21mm GAS & guilt

[Steve_F]

Hi all,
In the past 8 months I have purchased and sold a CV 21/4 Color-Skopar for my M6TTL. It was sold it because I felt I wasn't using it enough (and along with the sale of other gear to fund a Nikkor purchase) but 'needed' a 24-70 2.8 Nikkor for my D3. I'm sure you can guess what's coming next....
I've hardly used the 24-70 Nikkor and genuinely miss my 21mm for the Leica.
I approached the guy who I sold the CV too and he's happy with it and doesn't want to sell it back 🙁 (I cant blame him).
If I'm going to get another 21mm I'd like something faster and the Zeiss 21/2.8 is really appealing.

Just feeling kind of guilty (they're a lot of money) and tipping toward that Zeiss....

Steve.

 

[jsrockit]

You can't feel guilty about the Zeiss if you don't feel guilt about your D3. 😉

 

[Steve_F]

Interesting about the Zeiss rendering images cooler. My other glass is Leica and I shoot Ektachrome 100G as well as b&w so would prefer the images warmer out of the camera.
As for the D3, well it earns its keep, so no guilt. Nice try! 🙂
The 21mm would be an expensive 'luxury'. Of course I could say the Zeiss could pay its way over, say, 3 years in black and white print sales..... 😉

Steve.

 

[BillBingham2]

I would look at the slower ZM 21mm, I think there is one (or was) in the classifieds now.

I had a 21/2.8 leica some years back and it was a beast to carry. I really only had one time where I really need the speed. More recently I fell in love with a couple of CV 25/4 lenses (two different mounts) and found f4 was enough.

Tom A. said that the slower ZM 21 had become his favorite 21 of all time. High words from a very smart and talanted guy.

B2 (;->

 

[nex100]

the price difference between the 21mm F2.8 Biogon and F4 version is minimal. I would take the 21mm F2.8 Biogon anytime. The resolution is good and the corners are sharp.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well, there's a way to rationalize buying the ZI 28mm: think of the money you're saving by not buying the Leica 21mm f 1.4 lens.

 

[Tom A]

The 21f2.8 Zeiss is a very good lens - but it is a rather large piece of optics. Performance is good - equal to the Elmarit 21f2.8. However, due to its size I usually grab the 21f4.5 Biogon when I need the wide-view. The advantage with the 21's is that you can handhold them at slower speed and off-set the speed of the lens.
The 21f4.5 is also one of the best 21's I have ever used. Straight lines, no flare and compact. It is small enough that you can carry it in a pocket as an extra lens when needed. The 21f2.8 need a large pocket!
Yes, the 21f1.4 Summilux is amazing, but at the price it should be. Tried it ( a friend has it) and, if I had a spare $7000 floating around I would get one. It is one of the "tour de force" lenses from Leica - but you really have to justify it (and sell a lot of prints!).
I have the 21f4 VC and do use it - but about 80% of my 21 shots are done with the 21f4.5 - the balance with my slightly battered 21f3.4 S-A and the 21/4 VC. Occasionally I take the 21f2.8 Biogon out -just to make it feel that I am not ignoring it!

 

[presspass]

Seconds on the Biogon 4.5. I used one to shoot available light in the local post office last weekend and it is a wonderful lens. Small, light, and sharp - all in all, a wonderful lens.

 

[Steve_F]

Once again a mine of useful information. Thanks.
The real dilemma here is the speed vs overall performance.
My thinking is something like this:
I can stop down the 2.8 but can't go faster with 4.5.
Image quality is superb on the 4.5 and edge to edge performance and distortion ( lack of) is very important to me. As I'll be wet printing so no corrections with software.
Speed - I confidently h/h my 35/2 down to 1/15 or 1/8 if necessary.
I love the compactness of the M system. Some days my 90/2.8 feels to big. I have a Nikon digital set-up that I'm tired of lugging around.

Thanks,

Steve.

Looking very favourable for the 4.5.