jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The size of the Zeies is considerably smaller, but the price difference is even more pronounced....
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
If you had a dozen images produced by both lenses under the same conditions I would bet that you would not be able to accurately identify which lens produced which. And the 21mm Zeiss ZM f/2.8 is about a third the price of the 21mm Leica Asph M f/2.8. If I had to make the choice between these two lenses it, quite honestly, would be a no-brainer.
KJB
Member
BillBlackwell said:
I had the 21 ZM first and was very impressed with the lens. Great for landscape stuff. I've had the Leica ASPH now for several months and do agree that the Leica is sharper in the center while the ZM holds shapness better out to the corners. But the majority of my photos are of people and so sharpness toward the center is good for me. I've decided to go with the Leica b/c of the little knob that I've gotten used to and helps me focus faster. I like the colors better on the Leica too though others may prefer the ZM. If you'd be interested in a used copy of the ZM feel free to PM me.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think $3000 vs $900 (Popflash prices) for a specialty lens makes it a very easy decision, especially since the $900 alternative is universally acknowledged as excellent. Of course you can look at differentiating aspects like minor variations in distribution of sharpness across the frame or highly subjective impressions such as "niceness" of rendition and colour, but that looks a bit like rationalisation of an expensive lens purchase from the big L (unless you're making money with your lenses or have little budget constraints).
Then again, there's the $300 or so, very compact Voigtlaender 21/f4 lens, if you don't need that one stop - note that with the M8 you can work very well at higher ISO values, and the lens is both sharp and contrasty. Compared with the Zeiss, if you need that extra stop, the letter might actually be worth the price difference, but there's simply no way the Leica lens is worth ten times the money.
Then again, there's the $300 or so, very compact Voigtlaender 21/f4 lens, if you don't need that one stop - note that with the M8 you can work very well at higher ISO values, and the lens is both sharp and contrasty. Compared with the Zeiss, if you need that extra stop, the letter might actually be worth the price difference, but there's simply no way the Leica lens is worth ten times the money.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
There is also the forthcoming 21/4.5 from Zeiss. A lot of people are interested in that lens. I had a 21mm./f2.8 and to be honest, I didn't find amazing DOF effects wide-open.
Never Satisfied
Well-known
I have the 21mm Elmarit non ASPH and it is great. It's sharp, resisits flare, is faily well corrected and not that expensive for an older version. I cannot comment on its colour rendering because I'm a B&W shooter, but out of all of the Leica glass I own, this would the one I'd keep.
Cheers Andrew.
Cheers Andrew.
tooffy
Established
Hi jaapv,jaapv said:
Is the mount "attached" to the helicoid in any way? Is it just a matter of twisting the screws and the mount is removed?
Thanks in advance.
regards,
mike
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
The mount is attached to the body, not the helicoid. Removing the mount will not interfere with the helicoid, though different mounts might change the registration distance of the lens (and cause the lens to be inaccurate with the rangefinder in the camera).tooffy said:
jdos2
Well-known
eon said:
Except the 21mm G lenses converted to M mount.
I'll leave the autofocus lenses out. The M mount versions can stay.
tooffy
Established
erikhaugsby said:
Thank you, erikhaugsby
regards,
mike
tooffy
Established
jaapv said:
Hi jaapv,
Was reading your post again & I noticed you said to twist the screw clockwise? By convention, it's usually anti-clockwise to unscrew
Thanks in advance for clarifying.
regards,
mike
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Little twist clockwise and then normally anticlockwise will loosen it (old classic car owners trick )
)mas
Member
Zeiss
Zeiss
According to both Reid and Putts, the Zeiss is the way to go on this one. If anything, the image is better, but at least equal to Leitz.
Also, that business about changing mounts is ridiculous. It doesn't matter what framelines it brings up; there are no 21 lines on M8. You need an external 28mm finder in any case.
Regarding coding, it's easy to do it yourself with some nail polish.
Zeiss
According to both Reid and Putts, the Zeiss is the way to go on this one. If anything, the image is better, but at least equal to Leitz.
Also, that business about changing mounts is ridiculous. It doesn't matter what framelines it brings up; there are no 21 lines on M8. You need an external 28mm finder in any case.
Regarding coding, it's easy to do it yourself with some nail polish.
tooffy
Established
jaapv said:Little twist clockwise and then normally anticlockwise will loosen it (old classic car owners trick
Thanks jaap!
MJones
Member
mas said:
The Zeiss 21 needs a different mount for the coding to work properly (at least if you want to code it as a Leica 21/2.8asph). The Zeiss 21 brings up the 50/75 (I think) but for the hand-coding to work it needs to bring up the 28/90 just like the Leica 21 does. This is just like the Zeiss 25. The 25 brings up the 28/90 but it needs to bring up the 24/35 for coding to work properly.
I think I've got the frame-lines correct. Either way, the Zeiss 21 (and the 25) do not bring up the Leica equivalent frame-lines and that in effect caused the hand-coding to not work properly.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
mas said:
Not so ridiculous if you want your coding to work. It is irrelevant which framelines YOU see, it is relevant which framelines the camera reads out. That information is part of the lens coding. So: wrong mount with right coding equals unrecognized lens. There is an advantage to this. If you want to switch off the coding during shooting, for instance to make use of the natural vignetting of a lens, it suffices to push the frameline lever. No need to go into the menu. Also it gives Leica the use of 192 different codes instead of 64. This feature was introduced to enable the camera to recognize the three different settings on the long Tri-Elmar.
Most users find, btw, that an external 28 mm viewfinder for 21 mm is superfluous. The edge of the camera viewfinder is fairly close to a 21 mm field of view.
F456
Tom H
You will need an external viewfinder as the widest framelines in the M8 are for the 24mm lens (giving a 32mm angle of view). In order to see the coverage of the 21mm comfortably (giving a 28mm FOV) you should have a 28mm viewfinder. Leica/Leitz ones were made and also there are other makes as well as the expensive multi-finder 21-24-28mm made at least till very recently by Leica.
An accessory finder is not fiddly to use: you quickly get used to focusing and adjusting exposure in the camera's finder and then moving the eye to the accessory finder to judge composition. It also has the advantage of appearing brighter than the actual scene itself - don't ask me how but it really does.
Apart from the obvious drawback of additional cost these finders are easily lost or cracked, so think before you take one off in a hurry when you switch lenses, use flash - useful sometimes even on an M camera- or get moved out of the darkened concert hall before you have time to pack up methodically!
Hope this helps,
Tom
An accessory finder is not fiddly to use: you quickly get used to focusing and adjusting exposure in the camera's finder and then moving the eye to the accessory finder to judge composition. It also has the advantage of appearing brighter than the actual scene itself - don't ask me how but it really does.
Apart from the obvious drawback of additional cost these finders are easily lost or cracked, so think before you take one off in a hurry when you switch lenses, use flash - useful sometimes even on an M camera- or get moved out of the darkened concert hall before you have time to pack up methodically!
Hope this helps,
Tom
F456
Tom H
Comment on Eon's post
Comment on Eon's post
Eon's post wasn't available when I wrote mine or I would have acknowledged it.
Personally - and I don't wear glasses for taking pictures - I think it requires a bit too much eye-gymnastics to see the 21mm field (=28mm equivalent) in the M8 finder; even the 24mm field (=32mm equivalent) is a bit awkward if you are working in a hurry, but basically Eon is right.
One reason for using the accessory finder is that the lens and hood obscure too much of the frame in the camera v/f, whereas the slip-on finder is barely encroached on at all by the hood and even less by the lens without hood.
Good luck,
Tom
Comment on Eon's post
Eon's post wasn't available when I wrote mine or I would have acknowledged it.
Personally - and I don't wear glasses for taking pictures - I think it requires a bit too much eye-gymnastics to see the 21mm field (=28mm equivalent) in the M8 finder; even the 24mm field (=32mm equivalent) is a bit awkward if you are working in a hurry, but basically Eon is right.
One reason for using the accessory finder is that the lens and hood obscure too much of the frame in the camera v/f, whereas the slip-on finder is barely encroached on at all by the hood and even less by the lens without hood.
Good luck,
Tom
terrycioni
Established
Don't discount the new Zeiss 21mm F4.5. I have the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 and as others have pointed out it is an excellent and affordable WA for the M.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to shoot with Tom Abrahamson's Zeiss 21mm F4.5 on my M8 and of note it is considerably smaller than the 2.8. I certainly didn't do any serious testing but what I did shoot was equal to the Zeiss 21 F2.8.
Best Regards. Terry
Yesterday I had the opportunity to shoot with Tom Abrahamson's Zeiss 21mm F4.5 on my M8 and of note it is considerably smaller than the 2.8. I certainly didn't do any serious testing but what I did shoot was equal to the Zeiss 21 F2.8.
Best Regards. Terry