Prosaic
Well-known
Comparing the Elmarit 21/2.8 with the Zeiss Biogon, any reason to spend a lot more on the Leica lens?
Or how about the Zeiss 18/4?
Or how about the Zeiss 18/4?
Leica 21/2.8 worth it?
- Thread starter Prosaic
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 22
- Views 2K
Ororaro
Well-known
You're about to make the most important decision of your life: Open the gates of a secret world by going with the Leica or be an outsider, a wannabe, with the biogon and forever defending the stupid "common sense" concept.
Ah, I forgot: your pictures will be the same with any lens, granted that you shoot some.
😉
Ah, I forgot: your pictures will be the same with any lens, granted that you shoot some.
😉
Avotius
Some guy
remember one thing before you buy, a zeiss doesnt say leica on it. That said, a zeiss will do 95% of what the leica will, can you tell the difference? Maybe the biggest difference of all is just the price because the zeiss 21 is one fantastic lens, seen plenty of nice prints from that chunk of glass.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
As owner of one third-party lens for Leica bodies (a Konica Hexanon 35/f2), my humble opinion is...
Nope.
In fact, try the Cosina Voigtlander first. If you like the focal length... go for whatever rocks your boat, but keep in mind that it really doesn't need to have the Leica brand engraving on its outer ring.
Nope.
In fact, try the Cosina Voigtlander first. If you like the focal length... go for whatever rocks your boat, but keep in mind that it really doesn't need to have the Leica brand engraving on its outer ring.
northpole
Established
For 35mm film work, I would by the Zeiss every time (or possibly cheaper) for the simple reason that I will seldom use such a wide angle objective. The money is better in the bank or elsewhere.
Peter
Peter
Turtle
Veteran
I do not own either, but can comment on the astounding performance of other Zeiss ZMs...of which the 21 is reputed to be one of the very best. I have not heard a single person say that they felt the Leica to be notieably better in any performance sense. Many more have said the two to be neck and neck. Sounds like a good reason to go with the cheaper Zeiss. My personal choice would be the 21 4.5 for the tiny size and accepting that if I shot outside f4.5 is likely to be plenty fast enough and if indoors I would likely need more DOF than 2.8.
The Leica is what, 3x the price? Thats bout $2000 that could be spent on other things or not spent at al!
The Leica is what, 3x the price? Thats bout $2000 that could be spent on other things or not spent at al!
This thread has a lot of good practical advice favoring the Zeiss Biogon. Certainly an excellent choice, but I went with a used Elmarit ASPH at an attractive price including the finder and filters. One difference between the two is that the Biogon is a bit longer but has a smaller (46mm) filter size compared to the flared end of the Elmarit and its 55mm filter. So the Elmarit may intrude a bit more into the viewfinder of a Bessa 4 for instance, but this wouldn't be a problem when using an external viewfinder accessory. I'd be happy with either lens, and I do also have the 21 Biogon for Contax G. Here's an Elmarit shot...
Attachments
And here's one from the 21 Contax-G
Philippe D.
Cheeeeeese
Hi,
As well as i like the Elmarit 21 asph. 😉
Hey dude, it's YOUR money, not our. 😛Prosaic said:
I use one Distagon 18 (on digital M8), and i like it.
As well as i like the Elmarit 21 asph. 😉
Hacker
黑客
You can get both if you go with the Zeiss.
Photon42
burn the box
I tend to look at those things not from an image quality perspective at first priority, since I'd be pressed hard to favor Zeiss over Leica or even CV, just by looking at the image itself (given otherwise identical shots 😉.
For me, what counts as well, are the money / build quality / versatility aspects. This boils down to the following list:
Film camera use, mostly outside: CV 21
Film and need of max aperture: Zeiss 21
Film and M8 color usage and a bit more coding hassle: Zeiss 21 or CV 21
Film and M8 color usage with little coding hassle: Leica 21/2.8 used
Film and M8 color usage with no coding hassle: Leica 21/2.8 ASPH new
For me it was a used Leica 21/2.8, but still need to pick it up.
Regards
Ivo
For me, what counts as well, are the money / build quality / versatility aspects. This boils down to the following list:
Film camera use, mostly outside: CV 21
Film and need of max aperture: Zeiss 21
Film and M8 color usage and a bit more coding hassle: Zeiss 21 or CV 21
Film and M8 color usage with little coding hassle: Leica 21/2.8 used
Film and M8 color usage with no coding hassle: Leica 21/2.8 ASPH new
For me it was a used Leica 21/2.8, but still need to pick it up.
Regards
Ivo
Last edited:
pvenables
Established
loneranger
Well-known
I've at various times tried all the 21's, including leica, zeiss ZM, VC, superangulon. For film use, nothing beats the contax g 21, for compactness, and sharpness.
Y
YEGEY
Guest
NB23 said:
And what secret world are you talking about? Sounds like a cult to me. "outsider"? Wow! I think it's been proven time and time again - Leica is NOT always the best lens option. But I suppose you can believe what you want.:bang:
Ororaro
Well-known
YEGEY said:
Don't break your head on that wall. For your information: I was Joking.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Yegey, in this forum we usually joke about these things. I had no problem seeing the joke in NB's post. We don't take ourselves too seriously... that often.
Krosya
Konicaze
NB23 said:
And from what I have seen of your shots with that lens - it's very good. Hope you will post some more sometime. I tries CV 21 and while it was good, I never got used to that FL. But I love seeing what others can do with this FL.
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
I like my 21mm ZM Biogon a lot....what's extra nice is that it takes the same 46mm filters as my 35 and 50 Summiluxs and my 28 and 90 Elmarits....one filter for most all of my "M" lenses.....handy when you are carrying 3 different filters (orange, Y-G and K3 and/or UV).
David Murphy
Veteran
My vote is for the Leica 21/2.8. I can't afford much Leica glass myself, but the image quality of the two Summitars I've owned have deeply impressed me considering how old they were. I think Leica's advantage over other lens makers (except perhaps for Zeiss) is really holding to tight as-built tolerances. This is an enormous cost driver, partly explaining the high cost of Leica. On the other hand, the Zeiss fifties I've owned: Sonnar (Contax RF), Pancolar (in Exakta SLR) and the Flexon (Praktina SLR) have left similar impressions on me.
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Tough question but overall I don't think the Leica lens is worth it. One circumstance would be if you wanted a coded lens for an M8.
Statements that the Zeiss is 95% of the Leica lens simply not true. The Zeiss has a slight advantage over the Leica lens being sharper in the center while the same at the edges wide open and with greater flare control. The first time I tried the Leica 21 ASPH I thought something as wrong with it at 2.8, the image quality although good wasn't as great as their reputation for wide open performance implied. The jump from 2.8 to 4 was enormous, not just the usual gain that one would expect when closing down a stop. A bit of research revealed that this is a trait of this lens. Basically this put me off using 2.8 so returned it. As the owner of the pre-ASPH elmarit at the time it was odd that wide open both lenses were the same it was only at f4 that the ASPH version showed its advantage, usually its the other way around! Unfortunately the Pre-ASPH Elmarit is simply too large and since wide open performance was just ok I though to look at something slower and more compact. I tried the Voiglander 21 in SC mount and was amazed it was clearly better then the Pre-ASPH Elmarit. It even had less distortion than both Elmarit versions. (The new compact Zeiss is now even better again) So I got another to suit M Mount. As I had moved away from M's to more compact CL's and CLE's the size of the Voigtlander is more important than upgrading to either of the new Zeiss models. 5 different focal lengths all with 39mm filter size is really really convenient, 4 others branded Leica but the Voigtlander is not deficient in any way. Not all Voigtlander lenses are equal but the 21 is really one of their top performers.
In overall terms I still think the Biogon G still has the edge over the ZM version but thats for another discussion.
The other circumstance you may choose the Leica is continuity of character in brand lines. I don't like a different lens that stands out over others in your kit with different character traits (apart from perspective). Fortunately at 21mm they seem to merge alot closer, maybe the excessive depth of field covers most brand character differences. Alot of people however don't have any problems integrating different brands in the kit, its just a personal knit pick of mine.
If i was limited to choose between Leica and Zeiss, It would be the Zeiss C 4.5 would probably be the lens I would pick.
PS I wouldn't be surprised though if a new slower Leica 21 came out to go with their new Summarit line.
Statements that the Zeiss is 95% of the Leica lens simply not true. The Zeiss has a slight advantage over the Leica lens being sharper in the center while the same at the edges wide open and with greater flare control. The first time I tried the Leica 21 ASPH I thought something as wrong with it at 2.8, the image quality although good wasn't as great as their reputation for wide open performance implied. The jump from 2.8 to 4 was enormous, not just the usual gain that one would expect when closing down a stop. A bit of research revealed that this is a trait of this lens. Basically this put me off using 2.8 so returned it. As the owner of the pre-ASPH elmarit at the time it was odd that wide open both lenses were the same it was only at f4 that the ASPH version showed its advantage, usually its the other way around! Unfortunately the Pre-ASPH Elmarit is simply too large and since wide open performance was just ok I though to look at something slower and more compact. I tried the Voiglander 21 in SC mount and was amazed it was clearly better then the Pre-ASPH Elmarit. It even had less distortion than both Elmarit versions. (The new compact Zeiss is now even better again) So I got another to suit M Mount. As I had moved away from M's to more compact CL's and CLE's the size of the Voigtlander is more important than upgrading to either of the new Zeiss models. 5 different focal lengths all with 39mm filter size is really really convenient, 4 others branded Leica but the Voigtlander is not deficient in any way. Not all Voigtlander lenses are equal but the 21 is really one of their top performers.
In overall terms I still think the Biogon G still has the edge over the ZM version but thats for another discussion.
The other circumstance you may choose the Leica is continuity of character in brand lines. I don't like a different lens that stands out over others in your kit with different character traits (apart from perspective). Fortunately at 21mm they seem to merge alot closer, maybe the excessive depth of field covers most brand character differences. Alot of people however don't have any problems integrating different brands in the kit, its just a personal knit pick of mine.
If i was limited to choose between Leica and Zeiss, It would be the Zeiss C 4.5 would probably be the lens I would pick.
PS I wouldn't be surprised though if a new slower Leica 21 came out to go with their new Summarit line.
