21/4 CS LTM vs new M version w/o VF??

[ampguy]

Recently got a 15/4.5 and on the M8, it can really use a VF.

So I looked at the price of the 21mm CV VF, and for $100 more I got a 21mm lens (the LTM one).

Not sure why anyone would buy the M-mount lens without VF for like $300 more than the LTM version?

What's up with that??

 

[chikarin]

i was wondering the exact same thing, and according to my research these wide lenses are virtually identical except for the mount and being RF aligned in the M versions.

i really don't think that having no viewfinder for higher price (even when considering the price of adapted) makes much sense of a wide lens that can easily be zone focused.

but then again, maybe there is a secret that we're not aware of 🙂

 

[ferider]

List prices of 21/4 LTM + VF vs. 21/4 P without VF are only 60 bucks different.

The used market is a different story. Maybe the LTM is so cheap because everybody wants the P version ? 🙂

I've had both, the P version is much better built. Much like your 35 Summicron, Ted. There were rather frequent QA issues with the LTM version - misaligned optics and such.

Also note that the CV finder, while bright, has relatively small frames. I used my P version with a Leica finder (the older plastic one).

Note also that the full CV 21mm finder view matches the 15mm on film quite well.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

the actual costs involved

the actual costs involved

Roland, I understand the $60 difference, but let's assume you want a VF, so now the difference for a 21/4M with VF = ~ $130ish for VF, + ~$420ish for M 21/4 lens = ~ $550.

I just got a new 21/4 with 1 year warranty, with VF for ~ $250ish less than the above amount.

All CV lens can have QC issues, so are you saying the LTM version have like more than the usual issues?? 😉

List prices of 21/4 LTM + VF vs. 21/4 P without VF are only 60 bucks different.

The used market is a different story. Maybe the LTM is so cheap because everybody wants the P version ? 🙂

I've had both, the P version is much better built. Much like your 35 Summicron, Ted. There were rather frequent QA issues with the LTM version - misaligned optics and such.

Also note that the CV finder, while bright, has relatively small frames. I used my P version with a Leica finder (the older plastic one).

Note also that the full CV 21mm finder view matches the 15mm on film quite well.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ampguy]

it is RF aligned

it is RF aligned

the 21/4 LTM is RF aligned, you are probably thinking about the non-coupled snapshot 25.

Recently got a 15/4.5 and on the M8, it can really use a VF.

So I looked at the price of the 21mm CV VF, and for $100 more I got a 21mm lens (the LTM one).

Not sure why anyone would buy the M-mount lens without VF for like $300 more than the LTM version?

What's up with that??

 

[ferider]

Look Ted, some people pay close to thousand bucks difference for 2 different mechanical incarnations of the same optical Leica design 😉 🙂

BTW, it arrived already. Haven't unpacked yet.

PS: no, I was talking about element misalignment reported for the CV 21/4 LTM version.

 

[ampguy]

good point

good point

I should have mentioned that for me, the ultra-wides are novel and for travel, where the 28-75s are used for the serious cat photos and such... 😉

Look Ted, some people pay close to thousand bucks difference for 2 different mechanical incarnations of the same optical Leica design 😉 🙂

BTW, it arrived already. Haven't unpacked yet.

PS: no, I was talking about element misalignment reported for the CV 21/4 LTM version.

 

[Tom A]

One reason for the "lack" of finder with the new M-version is that it was released at almost the same time as the R4M/A which has a 21 finder built in. It was also intended for the digital M-mounts (M8/RD1) which would require a different finder as they have 1.3 and 1.5 'crop" factors.
The 21f4 P has one other advantage - the hood will allow you to use 39mm filters and still have it in place. On the LTM version, you had to screw the hood into the filter ring - and this could cause vignetting. I dont know if the P style hood is available on its own - but if you are a filter user (IR/Red/ etc) it is worthwhile.
The optical formula for the 21f4 is the same for the LTM and P version otherwise.

 

[Rob-F]

I've had both, the P version is much better built. Much like your 35 Summicron, Ted. There were rather frequent QA issues with the LTM version - misaligned optics and such.


Cheers,

Roland.

I am surprised to read this. This is the first time I've seen anything negative about the 21mm LTM as regards build quality or optics. Where did you run across this?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I actually own the M version, and have had the LTM one before. Both seem solid to me. I actually have the R4A and so didn't need the finder, and I really like the handling of the M version.

I don't much like the big plastic CV finders.

 

[ampguy]

interesting

interesting

Thanks Tom,

If folks are buying up both versions, and M(P) users are happy to fork out hundreds more for the equivalent lens, then all is well. Just seems odd to me.

Do you think the LTM version is built to the same quality as the M-mount version?

One reason for the "lack" of finder with the new M-version is that it was released at almost the same time as the R4M/A which has a 21 finder built in. It was also intended for the digital M-mounts (M8/RD1) which would require a different finder as they have 1.3 and 1.5 'crop" factors.
The 21f4 P has one other advantage - the hood will allow you to use 39mm filters and still have it in place. On the LTM version, you had to screw the hood into the filter ring - and this could cause vignetting. I dont know if the P style hood is available on its own - but if you are a filter user (IR/Red/ etc) it is worthwhile.
The optical formula for the 21f4 is the same for the LTM and P version otherwise.

 

[ampguy]

you don't have to like the finder

you don't have to like the finder

You could sell it to me for $125 or so, and buy the lens for 150 or less, and get the same thing.

I actually own the M version, and have had the LTM one before. Both seem solid to me. I actually have the R4A and so didn't need the finder, and I really like the handling of the M version.

I don't much like the big plastic CV finders.

 

[Tom A]

I have both the LTM and the P version of the 21f4 (and also the SC Nikon mount version!). I cant say that there is a discernible difference between the build quality between them. The P version has a better aperture ring control and the improved hood - but otherwise they are the same. They are all extremely good lenses, particularly if you take into context what they cost!!! Virtually free from distorsion and very sharp across the field.
I tend to favor the Biogon 21f4.5 C- version, but my CV 21's often come along as a "pocketable" lens when I dont know if I need one- but want to have it along. Particularly with the R4M - lens is not much bigger than a couple of rolls of film anyway. With the R4 I can use it with a 35 and 21 - and it is a miniscule package.