Leica M and Zeiss ZM "wides"

[roscoetuff]

MCTuomey: This was written some time back. I went ahead and pulled in a 21mm Zeiss ZM lens. Very happy with it. That said, I shoot 90% or more with a 35mm lens. Almost never carry the 50mm, and mostly it is just the 35mm. If I carry another, it's the 90mm. The 21mm offers some accent angles the 35mm does not. I have a 135mm.... but frankly it offers very, very very little and I should probably get rid of it. Unlike a 135mm on an SLR, the point of a 135mm is to remind you how much the 90mm defined the outside reach of working with a RF.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Since I do not use a 28mm often & do have a 24mm on a Nikon I opted for the Zeiss which was at the time about half the price of a Leica, though much larger. E. Puts in his reviews rated, again, at the time, a good number of years back the Zeiss over the Leica. But, to reiterate, since I do not use one much I opted for cost over size.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I've owned all of these ZM lenses - and their Leica counterparts - at one time or another. The Zeiss Ms are all wonderful lenses and well worth a look.

The 18mm Leica Super-Elmar, for example, has nothing whatsoever over the recently discontinued 18mm ZM - except price (something I thought I'd never say when comparing Leica and non-Leica glass). Only slight differences in color renditions exist between them.

 

[ACullen]

I use ZM 25, 35Biogon & 50Planar on my M2. Having thought 25mm was wide enough for me on impulse recently I added a CV15 LTM. I figured whilst the ZM 18 was probably a better fit - it'd work out at three times the cost and still be an 'occasional' lens. The ZM21 struck me as too close to 25mm to worth adding to my bag.

The additional bonus of the LTM CV15 is of course that it'll go nicely on my Leotax F.

 

[MCTuomey]

MCTuomey: This was written some time back. I went ahead and pulled in a 21mm Zeiss ZM lens. Very happy with it. That said, I shoot 90% or more with a 35mm lens. Almost never carry the 50mm, and mostly it is just the 35mm. If I carry another, it's the 90mm. The 21mm offers some accent angles the 35mm does not. I have a 135mm.... but frankly it offers very, very very little and I should probably get rid of it. Unlike a 135mm on an SLR, the point of a 135mm is to remind you how much the 90mm defined the outside reach of working with a RF.

Glad to hear, Skip. I used to shoot a ZM 21/2.8 on an M9, loved it for things like long exposure night shooting in NOLA. Plenty sharp (esp in center), zeiss colors, nice star points at night, pleasing size and weight. Like you, I'd carry a 35mm and the 21mm, and only carrying a fast 50 for club shooting. Longest FL I use on M-mount is a 75mm, as I can't focus 90 or 135 reliably at wide apertures.

Good shooting!

 

[creenus]

Have a Zeiss 25mm Biogon ZM and use it on my Milolta CLE, with no finder required. I just compose to the very edge of the frame and this works well. I only shoot B&W, so there's no color shift issue. Extremely sharp, fairly rugged. I'd love a Leica 24mm f3.8 Elmar-M, but this will do in the meantime. =)

 

[sepiareverb]

Recently added the ZM 15 to my kit. Haven't had a bunch of time with it yet, but expect it to be a fine replacement for the Contax G Hologon I just sold.

 

[Dguebey]

I am great supporter of 24mm. But... with a 28mm (FOV 75°) you can do the same job than a 35 (63°), and it is a true wide angle. So I understand 28 partisans. A 18-28-50 combo would deserve attention.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Out to Lunch, on Flickr. Saigon skyline. November 2017. Leica M-E - Zeiss 2.8/28.

 

[dp13]

In order of purchase. All were bought used:

ZM 50/2
ZM 35/2
ZM 85/4
CV 21/1.8
CV 28/2

I use the 28 and the 35 most of the time with a slight preference for the 28.

 

[raid]

I was using the first version 35mm Summicron for many years first, then I got the second version Summilux. More recently I got the (modern) Zeiss 35/2. Three amazing lenses, but I wanted also to try the exotic Zeiss Hologon 16/8, which I bought a few weeks ago. I don't have any Zeiss or Leica lenses for 21mm or 24mm or 28mm.

 

[raid]

My only ZM is a 35/2. I was curious how a modern lens renders things differently from an older lens such as the pre-asph 35/1.4 Lux.

 

[skucera]

The M3 I inherited came with a 35mm Summaron with goggles, along with a 50mm collapsible Summicron, a 90mm LTM Elmar, and a 135mm Tele-Elmar. These lenses have completely met my needs, and the viewfinder is clear and bright... well, except the goggles on the Summaron muddy the view slightly. If I feel a need to go wider, I use other cameras where I have options as wide as 24mm, but that's not a Leica lens.

Scott

 

[raid]

I could not find among the options a 16mm/8 Hologon in M mount!

 

[ktmrider]

I just added the 25f2.8 ZM to keep the 35f2.8 C Biogon company. I am finding the 21 is too wide and I loved the 24f2.8 on my Nikon F. Am hoping to like it on the Leica's.

 

[narsuitus]

I use two 35mm rangefinder systems.

Leica M6 body with 21mm f/1.4 Leitz, 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss, and 90mm f/2 Leitz

Contax G1 body with 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss and 28mm f/2.8 Zeiss, 45mm f/2 Zeiss, and 90mm f/2.8 Zeiss

Updated my previous post with this image.


35mm Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm. Is this a currently active thread?

Anyway, I've been through a lot of wides in the <35mm range. I've ended up with a WATE and a Voigtländer 28/3.5 in M mount and I'm happy with those. I don't spend a lot of time analyzing them; I just like the photos I make using them.





G

 

[raid]

I added a Zeiss ZM 35/2 to try out a more modern 35mm lens. It is a "close to perfection" lens.

I recently got a Zeiss Hologon and had Don Goldberg convert its mount to M. Unless I learn how to use with the M9 some software to cut down on color smear or vignetting, such as Cornerfix, this lens is better suited for film cameras or for B&W conversions of digital images from the M9. With the M8 I get nice looking color images with a 21mm crop. This lens has zero distortion. This is why I bought it. It is challenge to use it.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Nice picture Raid!

 

[Rob-F]

I added a Zeiss ZM 35/2 to try out a more modern 35mm lens. It is a "close to perfection" lens.

Raid, how did you decide between the ZM f/2 vs. the f/2.8 c Biogon? The latter seems to have acquired some sort of mystique in the minds of photographers; but the f/2 is only another $50 or so, and some say it's just as good (and a stop faster). I've been thinking of getting one of them myself, and I'm not sure which to get.

The answers I've seen are like, "You want smaller and lighter, get the f/2.8. You want f/2, get the f/2." But people ascribe magical qualities to the f/2.8 C Biogon . . .