum focus is 0.5 m. On the M6, RF coupling is lost at 0.6 m.

• The lens is bigger, of course. Close to the size of my old 35 Summilux ASPH, or a DR Summicron. About 60g (2 ounces) heavier than the Biogon-C: identical to the 35 'lux ASPH, an ounce less than a 50 DR 'cron. I didn't think I'd like the increase in size, but I do. With the 21/4.5 I had trouble keeping my fingers out of the frame. With the f/2.8 lens that won't be a problem.

• On my M6, the lens interacts perfectly with the Zeiss accessory finder. The lens intrudes ever so slightly into the bottom frame line -- so little that we might as well say there's no intrusion at all.

• The aperture setting is very easy to read through the accessory finder, sitting right below the bottom frame line. This was unexpected and is really cool.

• All aperture and DOF markings are extremely clear. Much better than on the Biogon-C.

Overall, I think the ergonomics are considerably better than on the smaller lens.

I'll process some test photos tonight.

[Shab]

I have an R4M and the C Biogon is PERFECT for this camera. This combo is fantastic.

I think the Biogon T* 2.8/21 would block a big part of the viewfinder. The small Zeiss is the perfect one for me.

I love the zero distortion, the sharpness and the color (I have tried it on PORTRA 160).

But it is true that every one needs and finds different things, so there are different lenses... enjoy yourself!

[Richard G]

Originally Posted by RichardB

I have both the Zeiss 21mm and the Leitz (12 012) marked plastic 21mm finder with lock. I use the Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH lens.
After the recommendations of this Forum, I purchased the Zeiss finder and immediately noticed a rotation about the vertical axis in my work. A quick look at the finders revealed, the M mount center-line in relationship to the accessory/flash mount confirmed that the M accessory mount is offset from the M lens mount center-line. A simple drawing will show that this arrangement with the Zeiss finder will introduce the a fore mentioned offset. Using an object that was about the proportions of a 35mm frame, I tested both finders and the offset is readily visible. I Posted this on this Forum and was derided.
I do not use the Zeiss finder anymore and would upgrade to the newer Leica 21mm finder if it didn't have M8 frame lines.
The Zeiss finder is a nice piece of work but it is not meant for the Leica M.-Dick

This is interesting Dick, and I looked up your previous post. I was taking some architectural shots recently with the Zeiss Finder on an M5. I was surprised after the care I took (admittedly without tripod, but it was 38 degrees C outside) that two shots were not perfectly en face. I found the opposite rotation to what you found. Only two shots but both with the camera rotated clockwise slightly. I think I have others where it is much straighter.

I have done some dry (no pictures) tests with a tripod and both the ZM 21 and 25/28 finders. Both considering the reflections off the front face of each in comparison to the viewfinder front window, and more importantly, comparing the view through each I cannot find much difference at 3 meters. No difference between the two Zeiss finders and no clear difference between them and my camera viewfinder.

It is difficult to line up the centre of the external VFs except with a vertical running from the middle of the gap in the frame line etching. This mid point does move a little to left and right depending on where my eye is, behind my spectacles. My conclusion is that the absolute offset and the potential rotation of the ZM finder on a Leica must be very slight. I tested this with my M6 and I will test it when I get home from holidays with my other Ms. Just looking at the accessory shoe it looks like it is directed very slightly to the right, and that is the impression I get looking down on the mounted finders. Given that the shoe is to the right of the lens axis one might have expected the shoe to be very slightly directed left. It will be interesting to look at the other camera tomorrow.

I can only conclude at this stage that my two shots not parallel to the facade of the buildings I wanted were due to human error. I hope this remains my conclusion after further testing.

[semilog]

Originally Posted by Shab

I have an R4M and the C Biogon is PERFECT for this camera. This combo is fantastic....I love the zero distortion, the sharpness and the color (I have tried it on PORTRA 160).

But it is true that every one needs and finds different things, so there are different lenses... enjoy yourself!

Hi Shab,

Right you are.

if I lived in central California, where I grew up, the 4.5 would be the lens to have. No question -- I'm absolutely delighted with a lot of the results I got with the Biogon-C. But winter days here in the PNW are typically 2-4 stops darker than central California. I don't need (or even want) a 21 Summilux, but f/4.5 just doesn't cut it in the late afternoon when the sun sets at 4:30 and it's raining.

[Richard G]

Looking online and at all the PDFs of various Leicas I have on my HD there is great variation in the precise orientation of the accessory shoe to the top plate. My M2 instruction manual shows it like it is on my M6, pointing slightly right. The M3 manual shows it slightly left directed. Later M manuals, M5, M7 and MP show it dead straight. I know that the M6 with me right now works perfectly with the 135mm SHOOC finder, a remarkable piece of mechanical engineering accuracy. Hard to believe it will matter much for the wides like 25 and 21.

[semilog]

Thought some of you might be interested in this comparison between the MTFs of three 21mm Zeiss Biogons, the Elmarit ASPH, and the new Leica Super-Elmar. Leica and Zeiss MTFs may be acquired under different conditions, so the comparisons between brands may not be entirely fair. (Is Leica using computed or measured MTFs these days?)

In all cases lines for 10, 20, 40 cyc are shown. Leica's specification for 5 cyc is not shown. Kind of pointless for lenses at this level, anyway.



Rangefinder 21mm lenses: the State of the Art by Semilog, on Flickr


And distortion (the Elmarit ASPH and SE are pretty much the same so only the SE is shown):


21Distortion by Semilog, on Flickr


Take-homes:

• As many others have noted, the G Biogon 21/2.8 is a GREAT lens, small light sharp fast and almost no distortion. Too bad I love my M6 so much :-/. FWIW I'm currently shooting the 21/2.8 Biogon.

• The slow lenses (Biogon-C and S-E) don't improve in any meaningful way when stopped down. They give you more DoF and less vignetting. That's it.

• Zeiss cares more about correcting for distortion than Leica does.

• Zeiss really did match or exceed the 21 Elmarit ASPH with the 21/2.8 ZM — at a third the price, the same weight and bulk, and a better filter thread size. Bravo.

• On film it doesn't really matter which of these lenses you use, unless even a small amount of distortion is problematic. By f/5.6 they are all pretty much the same.

• If you shoot an M9 you really want the S-E due to the position of its rear nodal point. Accept no substitutes.

• Every one of these lenses stomps the Summilux ASPH. Big, heavy, blocks even the ZM accessory finder, distorts like a pig, absurdly expensive, not as sharp as any of the alternatives, and why would you need an ultra-fast 21 anyway? The S-E is everything that the 'lux is not.

[kzphoto]

"As many others have noted, the G Biogon 21/2.8 is a GREAT lens, small light sharp fast and almost no distortion. Too bad I love my M6 so much :-/. FWIW I'm currently shooting the 21/2.8 Biogon. "


Get an M-converted G-21 f/2.8! Best of everything. (unless you're shooting digital the rear nodal point is really close to the sensor)

[semilog]

Originally Posted by kzphoto

"As many others have noted, the G Biogon 21/2.8 is a GREAT lens, small light sharp fast and almost no distortion. Too bad I love my M6 so much :-/. FWIW I'm currently shooting the 21/2.8 Biogon. "


Get an M-converted G-21 f/2.8! Best of everything. (unless you're shooting digital the rear nodal point is really close to the sensor)

Tempting! But I like the in-camera metering of the M6 and the DoF scale on the ZM 2.8, and I'm happy with the lens's ergos.

[Bob Michaels]

I bought the CV 21mm years ago and found it to be as good a lens as I would ever need. And it is small and light in addition. I have never done any scientific tests, just looked at prints and concluded they were damn good.

That low cost CV 21mm certainly is not a limiting factor in my prints.

Here's one from last week: (it is only a JPG, you have to trust me that the print looks good)

[semilog]

No doubt there, Bob.

But I replaced my 21/4.5 it with the 2.8 because I found that the extra speed was really helpful, especially when shooting ACROS at EI 80 — my current film of choice — or with faster film in the marginal light that prevails over much of the year in the pacific northwest.

I'm happy with the 35/2.8 as my standard lens but I'm finding that lenses slower than f/2.8 just don't cut it for the way I shoot. If I lived in Florida and shot Tri-X or Neopan all the time I'd probably see it differently.

[Bob Michaels]

It is that old size & weight vs. speed vs. price compromise. At least we can be thankful that image quality does not seem to play a major role in the compromise.

I initially sold my CV 21mm because I had not used it in 2 years. I just never had it with me because I am a one lens guy. But in the following 60 days I realized there were 2 situations where it would have been my lens of choice for the day. So I bought it back from the original purchaser. Then I did not use it for the next 5 months until I decided last Saturday was the day.

May 1st I will use it at the Workers Day celebration in Revolution Square in Havana as there are some 600,000 people crammed in there. And I will use it again if the train is not broken. I usually get to ride up front with the engineer and his two assistants so I can photograph them operating the train.

I really miss the ContaxG 21mm Biogon I recently sold. But that lens and the body to mount it on was always at home when I needed it. That lens is the fastest, sharpest, smallest 21mm I have owned.

Originally Posted by semilog

No doubt there, Bob.

But I replaced my 21/4.5 it with the 2.8 because I found that the extra speed was really helpful, especially when shooting ACROS at EI 80 — my current film of choice — or with faster film in the marginal light that prevails over much of the year in the pacific northwest.

I'm happy with the 35/2.8 as my standard lens but I'm finding that lenses slower than f/2.8 just don't cut it for the way I shoot. If I lived in Florida and shot Tri-X or Neopan all the time I'd probably see it differently.

[JayM]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

It is that old size & weight vs. speed vs. price compromise. At least we can be thankful that image quality does not seem to play a major role in the compromise.

I initially sold my CV 21mm because I had not used it in 2 years. I just never had it with me because I am a one lens guy. But in the following 60 days I realized there were 2 situations where it would have been my lens of choice for the day. So I bought it back from the original purchaser. Then I did not use it for the next 5 months until I decided last Saturday was the day.

May 1st I will use it at the Workers Day celebration in Revolution Square in Havana as there are some 600,000 people crammed in there. And I will use it again if the train is not broken. I usually get to ride up front with the engineer and his two assistants so I can photograph them operating the train.

I really miss the ContaxG 21mm Biogon I recently sold. But that lens and the body to mount it on was always at home when I needed it. That lens is the fastest, sharpest, smallest 21mm I have owned.

I was thinking about selling my CV 21mm this week for the same reason you did and came to the same conclusion. Most of the time I only need a 28 but if there's ever a time that doesn't cut it then the 21 is what I want.

I was looking at the 21mm 2.8s since more speed never hurts but they're just too big. Makes me more than a little envious of the OM 21mm f/2.

[semilog]

I decided to take Capa to heart, and get closer. That is why I need a med-fast 21:


Untitled by Semilog, on Flickr


Muslims for Peace. by Semilog, on Flickr

21/2.8 ZM Biogon, 2TMY@400 (top), ACROS@80 (bottom), XTOL 1+1.

[Richard G]

21 4.5 slight crop of bottom right. No PP otherwise.


Rollei Retro 25 by Richard GM2, on Flickr

[Tom A]

Catching up on some development - we were away for 9 days and some rolls were left "unattended".
This is with the Leica Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 with a K2 yellow filter. Kodak XX in Pyrocat HD for 15 min (standard agitation 8-10 min/60 sec).
Douglas Copeland's big "Lego" Orca on the Jack Poole Plaza on the Vancouver waterfront.

[kossi008]

Originally Posted by semilog

But I replaced my 21/4.5 it with the 2.8 because I found that the extra speed was really helpful, especially when shooting ACROS at EI 80 — my current film of choice — or with faster film in the marginal light that prevails over much of the year in the pacific northwest.

Hey, a lot of us live near the 50th parallel (especially in Europe). I still find the 21/4.5 sufficient during those winter days, but then, it depends on high you go with the "faster film". I will go to Iso 1600/33° in winter...

I second the thougths about size, but I guess everybody's sweet spot is somewhere else: For me, the CV 21/4 was just a little too small, and the ZM 21/2.8 is just too big. So I settled on the ZM 21/4.5 and find it perfect.