Leica M and Zeiss ZM "wides"

[roscoetuff]

Very happy with my Leica M4-2 and the standard 35-50-90 set-up. Thinking longer-term about wider lenses and curious how folks have approached it for themselves. Though I'm using Zeiss ZM myself as a 1st choice, I have an older Leica Tele-Elmarit thanks to recommendations here as well, so this is not meant to be a Leica / Zeiss shoot-out, but to understand for those who shoot wider than 35mm, which choices they have made (or would LIKE to make).. and if you care to indicate, you could add a note about why. Focal length more than version.

I've collected lenses for my digital Sony that cover the gamut... some like Makro... 'cause for copy work and studio photoshots for ebay, and others out of searching for the right lens among the cast-off Contax CY beauties while learning what I like... while I have yet to discard the unused (though that's the next step!). Looking to be much more selective with Leica... 'cause that's reality, right? As a fourth lens to add to the standard three-some... some day, I lean toward the 21mm, but am curious what others have done. The WATE is a tripple whammy beyond my present and prospective budget.

 

[Richard G]

Never thought I would include a 28 at all. One of my most used lenses now. 50 and 28 are a great combination for a two lens set. But if I was only getting one of these I still think it would be the 21. Having said that, the 21 is never in my bag now.

 

[kxl]

I have a ZM 21/4.5, ZM 25/2.8 and Hex-M 28/2.8.

I also used to have a ZM 18/4, which I foolishly traded and used to have the first generation CV 15mm/4.5

I do miss the ZM 18/4, and trying to really like the Hex-M, but I can't seem to get the best out of the angle of view of the 28mm focal length.

 

[Richard G]

I have a ZM 21/4.5, ZM 25/2.8 and Hex-M 28/2.8.

I also used to have a ZM 18/4, which I foolishly traded and used to have the first generation CV 15mm/4.5

I do miss the ZM 18/4, and trying to really like the Hex-M, but I can't seem to get the best out of the angle of view of the 28mm focal length.

The 18/4 is big but sometimes indispensable for architecture. For me it works like a poor man's tilt shift giving parallel vertical lines, and I then lop off the foreground.

I know what I mean about getting used to a 28. I've learnt new lenses by walking around for a couple of weeks with only that lens on the camera. I did this with the 21 before I was digital. I now use the 28 where I'd often want the 21 but I can go all day with just a 28. I would not have thought that possible when I started.

 

[JonB]

To me, lens focal length choice is largely dictated by rectilinear distortion. Simply put, the wider the lens, the greater the difference in magnification between objects in the corners and objects in the center. The tipping point from "representation of a scene" to "uncanny valley" seems to be at 21mm for me, although it varies depending on distance to subject, type of subject, and presentation format. This is true regardless of lens, so long as it is rectilinear. But all of those variables change from one photographer to the next. So my suggestion is to look at tons of photos taken at a particular focal length, ignoring which lens was used, and see what you prefer.

Among 21mm lenses, my choice was the Leica Elmarit-M Asph. If I recall my decision process, and to gloss over the fine points: the Voigtlander 21/4 and Zeiss 21/4.5 were too challenging for digital sensors, the Voigtlander 21/1.8 was too bright in the center; the Zeiss 21/2.8 had too much longitudinal chromatic aberration; the Leica 21/1.4 had too much astigmatism stopped down; and the Leica 21/3.4 was just too flat. Really, though, the Elmarit has the Kölsch-signature tonality, which Erwin Puts seems to attribute to taking problematic spectra and spreading them across the field rather than trying to align them with other colors and creating distinct problems. The Elmarit also has modest but notable field curvature that softens corners at infinity focus but creates an inviting context and heightens depth of field separation for moderate- or close-focus images. I wouldn't argue that it is the most interesting lens rendering, to which I would award the Summilux, or the most technically pristine, which would be the Super-Elmar, but it was my choice and likely would be again.

That said, digital sensors are getting better at handling steep rays, so the Voigtlander 21/4 and Zeiss 21/4.5 would be worth further investigation on an M10, and in your case with film they have never been a problem. And film makes longitudinal aberrations less of an issue, so the Zeiss 21/2.8 would also be in the running if I were shooting an M4.

Which is to say, they're all good lenses, just with slight characteristics that likely make no difference to those who aren't obsessed with lens rendering. The pragmatic choice at 21mm would be the Voigtlander 21/4, period. But, the differences between 21's is smaller than the differences between focal lengths in the first place, so I return to my original recommendation: simply look at a lot of wide-angle photos that resemble scenes you'd want to capture, look for where stretching at the edges or corners starts to bother you, go up one focal length, and only then start looking at nuances.

Hope this helps,
Jon

 

[nasmformyzombie]

One reason to use a rangefinder over an SLR is wide angle lenses. I can recommend the 21mm Zeiss Biogon ZM f/2.8 without reservation. I prefer the speed of this lens over the superb but slower Zeiss 21mm C-Biogon ZM f/4.5.

 

[pyeh]

I'm a real wide-angle nut and I ticked 'all of the above' because I have all of the above. However
1. I find the ZM25 and the Leica 24/3.8 Elmar-M Asph my most used of all my wider-than-35 lenses and if I somehow lost all my wider lenses I don't think I'd replace them.
2. The WATE is a terrific piece of engineering, like the MATE and the 21-35 Konica but it's distortion is too much for me so I never use it.

 

[Rob-F]

In M-mount lenses wider than 35mm, I use the 21mm f/2.8 ASPH; 24mm f/2.8 ASPH; 28mm Summicron. I had the 21mm Super Angulon f/3.4, but changed to the ASPH because the SA wasn't usable with the M9; also, I wanted to be able to meter with my 21mm.

Although the 21mm and the 24mm ASPH are very close, still I use them both. I use the 24mm a bit more. It is almost always wide enough, without being too wide. For those considering adding a lens wider than their 35, a 24mm (or 25mm Zeiss) may be wide enough.

 

[Rob-F]

I have always found 35mm to be a "natural view" It must be for that reason that I have five 35s in M mount. They are all Leica lenses, though. I would like to have that Zeiss 35mm Biogon.

Edit: I got the c Biogon.

 

[Popey]

I have the ZM 21mm f2.8 which I use on my M240. I'm delighted with it. I was tempted by the Leica Super Elmar, but I don't use 21mm often enough to warrant the extra cost over the Zeiss.

 

[Gregm61]

In the bag today: 18mm f3.8 Super Elmar, 24mm f3.8 Elmar, 35mm f2 ASPH and 75mm f2 Summicrons with my M262.

 

[aaron.tam]

I've been using an Ultron 28 1.9 on an M262. It's a great lens and it works better than the 1st generation 28 'cron on digital, which I find smears in the corners at infinity wide open. The Ultron looks great on film too. I'm now waiting for a 21/3.4 Super Angulon to arrive from Helen! Going to use that on the film Ms and possibly on the M262+silver efex conversion.

 

[presspass]

My four lens kit is 21/35/75/135. The five lens kit is 21/35/50/90/135 . I have tried to like the 28 and 25 and can't seem to get used to either, although I did take the 28 on a two-week trip to Prague. I'm going to make another stab at using the 28 and 25, although not at the same time. If I can't connect this time, I need to clean out these shelf queens.

 

[Penzes]

I have the SA 3,4 and the Super Elmar. The SA is my lens of choice for film. 😉

TUK-TUK Amsterdam by István Pénzes, on Flickr

Hotel Sacher by István Pénzes, on Flickr

The Super Elmar is better for digital sensors.

Rodeo by István Pénzes, on Flickr

Saturday noon chill [pool - beer - sunlight] by István Pénzes, on Flickr

 

[kriskirk]

I have the SA 3,4 and the Super Elmar. The SA is my lens of choice for film. 😉

The Super Elmar is better for digital sensors.

this pool picture is fantasic!

 

[Rob-F]

Although I prefer to have reasonably accurate framelines, and normally shoot lenses wider than 28mm by using an auxiliary finder, I have found that I can shoot my 24mm Elmarit using the camera's built-in finder just by "shooting loose" out to the finder edges. I did just that until I got a 24mm finder. The 24mm FOV didn't seem hard to estimate! Later, I acquired the Zeiss 25mm finder; since then, it is what I use because it comes closest to "what I see is what I get" with the 24mm. Great finder, the Zeiss!

 

[Dektol Dan]

4.5 21mm Biogon on M4

4.5 21mm Biogon on M4

Portra:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Portra:[....]

Love the last shot.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Beemermark]

I have the VC 21 ( had a number of older Leica 21s and like the VC better), a leica 28, and a Leica 35m. The 28/2.8 Leica is a much unappreciated , relatively cheap lens in the Leica lineup IMHO. That said, while it was my number one lens on my Leica M8.2, when I got my M9 is went in the drawer to be replaced by the 35 Summicron. I have to force myself to use the 21mm. Wide angles just aren't my thing. I've been selling off my collection of 50mm focal length lenses but probably still have at least 6. I have two real nice 90's that get used less than the 21mm.

 

[Ronald M]

Short vocals work well on my M8 if I use my UV/IR.

I tend not to use my 21 pre asph, 24 3.8, 28 2.8 ASPH , on the M9. I do not like the forced perspective and the distortion of objects in the corners.
The wide are sometimes used to take more in, but the image is small and you have to beware of foreground objects looking big compared to background. Some call this distortion, but it is not. It is simply a matter of where the camera is. Happens with your eyes also. Try it.