Kahnlund
Member
back in the days when I was shooting contax G2 the 21mm was almost glued to the camera...
I can now feel that I miss that wideangle point of view.
SO the question is which one should i try to get hold of.
I think it stands between;
zeiss biogon 21/4,5, Voigtlander 21/4,0 and Leica Super angular 21/3,4
The lens is to be used on my MP and also on the M2 that i used won on an auction for 260euro cant wait to get my hands on it
anyway, I think that the super angular would fit just perfect to an M2 but the ones I have seen up for sale lately has been very expensive, could get a new Voigtlander for less money....
and then if I am going for a newish lens, is the Zeiss wort twice the money over the Voigtlander....?
questions questions.... please give me your opinion on it!
I can now feel that I miss that wideangle point of view.
SO the question is which one should i try to get hold of.
I think it stands between;
zeiss biogon 21/4,5, Voigtlander 21/4,0 and Leica Super angular 21/3,4
The lens is to be used on my MP and also on the M2 that i used won on an auction for 260euro cant wait to get my hands on it
anyway, I think that the super angular would fit just perfect to an M2 but the ones I have seen up for sale lately has been very expensive, could get a new Voigtlander for less money....
and then if I am going for a newish lens, is the Zeiss wort twice the money over the Voigtlander....?
questions questions.... please give me your opinion on it!
Cron
Well-known
if you do not need 2,8 I would go for the Zeiss ZM 4,5/21. It is small, compact design, well built but sure as a modern lens it should have more contrast than an older Leica lens. But I have no practice with the CV 21 or the Super Angulon
maddoc
... likes film again.
I was lucky to find a cheapish Super-Angulon-M 21/3.4 four years ago ... if I would be in the market for a 21mm these days, I would buy the 21/4.5 from Zeiss ...
Kahnlund
Member
Yes, I am under the impresion that the zeiss 21/4,5 is a very good lens, maybe a bit like the zeiss I used to have on my contax. Altough it seems to be more or less impossible to find a used one....(maybe cause it's so good;-)
I think I will keep looking for a used Angulon or Zeiss for a while and if nothing comes up I just have to bit the bullit and go for a new one.
Thanks for confirming my thoughts
/Mattias
I think I will keep looking for a used Angulon or Zeiss for a while and if nothing comes up I just have to bit the bullit and go for a new one.
Thanks for confirming my thoughts
/Mattias
alun severn
Established
Kahnlund, As you have probably seen the pros and cos of a variety of 21s are covered in this lengthy post here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71058
I'm in a similar position. I would very much like a 21mm and the SA is of course attractive but costly in good examples. I'm tending towards the Zeiss Biogon 21/4,5 but as you say there don't seem to be any used copies and new (especially if one also needs a finder) it will comfortably exceed 1300/1400 dollars (or GB pounds)...
THe logical alternative -- it's cheaper and there are used copies around -- is the VC 21/4 pancake, but I have to say that in the pictures I have seen from this lens (admittedly only on-screen) I don't really like the rendition. By the side of Leica or Zeiss 21s there seems something 'course' even 'granular' about the rendiiton... I can't quite put my finger on it...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71058
I'm in a similar position. I would very much like a 21mm and the SA is of course attractive but costly in good examples. I'm tending towards the Zeiss Biogon 21/4,5 but as you say there don't seem to be any used copies and new (especially if one also needs a finder) it will comfortably exceed 1300/1400 dollars (or GB pounds)...
THe logical alternative -- it's cheaper and there are used copies around -- is the VC 21/4 pancake, but I have to say that in the pictures I have seen from this lens (admittedly only on-screen) I don't really like the rendition. By the side of Leica or Zeiss 21s there seems something 'course' even 'granular' about the rendiiton... I can't quite put my finger on it...
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Probably been said here before, but the ZI 28mm F2.8 Biogon gets my vote. Plenty of bang for the buck. A lens I use a lot more than I would have thought. Originally got it for the M8, so I could have a "28mm lens" because of the crop factor, but now that I've gone full frame, it's become one of my faves...
rogerzilla
Well-known
I can't find anything to criticise about the VC 21/4. Some people say it lacks character, but I think that means it doesn't distort. It also takes 39mm filters, whiuch is rather more convenient than the Leitz 21/3.4. It is as sharp as you'll ever want (I think it's been measured at least on a par with the Leitz lens, if not a little better).
presspass
filmshooter
I have the CV and the 4.5 Zeiss. Both are good lenses. If you are going to use a 21 where the light source is in the photo or close to it, the Zeiss controls flare much better. The CV does not shine when it comes to backlit scenes but does a wonderful job otherwise and is both cheaper and smaller.
Kahnlund
Member
Cheers for your input, good to know that the CV has problems with backlit scenes as this is important, how does the Angulon handle this?
I think the zeiss 21/2,8 will be a bit to big.... as I feel right now the zeiss 21/4,5 makes most sense but the cant stop feeling that the angulon would be just perfect on the M2..... anyway seems to be hard to come over any one of the two at a decent price so I might just have to wait and see what pops up first and then give it a try.
I think the zeiss 21/2,8 will be a bit to big.... as I feel right now the zeiss 21/4,5 makes most sense but the cant stop feeling that the angulon would be just perfect on the M2..... anyway seems to be hard to come over any one of the two at a decent price so I might just have to wait and see what pops up first and then give it a try.
rogerzilla
Well-known
CV with a backlit scene here:
There is a bit of flare but it's not like a 1950s lens or anything - see the "Firefly" shot in my gallery for what happens with a Summaron!
There is a bit of flare but it's not like a 1950s lens or anything - see the "Firefly" shot in my gallery for what happens with a Summaron!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have and use a lot of 21's. My preferences are as below:
21f3.4 S-A: Classic wideangle, great center sharpness (among the best ever) at 3.4 and f4 slightly soft corners. Aperture is difficult to access when used with the S-A hood. Wonderfully 60's look to the images though. Will flare if provoked. Blocks meter cell on M6 and later. Perfect on a M2!
Zeiss Biogon 21f2.8 - very good lens, some distorsion in the edges (not much - but visible for critical work). Flare resistant. Rivals the 21f2.8 Asph Elmarit in all other aspects. Big though.
Zeiss C Biogon 21f4.5: The ultimate 21 if you can live with the slower speed. Almost perfectly rectilinear (distorsion is less than 0.09%!!!!!!). Very sharp, even at f4.5 and flare resistant. My favorite 21 bar none!
Ricoh 21f3.5 LTM: A bit of a collectible, small and compact - great "walk-about" lens as it is smaller than just about every other 21. Good performer, sharp with little distorsion.
VC 21f4: another pocket sized lens, uses 39 mm filters too. For the money - the best bang for the buck. Very respectable performance - optimum at f8 - but even at f4 it gives good images. Great for travelling as it can rattle around in your pocket and pulled out when needed.
I have had the various Elmarits, including Asph 21f2.8 - got rid of them as I found the 1st version Elmarit 21f2.8 rather "bland" and not that good. The Asph is very sharp, but extremely high contrast - to contrasty for bl/w in my opinion.
If you need the speed and have the bucks! The Summilux 21f1.4 is incredible - big lens but some interesting effects shooting it at f1.4 - almost cinematic look to it. Borrowed one from a friend and have so far resisted buying one as I cant figure out when I need a superfast 21!
The 21's are interesting, either you like the focal length or you dont. I have had various 21's since the introduction of the SA 21f3.4 in the early 60's (never been without a 21 since). Even used to carry a Contax II with the classic Biogon 21f4.5 (heavy chrome lens - but so good!)
I usually dedicate a body to the 21 - these days a Bessa R4M - except for the S-A which sits on a M2 - ready to go. The problem with the SA is finding the filters for it, thin rim 48 mm thread.
One alternative - particularly if you already use a 28 - is to go even wider. Zeiss Distagon 18mm f4.0. A bit on the "hefty" side - but very good. Some edge distorsion (curves pillars a bit). Sharp and with that nice Zeiss ZM contrast - not too high, but not flat either. Get the finder too - amazing piece of optics - brighter than reality! Not cheap - but MUCH less than the Leica 18f3.8 and I cant tell them apart image-wise ( apart from the smoother contrast of the Zeiss lens)
21f3.4 S-A: Classic wideangle, great center sharpness (among the best ever) at 3.4 and f4 slightly soft corners. Aperture is difficult to access when used with the S-A hood. Wonderfully 60's look to the images though. Will flare if provoked. Blocks meter cell on M6 and later. Perfect on a M2!
Zeiss Biogon 21f2.8 - very good lens, some distorsion in the edges (not much - but visible for critical work). Flare resistant. Rivals the 21f2.8 Asph Elmarit in all other aspects. Big though.
Zeiss C Biogon 21f4.5: The ultimate 21 if you can live with the slower speed. Almost perfectly rectilinear (distorsion is less than 0.09%!!!!!!). Very sharp, even at f4.5 and flare resistant. My favorite 21 bar none!
Ricoh 21f3.5 LTM: A bit of a collectible, small and compact - great "walk-about" lens as it is smaller than just about every other 21. Good performer, sharp with little distorsion.
VC 21f4: another pocket sized lens, uses 39 mm filters too. For the money - the best bang for the buck. Very respectable performance - optimum at f8 - but even at f4 it gives good images. Great for travelling as it can rattle around in your pocket and pulled out when needed.
I have had the various Elmarits, including Asph 21f2.8 - got rid of them as I found the 1st version Elmarit 21f2.8 rather "bland" and not that good. The Asph is very sharp, but extremely high contrast - to contrasty for bl/w in my opinion.
If you need the speed and have the bucks! The Summilux 21f1.4 is incredible - big lens but some interesting effects shooting it at f1.4 - almost cinematic look to it. Borrowed one from a friend and have so far resisted buying one as I cant figure out when I need a superfast 21!
The 21's are interesting, either you like the focal length or you dont. I have had various 21's since the introduction of the SA 21f3.4 in the early 60's (never been without a 21 since). Even used to carry a Contax II with the classic Biogon 21f4.5 (heavy chrome lens - but so good!)
I usually dedicate a body to the 21 - these days a Bessa R4M - except for the S-A which sits on a M2 - ready to go. The problem with the SA is finding the filters for it, thin rim 48 mm thread.
One alternative - particularly if you already use a 28 - is to go even wider. Zeiss Distagon 18mm f4.0. A bit on the "hefty" side - but very good. Some edge distorsion (curves pillars a bit). Sharp and with that nice Zeiss ZM contrast - not too high, but not flat either. Get the finder too - amazing piece of optics - brighter than reality! Not cheap - but MUCH less than the Leica 18f3.8 and I cant tell them apart image-wise ( apart from the smoother contrast of the Zeiss lens)
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've not used the others, but the ZM 21/4.5 is pretty awesome. All of them sound good though. If you want to save some cash, get the CV, if you want something faster, get the ZM 21/2.8. But I've been very happy with the 21/4.5.
Kahnlund
Member
I think it stands between the zeiss and leica, as I just got hols of an nice old M2 I am leaning against the Super angulon, that is if I can find one....
What finder are you guys using, are Voigtlanders any good?
What finder are you guys using, are Voigtlanders any good?
rogerzilla
Well-known
Actually, I don't like the CV finder. It has combined 25 and 21mm brightlines which are very close to each other and get muddled (who uses a 25mm lens anyway?), the top of the 21mm brightline disappears against any bright background like the sky, it has a lot of barrel distortion and the focus is odd - my eye has to adjust to it, which takes a moment. It is, however, quite accurate.
umcelinho
Marcelo
I use the old plastic 21mm viewfinder from voigtlander, the one that doesn't have the 25mm framelines. Before buying it I tried the zeiss and the leica ones. Leica's seemes to be very similar to voigtlander's, but with a much higher price tag. The zeiss puts the other two to shame, it's way better. But with a price tag that is the same as the voigtlander's 21mm ltm that comes with a viewfinder, I couldn't justify it. So I went with the voigtlander. And should add that i'm satisfied with it. sometimes the framelines do fade a bit depending on the light, but it's the price i pay for not spending almost 500 bucks in a viewfinder (it cost 1/5th of that).
Tim Gray
Well-known
I use the Zeiss finder. I got it as a packaged deal (used for a great price) with the lens. I probably would have gone with the CV finder had I not lucked out.
haempe
Well-known
BillBingham2
Registered User
+2 Voting twice as I used it (CV 25/4) in LTM and S (Nikon) mounts and LOVED IT!!
I had an early 21/2.8 from leica and I did not like the distortion.
If I needed a 21 it would be the ZM 21/4.5.
B2
Last edited:
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I've used the ZM 21mm f/2.8 which was great but needed a hood and so it became too big.
Now I'm married to the 21mm f/3.4 SA and couldn't be happier. It's an amazing lens. I think it's sharper at f/4 than my 35 'Lux is as all apertures. With the right film you can just keep pulling more and more detail out of the images that the SA makes.
As for the finder, I used to use a 21mm Leica finder, the later plastic one...
Until I got my 21mm Zeiss finder which provides better vision than my eyeballs with a brand new set of contacts in. Amazing. I thought I would sell the finder since I got it with my SA but now I don't think I could bring myself to making that decision. It's just too good. The Zeiss finders are absolutely worth it.
Phil Forrest
Now I'm married to the 21mm f/3.4 SA and couldn't be happier. It's an amazing lens. I think it's sharper at f/4 than my 35 'Lux is as all apertures. With the right film you can just keep pulling more and more detail out of the images that the SA makes.
As for the finder, I used to use a 21mm Leica finder, the later plastic one...
Until I got my 21mm Zeiss finder which provides better vision than my eyeballs with a brand new set of contacts in. Amazing. I thought I would sell the finder since I got it with my SA but now I don't think I could bring myself to making that decision. It's just too good. The Zeiss finders are absolutely worth it.
Phil Forrest
Nokton48
Veteran
I do (or will again soon). I sold my 25mm CV Skopar, now replacing it with the RF Canon 25mm F3.5. Much more interesting character and will still be around in another fifty years, unlike the Skopar.
The 19mm F3.5 Canon RF era lens compares in -every- way to the 21mm F3.4 Super Angulon IMO. I will not part with mine.
Last edited: