umcelinho
Marcelo
I'm not sure I can find a small piece of plexiglass where I live, I'm thinking maybe doing it with epoxy, dead easy to mold.. might be this weekend's minichallenge
woodphoto
woodphoto
So my 21 arrived a few hours ago... First impressions.. seems to be built well and the f stop clicks sound wonderful. Also, reviews of this lens made it seam huge. I guess its all relative. Its tiny in comparison to my everyday lens, the Nokton 35/1.2. The hood is a little big, but solidly built. I am also thinking I might get the viewfinder anyways just to have incase I want to be more precise in my framing.
Took a few shots outside of these bushes that are perfect for test shots. Always green @ 18% grey, and has white and red flowers. Going to take it out this weekend and see what it can do.
Took a few shots outside of these bushes that are perfect for test shots. Always green @ 18% grey, and has white and red flowers. Going to take it out this weekend and see what it can do.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Micheal. I agree with the hood. Initially it seems a bit of an overkill sizewise -but it fits the lens well. It is not exactly a small lens - but not much bigger than a 35f2. Comfortable to hold and the hood does not intrude when you want to change aperture (big problem on the Super Angulon). Solid build and focus and aperture are smooth. I am going to shoot some Pan F+ today and tomorrow with both the 21f3.4 and the 35f1.2 II - sun is out and it is unseasonally warm too. Later I will do a side-by-side with the Biogon 21f4.5 and, of course, the Super Angulon.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Based on my experience with the Elmar-M 24/3.8 (superb lens) and some of the comments over at the FM Leica M8/9 forum (alt gear), I think I'd consider the new Super Elmar 21 that Tom mentioned. Its mtf chart is as impressive as the Zeiss 21mm Distagon, the small format UWA by which all others are measured.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Wow, Mike. The Super-Elmar MTFs really are remarkable. Astonishing, even. But $3000 is more than I can justify spending, given the established excellence of both Biogons at well under half the price. And the nearly zero distortion of the C-Biogon also appeals...
woodphoto
woodphoto
As much as I love Leica lenses, and as much as the Super Elmar's look amazing, spending 3000 bucks on one lens is crazy. For that price you can get three great Zeiss lenses.. the 21/2.8, the 35/2.8, and the 50/2. (I filled up a B&H sopping cart for ****s and giggles...)
rogerzilla
Well-known
I bought the CV 21/4 (in screwmount; I bought an adapter ring) from Stephen Gandy. I actually got the screwmount because it was a very good deal with the VF included and I wanted a silver one (M version only comes in black).
It is an amazing lens regardless of the price. The only criticism I have is that light fall-off is very noticeable with blue skies. You may like this!
It is an amazing lens regardless of the price. The only criticism I have is that light fall-off is very noticeable with blue skies. You may like this!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
This will be interesting to watch. Thanks, Tom!
MCTuomey
Veteran
Which is exactly why I don't have the Super Elmar 21 (or the 18) myself
I've been very pleased with all of the ultra-wide ZMs I've tried, no doubt: 18/4 Distagon, 21/2.8 Biogon, and 25/2.8 Biogon.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not always.
What's the alternative to a Thambar?
Or indeed, for a good deal more than $3000, the alternative to a 21 Summilux, if you need/want the speed?
Then, of course, there's an Alpa-mount 38/4.5 Biogon.
All you can ever say is that a particular lens isn't worth it to you. That's not the same as saying it's crazy.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I just ordered a black ZM 21/4.5. This was a really hard choice! I think I'll miss the speed of the 2.8 version, but for me the slower lens's compactness and lack of geometric distortion won the argument. Anyway, I got an unexpectedly good deal on the glass so if I really miss the speed, I'll sell it and get a 2.8...
MCTuomey
Veteran
Am interested in your observations after you've had some time with the lens. On paper the ZM 21/4.5's performance looks like a clone of the SE 21/3.4. And Tom doesn't notice any real difference in practice.
If anything, the SE 21f3.4 is a clone of the 21f4.5 C Biogon, with some more distorsion - although so far that has not given me any problem. I suspect that where the SE shines is in even performance at f3,4. I am still shooting with both of these (and several other 21's) in an attempt to see if there are major differences between them.
Last edited by a moderator:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^----- The lens cross sections are utterly different.
I think that the big differences between the C-Biogon and the Super-Elmarit are going to be visible on a full-frame digital sensor -- not on film.
The C-B is a true Biogon design -- nearly symmetrical and with a nodal point that sits very close to the sensor plane (not as close as a Super Angulon, but still close). That is fine for film but a disaster for digital. The S-E is made for digital: it's a highly telecentric design with a nodal point that's much further from the sensor plane.
The C-B is almost unusable on an M9. Zeiss specifically cautions that it's a bad idea, and Lloyd Chambers has examples here which show why -- as does Ken Rockwell.
On film, it appears that the only advantages of the S-E are 2/3 of a stop and somewhat less severe vignetting. Also, the MTFs indicate that the S-E has a bit less astigmatism, although how much this will matter in practice is an open question.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
OK, just got the Zeiss 21mm finder.
Holy cow.
It makes my M6's finder (0.85 with MP optics) look like a cheap, pathetic toy.
Holy cow.
It makes my M6's finder (0.85 with MP optics) look like a cheap, pathetic toy.
Turtle
Veteran
quite. I do not know how it manages it but the 25/28 finder makes scenes look brighter and higher in contrast than with the naked eye. After using it, the M finders are, as you said, awful in comparison.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
About finders: I have a CV 21/4 with plastic finder - and the foot is very prone to crack off the hotshoe if you aren't careful... :bang: Now I have gaffer's tape around it to hold in place, but I have to that again since the finder is a little aslope now.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
By the way, I mentioned this in another 21mm thread, but I e-mailed Zeiss and they tell me that:
1. The 21mm ZM finder has a magnification of 0.52.
2. The parallax lines in the finder are calibrated for a distance of 1 m.
1. The 21mm ZM finder has a magnification of 0.52.
2. The parallax lines in the finder are calibrated for a distance of 1 m.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
looks very good on my laptop monitor. i like the overall rendition, seems to resemble the wide ZM i've used, maybe deeper contrast than the 25/2.8 or 21/2.8. what do you think, having the negatives and full rez scan in front of you?
interesting choice of film to test drive the lens, btw. i'm trying to imagine what tmx or delta 100 would give.
interesting choice of film to test drive the lens, btw. i'm trying to imagine what tmx or delta 100 would give.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
This is with the C Biogon 21f4.5 and Pan F. Developed in Beutler.