ajpat
ajpat
Hi,
Has anyone used or using the pre aspherical 21mm 2.8 lens on the M8? Would appreciate any feed back on its performance.
Thanks.
ajpat
Has anyone used or using the pre aspherical 21mm 2.8 lens on the M8? Would appreciate any feed back on its performance.
Thanks.
ajpat
Photon42
burn the box
the 21mm pre ASPH is a nice lens. Build quality is exceptional. It needs to be coded for the M8 for color work. Lens coding does not require "non-compliant" actions ... Leica can do it for you. I've unsure how it compares to the Zeiss and the ASPH one. To me it looks really sharp.
DwF
Well-known
The 21mm Elmarit M Pre-asph
The 21mm Elmarit M Pre-asph
I love this lens and find it a joy to use. Here is a link to a gallery where you will find several images made with this lens. I took it along to England and France with my 28mm Elmarit. I spent half of my time witht he 21 afix'd to my M8. I also find that it balances well ont eh camera allowing for low-light or llonger handheld exposures.
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/103253446
Best,
David
The 21mm Elmarit M Pre-asph
I love this lens and find it a joy to use. Here is a link to a gallery where you will find several images made with this lens. I took it along to England and France with my 28mm Elmarit. I spent half of my time witht he 21 afix'd to my M8. I also find that it balances well ont eh camera allowing for low-light or llonger handheld exposures.
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/103253446
Best,
David
HenningW
Well-known
I've used many different 21's, including the SA f/3.4 and f/4, 21/2.8 non-asph and ASPH, Ricoh f/3.5, CV f/4, Zeiss f/2.8 and new and old f/4.5's, WATE. Not all on the M8, but most including the non-asph and ASPH.
The non-asph doesn't come off that well in comparison, but better on the M8 than on film. On film it's probably one of the poorest of the lot; not really much better than the SA f/4. But in any case, the new ASPH is the best of the f/2.8's, and the Zeiss is not far behind. The new f/4.5 Zeiss is probably the best overall, but not much better than the ASPH. The WATE is outstanding for a zoom and in my view about the same as the Zeiss f/2.8.
I still have the SA f/3.4 for film, the CV for compactness and the WATE for convenience. I use the ASPH when I'm sure I'm going to need the quality or speed.
Henning
The non-asph doesn't come off that well in comparison, but better on the M8 than on film. On film it's probably one of the poorest of the lot; not really much better than the SA f/4. But in any case, the new ASPH is the best of the f/2.8's, and the Zeiss is not far behind. The new f/4.5 Zeiss is probably the best overall, but not much better than the ASPH. The WATE is outstanding for a zoom and in my view about the same as the Zeiss f/2.8.
I still have the SA f/3.4 for film, the CV for compactness and the WATE for convenience. I use the ASPH when I'm sure I'm going to need the quality or speed.
Henning
ajpat
ajpat
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks for the replys. I was given a 21mm but the rear element needs to be replaced as it is fogged and cannot be cleaned- the stuff has gotten between the elements. Leica will do it for a price- 400-500 Euros. So, Im in bit of a quandry.
best--ajpat
Thanks
Thanks for the replys. I was given a 21mm but the rear element needs to be replaced as it is fogged and cannot be cleaned- the stuff has gotten between the elements. Leica will do it for a price- 400-500 Euros. So, Im in bit of a quandry.
best--ajpat