21mm M-mount lens choice

MCTuomey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't yet have enough time with the lens to really know what I think, yet. 1600PR is a film with a true speed of perhaps 640, and above I'm shooting it at 800 in full sunlight: that oughta be contrasty with any good modern lens.

The 1600PR is a half-roll that I shot on a whim.

Here's some ACROS in XTOL 1+1. On the second photo, check out the lower corners. Tack-sharp, even wide open in a 4000 dpi scan.

20110925-scan1111-X2.jpg


20110925-scan1122-X2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is anyone considering the ContaxG 21mm f2.8 Biogon (about $600 with Zeiss finder) and a cheap G1 body?

Here is what it does wide open.

blackmangettinghaircut_.jpg
 
wow. the center and corners of the "utility box" pic and Tom's cycle pic look very good to me. zeiss has such quality in the 21mm focal length: distagon, biogon, whatever mount, they're all excellent. great thread and thanks to everyone taking the time to post images, too.
 
I've had 2 Super-Angulon 3.4's (chrome and black), an Elmarit-ASPH, Elmarit Pre-ASPH and LTM Voitlander Skopar. The last two are the one's I kept and currently own. Wasn't wowed by the ASPH, not really much difference from the pre-ASPH (compared to the difference between 35 Summilux pre- and ASPH for example). The pre-ASPH has been a great performer for me, but it is on the chunky side as a travel lens. The Skopar is excellent. My copy has very little light falloff (I've heard others have different results so there must be some sample variation in the lenses). Can't beat the size.

As for finders, I have a bunch. Couple of the plastic Leica BL finders, an old Yashica 21mm finder, a Contax G1/G2 21mm finder, and the 21-24-28 Leica zoomfinder (mostly I used that when I had an M8, for the 15mm and 21mm). I find the Leica finders good enough, although the Yashica is the best made (all metal) the coating is trashed so it lacks contrast and it flares. The Contax finder is nice because it has a rubber eyepiece, but it's a bit dimmer than the Leica. I did look thru a Zeiss finder once, and agree it's great, but no way I would pay for one. I sold my Voitlander finder with one of the Super Angulons. Never cared much for it, the hard plastic eyepiece was one reason, and the way the glass is exposed in front was the other reason.
 
I got the ZM 21 4.5 on the encouragement of many positive reviews (Tom included), and for the compact size. Ultimately the size was a major factor when deciding between the 4.5 and the 2.8, for a lens that I won't use too often I wanted it to almost disappear in my bag which it does nicely; and the fact that a filter for protection will also work nicely as a hood of sorts keeps the size to a minimum.


A Different Perspective by kokoshawnuff
 
Bob Michaels said:
Is anyone considering the ContaxG 21mm f2.8 Biogon (about $600 with Zeiss finder) and a cheap G1 body?
Click to expand...

The G 21/2.8 is still my favorite 21 too Bob. Been wondering about the new 3.4 myself tho- from what I've seen from it it is quite a competitor to the G, and I'd get it on the M9 more easily.
 
6270527274_3d9b309dbe_z.jpg


This is the Super Elmar 21mm f3.4 @ 3.4. We were heading to N.Y. with a "red eye" flight and I was wandering around the International Departure terminal while waiting for the flight.
Bessa R4M and SE 21f3.4. Arista Premium 400 in Adox MQ developer for 7.5 min.
 
6270014229_67462d4018_z.jpg


Again, SE 21f3.4 @ 3.4. Focus is on the "rolling" walkway start. The Super Elmar is very even at f3.4 - corners and center are pretty close to each other in illumination. Slight (very slight) distorsion on the upright support on the left.
I am working on a comparison between the new SE 21f3.4, the old SA 21f3.4 and the C Biogon 21f4.5 for some future postings.
 
Zeiss 21mm Finder Introduces Rotational offset

Zeiss 21mm Finder Introduces Rotational offset

I have both the Zeiss 21mm and the Leitz (12 012) marked plastic 21mm finder with lock. I use the Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH lens.
After the recommendations of this Forum, I purchased the Zeiss finder and immediately noticed a rotation about the vertical axis in my work. A quick look at the finders revealed, the M mount center-line in relationship to the accessory/flash mount confirmed that the M accessory mount is offset from the M lens mount center-line. A simple drawing will show that this arrangement with the Zeiss finder will introduce the a fore mentioned offset. Using an object that was about the proportions of a 35mm frame, I tested both finders and the offset is readily visible. I Posted this on this Forum and was derided.
I do not use the Zeiss finder anymore and would upgrade to the newer Leica 21mm finder if it didn't have M8 frame lines.
The Zeiss finder is a nice piece of work but it is not meant for the Leica M.-Dick
 
I've just posted a gallery of travel pictures taken with the 21 C-Biogon. All are on Superia 200, and the scans are by my lab (hence the over-sharpening).

I'm still learning with this lens; click on the photo to see the rest.

 
Last edited:
Hi RichardB

Leica' lens centerline and accessory shoe centerline have an offset, same thing with Bessa R. Maybe it's not only the finder. How come Leitz and CV can't align these two centerlines?
Any suggestions?
 
Some shots with the C Biogon T* 4.5/21 and the M9:

6338823166_bbfb6486b5_b.jpg

ISO800 + F5.6 + 250seconds

6307366326_99850e424d_z.jpg


6306844205_6b6293b130_z.jpg


Sincerely, This lens is becoming my favourite lens!
 
Mike, there are problems yes. But when I bought the lens I knew it and wanted to use it on B/W. There isn't any problem. :)

I will try Cornerfix for colour photos... but at the moment I haven't tried it.
 
Time for an update. So, that lovely little 21/4.5... First lens I've ever lost by dropping it :bang:.

Anyway. After an absolutely wonderful interaction with Zeiss Germany (who replaced the wrecked lens for a very reasonable price, all considered) I have switched to a 21/2.8 Biogon. f/4.5 was just too slow for Seattle winters and the stuff I like to shoot.

First impressions.

• Aperture ring has a noticeably better feel than one on the Biogon-C. (Especially after I dropped the Biogon-C. :bang: )

• Focus ring is well-placed and rock-solid, smooth, perfectly damped, and with no backlash.

• As on the Biogon-C, minimum focus is 0.5 m. On the M6, RF coupling is lost at 0.6 m.

• The lens is bigger, of course. Close to the size of my old 35 Summilux ASPH, or a DR Summicron. About 60g (2 ounces) heavier than the Biogon-C: identical to the 35 'lux ASPH, an ounce less than a 50 DR 'cron. I didn't think I'd like the increase in size, but I do. With the 21/4.5 I had trouble keeping my fingers out of the frame. With the f/2.8 lens that won't be a problem.

• On my M6, the lens interacts perfectly with the Zeiss accessory finder. The lens intrudes ever so slightly into the bottom frame line -- so little that we might as well say there's no intrusion at all.

• The aperture setting is very easy to read through the accessory finder, sitting right below the bottom frame line. This was unexpected and is really cool.

• All aperture and DOF markings are extremely clear. Much better than on the Biogon-C.

Overall, I think the ergonomics are considerably better than on the smaller lens.

I'll process some test photos tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom