18mm Zeiss or Leica?

M

mrrobleyleica

Member
Local time
11:31 AM
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
47
View My Gallery
Hi
I'm toying with buying a super wide. Initially I fancied the Voigtlander 15mm. Although they're pretty good value, well made, I don't think I could live with the colour issues you get with using the M9.
So it's down to the Zeiss or Leica 18mm. The Leica seems to have some fans online, and looks to have fewer problems with colour fringing etc. Is that right?
The Zeiss looks great, but might have the colour issues - I'm not sure, as it looks like some of the feedback on this product combo is before the latest firmware updates etc. Has that made any difference?
I will obviously have to try and get my hands on them to compare, which is not so easy, pretty rare. I want to see how they handle too, as that's important of course. Any thoughts on that?
So, until I can see for myself, does anyone have experience with these lenses, in the real world - with an M9?
I like a sharp lens, both of them are, but I'm not hyper critical about this. I would prefer glass that renders a scene with a natural quality, some character of it's own maybe, have an attractive bokeh etc over super high resolution. Does that makes sense? It's tricky to explain that sort of thing in a few lines. This also risks prompting a deluge (maybe not) of replies about essentially the basic qualities of a photograph, rather than the merits of these lenses.
I'm leaning toward the Leica overall, it's coded, might hold it's value better and is a little faster, for what that's worth. I much prefer the Zeiss price tag, they're sharp, well built, but seem to have a quality control problem in the long term, hence the 3 year warranty. Is that being unfair?
Can anyone help please?
 
Rockwell has an informative comparison of the lenses.

The ZM18 is an incredible value (at least vs. the Leica) with extremely high build quality, and it yields gorgeous results. The hood for the ZM makes the hood for the Leica look like amateur hour (though it does obstruct a bit more than the Leica). I've shot the ZM18 on film (ACROS) and seen files shot on a pana G1. Hard to criticize in any aspect. The ZM has less distortion than the Leica.

In the end I went with the ZM21's. First the 21/4.5, and then the 21/2.8, which I kept. I prefer the smaller front element and the extra speed of the 21/2.8 over the other options mentioned here, and for my purposes 21mm is wide enough. Every one of these lenses is optically superb.
 
I have a ZM 18 that I love. Foolishly sold my first and finally got a good deal on a coded second one.

There are some reputable tests that would show the Leica being sharper all the way out to the corners while the Zeiss is a little sharper on center. Really? The Zeiss has, to my eyes, a bit more drama or 'pop'--perhaps it is contrast.

I doubt that "bokeh" is going to be a major concern on such wide, slow lenses, but with careful composition you can certainly get subject separation wide open. Doesn't the ZM focus closer than the Leica?
 
It's a tricky one, I know the ZM is an excellent lens, and no doubt pleasing to use. Rockwell tests his and the Leica 18 before the M9 came along, so mostly with film, and it and the Leica 18mm are perfect for the M8. Most ZM 18 owners seemed to use M8s and that feedback is all positive. I'm getting v little info about using it on an M9, what there is seems to suggest some colour fringing etc, which is a shame for a £1100 plus lens. I doubt I would get it coded properly, like you do in the US, as that would ruin the 3 year warranty. Don't know who does it here anyway. I'd stick to 'Sharpie' pens or Cornerfix or both.
I had a ZM 25 for a month or so, very sharp, contrasty - in a good way, but it suffered from the Zeiss wobbles, expect it had had a bad knock, so was well off on one side of the image. Zeiss couldn't fix it for real money, so it went back. I do like Zeiss hoods, they're the best, a little pricey in relation to the lens price when not included, it is with the 18.
Using filters on the Leica is complicated, you need another hood which takes a 77mm filter, extra cost there, about £200 maybe inc a decent filter!
M mount Super wides are all in pretty short supply here in UK (other then Voigtlanders), especially used, probably it'll be down to what I can get my hands on and of course money in the end. Not a new Leica for sure, I've found a used one so that's why I'm considering it.
As much as bokeh is less of a concern, out of focus areas may be rare. But I do like wide shots with the subjects close up, so it will be a factor, obviously not so often.
 
In general, I've found that as a lens focal length is further from my "normal" preferred length range, the less I use it. At the same time, very short lenses are more expensive... so there's a matter of cost justification.

I got my Zeiss 18mm 3 years ago just as the Leica 18mm was available. It was "pre-owned" by an RFF member, so it was reasonably economical. I anticipated using it on my M8, where it has the same angle of view as a 25mm on "full frame". I had its 50/75 flange coded 110100 by DAG, same as the Leica 18. I put a 58mm UV/IR filter on it with the stock petal hood.

The lens has not met my M9 yet, but I anticipate its more telecentric design will result in better edge performance than, say, the 15 Heliar or 21 Skopar. For me, on the M9 this is an extremely wide lens with only rare use anticipated, while it's more into the mainstream on the M8.

While you're shopping and pondering, you might find it useful to read Sean Reid's review of this lens on his pay website. Worthwhile! www.reidreviews.com
 
Doug
Thanks for the advice, might subscribe to Reid as it looks useful.
I've got my hands on a couple of used Leica 18mm's and taken a few simple pics. It's a nice lens, small enough to be easy to handle comfortably. Because it's designed to work with the M8 & 9 it doesn't show any vignetting or colour shift problems. But it's expensive, even used!
I'm waiting to try the Zeiss, it's in short supply, I suppose because of the price and availability (lack of) of the Leica glass. It's not cheap either really, it's also not going to keep it's value like most Leica gear does.

Why haven't you tried the Zeiss 18mm on the M9? I had a 25mm for a while, which was very very sharp, maybe too sharp, if that's possible? I have a theory that Zeiss designs works very well with film, but to me the 'pop' or punch they have with the M9 is a little tiring. That's just me, and they are very good value and real world alternative to the silly money Leica glass.

I wish the Voigtlander lenses were better at the edge and didn't have such horrible colour problems, but if they were Zeiss & Leica wouldn't sell so much of their stuff, so there you go. If I shot a lot of B&W it would be easy, get a VC 15mm, keep my Skopar 21 and so on.

Today, I put the Skopar 21 on the M9 and went out for a little walk, no other equipment. It was a bright sunny day and had some fun at F5.6 and 8, which is what these lenses are about, and what's missing from photography sometimes. Battery went down, so I wish I had carried more!
The pink edges were annoying to me when I look at the shots I took, I don't want to fiddle with cornerfix etc every time. But - I will probably have to correct the Zeiss files too, won't I? I'm not in a hurry now to buy a ultra wide, I don't think I would use it so often, and I see the Leica used in a few places. They're not a lens people keep if they don't use it enough.

Until Leica release firmware that fixes the images from cheaper lenses, mastercard will have to take the strain sometime - but not so soon.
Groan.
 
Give me a couple weeks and I'll have some feedback. I just swapped a 24 for the ZM 18/4, will be traveling in less than a week to New Orleans where wides work for me, especially for night shooting with my M9.

MTFs for the 18/4 and SEM 18 indicate the zeiss is a bit sharper on center but lags in the corners until f8 where they pretty much even out. Like most if not all of the new ASPHs, the SEM 18 is incredible across the frame at wide apertures. But it's 3x the cost of the Zeiss.

Chris Tribble over at LUF does great work with the 18/4 on an M9. He codes it as a SEM 18 and uses a LR grad filter preset for any residual corner issues. There's always Cornerfix. If all goes well I plan to send the lens to John Milich to get the flange milled for durable coding.
 
MCTuomey said:
Give me a couple weeks and I'll have some feedback. I just swapped a 24 for the ZM 18/4, will be traveling in less than a week to New Orleans where wides work for me, especially for night shooting with my M9.
Click to expand...

Swapped? A temporary exchange, or permanent shift? (I'm really happy with the 24 Elmar).

Enjoy the ZM 18! Mine is coded as an SEM and works wonders, but that is on the M8, so irrelevant to M9 use.
 
Same dilemma

Same dilemma

I already have a 15mm Voigtlander (coded as a 21/2.8) and whereas it is just about OK on my M9 it is far from wonderful on my M240. Future firmware updates may improve matters and I could always separate out the shots taken with the 15 CV and apply a lens correction profile in C1 (V. 7 Pro). However, life is too short for both of the foregoing. I am off on a long trip to India in Feb and want a really good super wide. I have been offered a mint SEM for £1600 against £1100 for a new ZM 18, by the time you have bought the essential hood or £780 for a S/H one with hood. I can get the coding done in due course, as it would be my only non-coded M fit lens, I can just leave it set up in manual, so it is just one button push to change over.

My experience with the ZM lenses has been universally excellent and reliability has been far better than new Leica lenses. It’s a sore point at the moment as a brand new Noctilux I bought last month, has had to go back to Solms, as the rangefinder cam was wrongly adjusted. I feel that the Zeiss QC or inspection regime is far superior to Leica. However emotionally I am still tempted by the SEM.

Wilson
 
Hi Wilson,
As an upgrade to the VC 15 I suggest you take a coded ZM 18 before the SEM, give it a good trial, and see whether it serves you well. The ZM 18 has real punch in the center and mid-frame at any aperture, at f/8 the corners catch up very well. Unless you know you'll be shooting at f/4-f/5.6 most of the time, where the SEM is already superb across the frame, the ZM seems to me the way to go.

The reason I don't have mine any longer is that I standardized filters at 46mm, and went to a 21mm for that reason. Otherwise, it'd be my ultra wide for my M bodies.
 
MCTuomey said:
Hi Wilson,
As an upgrade to the VC 15 I suggest you take a coded ZM 18 before the SEM, give it a good trial, and see whether it serves you well. The ZM 18 has real punch in the center and mid-frame at any aperture, at f/8 the corners catch up very well. Unless you know you'll be shooting at f/4-f/5.6 most of the time, the ZM seems to me the way to go.

The reason I don't have mine any longer is that I standardized filters at 46mm, and went to a 21mm for that reason. Otherwise, it'd be my ultra wide for my M bodies.
Click to expand...

Mike,

Thanks for the thought. My reason for even considering the SEM, is that the probability is that I would be shooting either early morning or at dusk and therefore wide open. OTOH our dear friend Ken R. feels even wide open there is very little to choose between them. I would like to see what Sean Reid thinks but I have allowed my membership to lapse, as there were too many articles that did not interest and I hated the way his site works, scrolling etc.

I think if I buy a S/H ZM 18, I need to make sure it has the 50/75 bayonet on it, if I want to code it as an 18 SEM. I believe some of the early ones had a 28/90 bayonet (or is it the other way round)? I have just had five lenses coded by Malcolm Taylor and I was going to send him my family owned since new, IIF anyway for a CLA, so I could ask if he could code the ZM as an urgent. If I buy a new ZM, with the £75 coding added to the price, it is not a mile away from the price of the mint SEM.

Wilson
 
SEM or ZM18?

SEM or ZM18?

Antonio,

Many thanks for posting those samples - very helpful. It is interesting that you have coded as a 21/2.8 (like I have my CV 15 coded). Given that both the SEM and ZM 18 are retrofocal lenses, rather than prime focal like the 21/2.8 (and CV15), in theory coding a ZM 18 as an SEM should be closer but as we know, theory and practice for lens coding does not always coincide.

In the end my decision may rest on how well Leica sort out my faulty new Noctilux issue. If it is not rapidly resolved in a manner satisfactory to me, I may feel that giving my money to Zeiss is a more sensible approach. This will be the fourth new Leica lens that has had to go back (28-35-50 Tri-Elmar, 75 Summarit, and 28 ASPH Summicron, all had problems from new), which is not a great track record.

Wilson
 
I have the Leica 18mm and use it on my M9. I bought it last year after I sold my WATE because I found myself missing having a super wide and I found it pretty cheap, $2k-ish with a passport from Dale Photo.
I use my lens without an external finder, and most of the time just scale focus. At f8, your depth of field is pretty much the whole focus range of the lens, so you don't really need to pay attention to anything other than your subject.
I used to have the Voigtlander 15mm, and after looking over pictures from both lenses, there is no comparison between the lenses. Not even close. It's probably not fair to compare them, but if you did you would find the same result.

I'm not KR, and I don't even know what color fringing is, so I'll just say that I love this lens and I am not a wide angle guy. I seriously doubt you will regret buying the Super Elmar.
 
wilsonlaidlaw said:
It is interesting that you have coded as a 21/2.8 (like I have my CV 15 coded). Given that both the SEM and ZM 18 are retrofocal lenses, rather than prime focal like the 21/2.8 (and CV15), in theory coding a ZM 18 as an SEM should be closer but as we know, theory and practice for lens coding does not always coincide.
Click to expand...

The reason I code it as a 21mm 2.8 ASPH instead of the 18mm SEM is that I code it manually, and the SEM does not appear as an option in the lens code menu on the M9. If you get your lens coded, you would of course have the option of coding it as a SEM. That may actually work better, and your EXIF would contain the correct focal length.

Cheers,

Antonio
 
ajramirez said:
The reason I code it as a 21mm 2.8 ASPH instead of the 18mm SEM is that I code it manually, and the SEM does not appear as an option in the lens code menu on the M9. If you get your lens coded, you would of course have the option of coding it as a SEM. That may actually work better, and your EXIF would contain the correct focal length.

Cheers,

Antonio
Click to expand...

Antonio,

Could you please confirm what framelines your ZM 18 brings up. When I talk to the people selling both the new and S/H ZM’s, I want to make sure I am asking the question the correct way round. I believe all new ZM lenses now have a slot into which you can do hand coding, so it does not get wiped off all the time. This is rather like Novoflex do on their SLR to M adapters. The M240 bayonet is quite tight in comparison to my M8 and M9 and keeps wiping off hand coding done on the surface of a mount. The ink ends up on the LED’s and stops them working. That is why I have just had all my non-coded lenses properly milled and coded (CV15, ZM25, ZM50, 40mm Summicron-C and 90mm Elmarit-M).

Wilson
 
I code the Zeiss 18 as a 21 2.8 pre-asph and have much less colour fringing than with the ZM 21 4.5, which I code the same. I am happy with all my Zeiss lenses.
 
Richard G said:
I code the Zeiss 18 as a 21 2.8 pre-asph and have much less colour fringing than with the ZM 21 4.5, which I code the same. I am happy with all my Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

That is no surprise as the 21/4.5 is a prime focal lens and the 18/4 is a retrofocal, with the exit pupil considerably further away from the sensor, so that the light rays will hit at a less acute angle. I was until the recent FW update for my M240, even getting red edges on my 28/2 ASPH Summicron used wide open, whereas my 16mm/2.8 Zenitar rectilinear fish-eye did not give red edges/Italian flag.

I seem to recall that the M240 offers a wider range of manual selection lenses than the M9 does. I cannot check as my M240 has just in the last two minutes, been collected by UPS to go back to Solms with the faulty new Noctilux, so that after they sort the Nocti, they can double check with my camera.

I have to admit that this “matching lens to camera” that Leica seem very keen on, makes me very uncomfortable. The whole point of an interchangeable lens system is that all bodies and lenses should conform or be adjusted to a matching standard, not be individually matched.

Wilson
 
wilsonlaidlaw said:
That is no surprise as the 21/4.5 is a prime focal lens and the 18/4 is a retrofocal, with the exit pupil considerably further away from the sensor, so that the light rays will hit at a less acute angle. I was until the recent FW update for my M240, even getting red edges on my 28/2 ASPH Summicron used wide open, whereas my 16mm/2.8 Zenitar rectilinear fish-eye did not give red edges/Italian flag.

I seem to recall that the M240 offers a wider range of manual selection lenses than the M9 does. I cannot check as my M240 has just in the last two minutes, been collected by UPS to go back to Solms with the faulty new Noctilux, so that after they sort the Nocti, they can double check with my camera.

I have to admit that this “matching lens to camera” that Leica seem very keen on, makes me very uncomfortable. The whole point of an interchangeable lens system is that all bodies and lenses should conform or be adjusted to a matching standard, not be individually matched.

Wilson
Click to expand...

And a bit deflating to be shipping your camera back to its birth place so soon after getting it. I use my C Sonnar, of all things, to check my cameras. I did extensive testing of it with my M9 which gave me good evidence my 1.5 optimised Sonnar is actually optimized for about f2.2. I get a cm of front focus at f1.5 and from f2.2 and smaller the point at which I focus on is near to maximum actual focus, with the slight rear focus at f2.8 and f4 being of no consequence. My Monochrom focuses exactly the same as the M9-P. I haven't tested for distances other than 1m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Zeiss super Ikon 350/16 cover repair
Replies
3
Views
117
Alpsman
A
Rob-F
AI is helping me decide whether to buy a Leica M10!
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Rob-F
Rob-F
Roastchestnuts
M246 or M10M or....
Replies
3
Views
611
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
Pioneer
Any Zeiss Ikon ZM flash trigger voltage restrictions
Replies
7
Views
177
Coldkennels
Coldkennels
M
Is there an M (or LTM) lens that 'renders like' the Zeiss 45mm/f2 Planar for Contax G-series?
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
12K
RexGig0
R
Back
Top Bottom