Leica 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit or Zeiss Biogon T* 2,8/21 ZM

frogmouth

frogmouth

Newbie
Local time
1:27 PM
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
10
View My Gallery
Hi all:

I am new here in this fantastic forum! I use a Leica M8 with a 35/2 'cron and I want to add a WA lens. I have narrowed to a 21mm and am evaluating the Zeiss 21 vs. the Leica 21. Is there any difference in the imag quality between the two (though the Leica is almost 3.5x in price!).

Appreciate any advice,
 
the leica as always will have a nicer rendition
and is significantly sharper in the centre wide open
on a wide, its pretty helpful to have a bit of softness in the corners
you also can code the leica properly and it will bring up the correct framlines
if you want to shoot colour with the 21 zeiss then you need to get the 28mm bayonet then have it fixed on professionally (the screws are glued on) and then get it milled and then code it

oh, and i have a MINT 21mm ASPH for sale in its original box with hood and caps. Give me a shout if interested.
 
Last edited:
Zeiss glass is good but don't forget about the pre-ASPH 21mm Elmarit. (I use one, bought new from a local, authorized Leica dealer some years ago, although I am still waiting for my Leica-supplied 60mm IR-cut filter requested in December! The images from this lens have never disappointed.)

I like the lack of "auxiliary issues" implied by using the Leica glass rather than the equivalent Zeiss glass. Small but significant things like lens codability, viewfinder frame compatibility and general fit and finish.

Check out clean, used, non-ASPH 21mm Elmarits: you may be pleased with what you discover.

-g
 
Thank you all...appreciate the quick & highly valuable information. I will try and digest the info & revert if I have more questions. Thanks again!
 
I've got a pre-asph Leica 21/2.8. I think it is an extremely fine lens, it produces a lovely rendition, sharp but not harsh. It is softer towards the edges at the wider apertures, noticeable when prints are very big, but as another poster said this can be an advantage. One important feature of this lens for me (since I take alot of pictures of buildings) is the lens is very well corrected and 'draws' very well. The edge of a building placed at the edge of the frame maintains a balanced relationship with other picture elements. This is different to the perspective effects you can get when tilting a wide angle lens. Hope this helps.

Nik
 
jackal2513 said:
the leica as always will have a nicer rendition
and is significantly sharper in the centre wide open
on a wide, its pretty helpful to have a bit of softness in the corners
you also can code the leica properly and it will bring up the correct framlines
if you want to shoot colour with the 21 zeiss then you need to get the 28mm bayonet then have it fixed on professionally (the screws are glued on) and then get it milled and then code it
Click to expand...
There is very little difference in sharpness, if anything, the Zeiss is slightly sharper than the Leica wide open. Both are excellent lenses.But they are different, matter of taste. See Sean Reids ReidReviews,(subscription site), he has a side-by-side review.
The screws are not glued, they have been using Locktite, a mini-drop of acetone will free them.Then give them a little clockwise twist and they will come out easily. The replacement mount costs 26 Euro.Should you damage a screw, order the screws new with the mount for 2 Euro for four. A Dremel tool does the milling perfectly as DIY.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
There is very little difference in sharpness, if anything, the Zeiss is slightly sharper than the Leica wide open.
Click to expand...



wide open, the leica is sharper in the centre

and whilst the salesman talk of dremmels and milling etc.. appears to slip off the tongue so easily, the fact remains that getting a 21 zeiss to work properly on an m8 is a royal pain in the arse
 
Last edited:
jackal2513 said:
the leica as always will have a nicer rendition
and is significantly sharper in the centre wide open
on a wide, its pretty helpful to have a bit of softness in the corners
you also can code the leica properly and it will bring up the correct framlines
if you want to shoot colour with the 21 zeiss then you need to get the 28mm bayonet then have it fixed on professionally (the screws are glued on) and then get it milled and then code it

oh, and i have a MINT 21mm ASPH for sale in its original box with hood and caps. Give me a shout if interested.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by a few of your statements. Why do you need a 28mm bayonet to shoot color with the Zeiss? I thought the M8's widest frame lines are 21mm. What frame lines doe the 21mm Leica bring up versus the Zeiss?

Is Zeiss changing the mount on the 21mm lens to bring up the same frame lines as the Leica?
 
I like Zeiss's color better than Leica's. and for $1000 or used $750 it is hard to beat Zeiss. Traditionally Zeiss is much better in wide angle design than leica.
 
CDT said:
I'm confused by a few of your statements. Why do you need a 28mm bayonet to shoot color with the Zeiss? I thought the M8's widest frame lines are 21mm. What frame lines doe the 21mm Leica bring up versus the Zeiss?

Is Zeiss changing the mount on the 21mm lens to bring up the same frame lines as the Leica?
Click to expand...

You need the 28 mount to make it the same as the Elmarit 21. Then, if you code the mount the camera will recognize the lens as a 21 and apply the appropriate corrections. If you leave the mount as it is you can only code it as a 35 and the corrections will be wrong.
 
jackal2513 said:
wide open, the leica is sharper in the centre

and whilst the salesman talk of dremmels and milling etc.. appears to slip off the tongue so easily, the fact remains that getting a 21 zeiss to work properly on an m8 is a royal pain in the arse
Click to expand...

I found it no trouble at all. And it works perfectly....
 
jdos2 said:
A similarly priced option is the Contax G2 21mm, considered by many to be the superior to the Leica offering, at least in terms of flare, sharpness, and color.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006IRV

I chose the CV 21mm but would get the Contax G2 21mm in a heartbeat.

To speak to your choices, Erwin likes the ZM. Both of your lenses are good choices. You won't go wrong with either.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c020.html
Click to expand...



You're kidding us?
G2 is an autofocus camera so leave those lenses out of here.

/Erik
 
Now I am little confused 🙂

I have another question -- do I need an external viewfinder if use a Zeiss 21mm lens (or any Zeiss lens for that matter) while using with an M8?
 
If you can see the entire frame in the M8-viewfinder then you don't need an external viewfinder as it is close enought to a 21mm view, but if you wear glasses you would need an external viewfinder.
The lightframes however only includes down to 24mm.

And now to the confusing part. The internal frames are named 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90mm as they should be. They do howerver give a different angle of view compared to the same frames in a film-based M-camera.
Those external viewfinders we can buy is made with the angle of view as the lenses gives on a film-based M-camera so on the M8 we have to shoose a different viewfinder. For the 21mm you should shoose the 28mm external viewfinder.
It makes no difference the marque of the lens.

/Erik
 
How do the two lenses compare in terms of size? I'm using the CV 21mm now and like everything about it except the speed. The Leica lens seems awfully big for a lens that's only a stop faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom