Choosing a 21mm for an R-D1

N

ncaleffi

Member
Local time
3:34 PM
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
34
Hi there, I'm interested in your opinions about those two 21mm lenses and how they behave on our beloved R-D1. Your opinions of the 40C Summicron has been very helpful and got me a wonderful lens, which has become my standard one. Now I'm looking for a 21mm lens with small dimension and I'm oriented towards those ones:

- Leica 21/4 Super Angulon (first version, 1958-1963)
- Zeiss Super Wide Angle 21mm f/4.5 C Biogon T* ZM Manual (2004-)

About the Leica Super Angulon, it seems that the rear element could cause some problem with the camera, as it is stated here:

"Lenses with a rear element that protrudes more than 20.5 mm behind the lens mount should not be used" (http://cameraquest.com/Epson-R-D1/_r-d1/r-d1_11.htm)

Ken Rockwell states almost the same thing about the Zeiss - burt referred to the M9: "This f/4.5 lens is not for use on the LEICA M9 because its rear nodal point is not in a position for which the M9's internal lens profiles can compensate." (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/21mm-f45.htm)

Is that true? Anybody ever used those lenses?

Thanks in advance.
Nicola.
 
Double Negative said:
Either of those lenses are great choices, especially that Zeiss.



...But this is a very good suggestion as well. The lil' Color Skopar is a sweet lens (and very tiny, plus comes with a finder).
Click to expand...
Only the LTM version. Since I use my CV 21mm LTM on my R4A I have no need for the EVF (as in external not electronic). Anyone interested in it, PM me.
 
The Color Skopar 21/4 is a nice and interesting suggestion. When used on the R-D1, one should get the M Mount version - is the viewfinder necessary in that case? Or one could use the, say, the 28 frameline and shoot anyway?
 
ncaleffi said:
The Color Skopar 21/4 is a nice and interesting suggestion. When used on the R-D1, one should get the M Mount version - is the viewfinder necessary in that case? Or one could use the, say, the 28 frameline and shoot anyway?
Click to expand...

You can also try to find the Voigtländer 21mm D Viewfinder ("D" means digital):

99dtar5u.jpg


I also tried to use the CV21 with the normal finder first, but you will always get a little bit more on the resulting picture then you can see through it.
 
no external finder for me...i use the lcd to 'visualize' what will be in the frame for a few shots and then it's all in my head...works well.
 
the Super Angulon will vignette a lot and metering won't work. The 4.5 Biogon is very well regarded, and the CV pleases many people, but I went for the 2.8 Biogon as the faster max aperture felt very useful for me since on the R-D1 it becomes a 32mm. It is big, but depending on your needs it might be a good option.

I don't use an external finder, but I wouldn't look for the somewhat hard to find 21mm D viewfinder, but instead I'd get any 35mm framelines viewfinder and use it, it'll be pretty much the same. or if you are okay with estimating framing, pick the 50mm framelines and imagine it as being the center rectangle of an even bigger rectangle, composed of 9 rectangles. this way you get a pretty well estimated field of view with no external finder hassle. just leave both eyes open when doing so.
 
I used the 21/3.4 SA on my R-D1 for a while. It mounts fine, but there is significant light falloff at the sides, and metering doesn't work. (If you dial in -2 stops exposure comp it comes close, but the effectiveness varies with aperture and focal distance. Great lens, but too much work on the R-D1, so I sold it.

Ari
 
Let me second the ZM 21mm f/2.8. It's an amazing lens, period. It became my carry everywhere lens on the RD-1, then on the M8.

...then I got a Super Angulon.

Phil Forrest
 
i had the 21/4.5 from zeiss and it truly is a great lens...and it really isn't all that big...but the cv is smaller and after a few years of trying every lens i could afford...in the end, size has won the day, as in the smaller the better. the rd1 was built to use small lens, imho, and being a crop factor camera, the best part of the lens is used and the extra quality (sharp corners) is wasted.
 
I have not tried any of the 2 lenses of reference, but the CV 21 f4 is a good lens, a little slow? Maybe, but it all depends on what is to be made, as always
 
back alley said:
(...). the rd1 was built to use small lens, imho, and being a crop factor camera, the best part of the lens is used and the extra quality (sharp corners) is wasted.
Click to expand...

I concur.
you may remember this review ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml ) where the VC 21mm is described as well suited for the R-D1 sensor and a bargain for the money.
The modern VC lenses (like the 21mm) are likely to perform at least as good as the old Leica lenses (such as Super Angulon), as Mr Erwin Puts wrote in his review of Cosina/Voigtlander lenses.
 
Last edited:
At f/5.6 and on the CV 21/4 is second to none. A bit softer at f/4 but not that much. It is so good and tiny that i use it more than my bulkier and otherwise superb Elmarit 21/2.8 asph on both R-D1 and M8.2.

3mynylq
 
I agree that the CV 21/4 would be an optimal choice in terms of size and general "behaviour". But I'm wondering if the Voigtlander lenses do miss that "look" that make Leica lenses so special. I don't know how to argue this in a more specific way, but whenever I use my Summicron C40 I get amazing results: photos which are, at the same time, precise and soft, sharp and smooth. I guess that the Zeiss lenses - which I've never used, by the way - also feature some other specific characters. So, apart from the size issue (which is not secondary), the choice for me is also between a very good lens (the CV) sold for about 400 euro and some stellar lenses (Leica, Zeiss) sold for 1000 to 1200 euro. In terms of price is a *huge* difference, but I do wonder if the difference in quality is worth the price. (Fortunately, the C40 is much cheaper).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom