kemal_mumcu
Well-known
It's come time for me to lay down some cash for a 21mm. I've worked with a 28 but it's not yet wide enough for me. I am currently considering one of Leica's 21s. The 21/3.4 Angulon, the 21 Elmarit or the Elmarit asph. Looking at examples on the web I can say I'm really drawn to the draw of the 3.4 Angulon. Plus it's compact and my M2 won't worry about its recessed rear element.
My only concern is it's resolution and draw wide open. I like night time street work and I would plan to load the camera with 1600 iso b&w and go shooting. On this point I wonder if one of the elmarits might be better suited to maintaining a higher quality image wide open with grainy film.
Obviously this is the territory for the 21lux but this lens is long out of my means for right now.
Does anyone have experience to what these various lenses would be like pushed under low light conditions?
Thanks in advance.
My only concern is it's resolution and draw wide open. I like night time street work and I would plan to load the camera with 1600 iso b&w and go shooting. On this point I wonder if one of the elmarits might be better suited to maintaining a higher quality image wide open with grainy film.
Obviously this is the territory for the 21lux but this lens is long out of my means for right now.
Does anyone have experience to what these various lenses would be like pushed under low light conditions?
Thanks in advance.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Sure 21/3.4 SA in low-light:
21/3.4 SA in low-light:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Besides maintaining a higher quality image wide open with grainy film, you'll want to consider the more "vintage" look versus more "modern" look; the signature aspect. My experience w/ 21mm is limited. As my first foray I decided on the 21mm Voiglander.
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Thanks Gabor, your pictures are part of what has steered me toward the SA in the first place. What are your experiences with the lens at night? Are you pushing TriX to 1000 iso? 1600? Judging from the last photos you must be around 1/8th or 15th for shutter speed.
Various places on the net mention the SA's drop in resolution as you open up the aperture. How significant is this to you while shooting wide open?
35mmdelux: The signature of the SA is already a given for me. I'm only wondering about it's wide open draw. I've considered the F4 Voightlander but for other reasons I've already decided to keep this lens as a Leica.
What are your experiences with the lens at night? Are you pushing TriX to 1000 iso? 1600? Judging from the last photos you must be around 1/8th or 15th for shutter speed. Various places on the net mention the SA's drop in resolution as you open up the aperture. How significant is this to you while shooting wide open?
35mmdelux: The signature of the SA is already a given for me. I'm only wondering about it's wide open draw. I've considered the F4 Voightlander but for other reasons I've already decided to keep this lens as a Leica.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I can't comment on the Leica 21's, but I do own the VC 4/21.
It's a total steal for the cost. They even toss in a very nice finder for free.
My main complaint is that you really need to stop it down to at least f8 or f11 to make it really crisp. Below that it's a little muddy and lacks punch.
The Elmarit 2.8/21 ASPH will eat the Voightlander for breakfast, but then again I think the lens cap and hood for the Elmarit costs as much as the VC with finder...
It's a total steal for the cost. They even toss in a very nice finder for free.
My main complaint is that you really need to stop it down to at least f8 or f11 to make it really crisp. Below that it's a little muddy and lacks punch.
The Elmarit 2.8/21 ASPH will eat the Voightlander for breakfast, but then again I think the lens cap and hood for the Elmarit costs as much as the VC with finder...
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Of the various lenses I've used over the years I really like current 21/3.4 SA, although going back through my old negative and slide files I have to say that the original 19mm f/3.5 non-retrofocus Canon was on par with it. If it hadn't been stolen I'd probably still be using it. I've also used my son's 21mm Cosina Voigtlander and found it to be very sharp. The photos more closely resemble the way the 15mm Heliar look than the decades older designs of the other two.
My other experience with ultra-wides is with the 20mm f/4 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektagon and a 20mm Vivitar in T4/TX mount. I preferred the look of the Flektagon image over the Vivitar. Both of these retrofocus designs exhibit as lot less light fall off than the more symetrical SA and Canon lenses. A rangefinder coupled Flektagon (if it existed) would be very tempting.
My other experience with ultra-wides is with the 20mm f/4 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektagon and a 20mm Vivitar in T4/TX mount. I preferred the look of the Flektagon image over the Vivitar. Both of these retrofocus designs exhibit as lot less light fall off than the more symetrical SA and Canon lenses. A rangefinder coupled Flektagon (if it existed) would be very tempting.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Love the images Helen, especially the one of the skyscrapers. I've also had experience with Voightlander and they are great value for the money I've found their integrity wide open leaves a bit to be desired. I was always undecided until I tried a Leica lens and was blown away with the consistency of performance throughout the range. For a lens I plan to use a lot I would rather spend the money and get a Leica. Especially since I plan to use the whole range of the apertures available. I didn't want this thread to get sidetracked, I would buy a Voightlander lens again possibly but for this one I've decided on Leica.
Does anyone have anything to say about the 21 elmarits wide open in comparison to the SA?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The 21 SA is still a very good performer. Center sharpness is pretty well up there with the best of them. Wide-open corners are a bit soft - but it is till usable though. It suits bl/w film to the T.
The 21f2.8 Elmarit (pre-asph) never turned my crank. I had several of them and found them rather bland and not very good towards the edges at f2.8.
The 21f2.8 Asph is very good. Sharp across the plane of focus, even at f2.8. It has a rather harsh rendition in bl/w and is contrasty in color - sometimes it looks like it was shot with a polarizer!!
One to consider is the Zeiss 21f2.8 Biogon. Performance is equal to or very close to the Asph 21f2.8 - but not as "harsh" in bl/w. Sharpness, even at f2.8 is very good - and it is even across the focus plane. It is also a bit smaller than the 21f2.8 Asph (and considerably less costly!).
Low light shooting, particularly with a wide angle is probably dependant more on the shooters skill than on a specific lens. Camera shake, subject movement, light situation etc will most likely affect your image more than the absolute quality of a specific lens.
This said, the 21 SA and the M2 is a match made in a image heaven! Sometimes it is more important that the stuff fits your hand and you can "control" it than having the latest "whizz bang lens". Yes, I have shot with the 21f1.4 Asph and it is truly astounding. Image quality blows you away - but, it is $6-7000 and once stopped down to f2.8 - it is as good as the rest of them - but not better. IF I had to shoot a lot of extreme low light I would get one - but at the moment I don't - though I still want one!!!
The 21f2.8 Elmarit (pre-asph) never turned my crank. I had several of them and found them rather bland and not very good towards the edges at f2.8.
The 21f2.8 Asph is very good. Sharp across the plane of focus, even at f2.8. It has a rather harsh rendition in bl/w and is contrasty in color - sometimes it looks like it was shot with a polarizer!!
One to consider is the Zeiss 21f2.8 Biogon. Performance is equal to or very close to the Asph 21f2.8 - but not as "harsh" in bl/w. Sharpness, even at f2.8 is very good - and it is even across the focus plane. It is also a bit smaller than the 21f2.8 Asph (and considerably less costly!).
Low light shooting, particularly with a wide angle is probably dependant more on the shooters skill than on a specific lens. Camera shake, subject movement, light situation etc will most likely affect your image more than the absolute quality of a specific lens.
This said, the 21 SA and the M2 is a match made in a image heaven! Sometimes it is more important that the stuff fits your hand and you can "control" it than having the latest "whizz bang lens". Yes, I have shot with the 21f1.4 Asph and it is truly astounding. Image quality blows you away - but, it is $6-7000 and once stopped down to f2.8 - it is as good as the rest of them - but not better. IF I had to shoot a lot of extreme low light I would get one - but at the moment I don't - though I still want one!!!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I'm a big fan of the Contax G 21 Biogon, obviously not a choice here (without a rebuild). I mention it because I thought I'd love the ZM Biogon, but didn't. Partly the size (it's huge), but mostly the way it drew with B&W film. I've kept the G21 for film and use the Leica 2.8 on the M8. I'd spend some time on flickr and here looking at the choices you're considering and let the images decide.
HarryW
Established
Tom,
Would be interested in your thoughts on the VC 21mm f4.0 Colour Skopar in relation to the other lenses that you discussed.
Best wishes
Harry
Would be interested in your thoughts on the VC 21mm f4.0 Colour Skopar in relation to the other lenses that you discussed.
Best wishes
Harry
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The 21f4 VC is a good performer. Very "straight" rendition - actually better than the 21f2.8 Asph Elmarit in that aspect. Usable at f4 and really good from 5.6 onward.
One major advantage is of course its size - tiny! When I know that I won't be needing the speed - it comes along in a pocket or in the bag. I also have the 21f4.5 ZM Biogon and I consider that one the best 21 made. Virtually distorsion free (0.01%!!!!), extremely sharp and nice contrast. It is of course more money (2x price of the 21f4 VC) and bigger.
The VC also has another advantage - it can use 39mm filters - and I find wide-angles, at least in bl/w require a yellow or orange filter for outdoor stuff.
If you are considering a 21 for occasional use - you cant go wrong with the 21f4 VC!
One major advantage is of course its size - tiny! When I know that I won't be needing the speed - it comes along in a pocket or in the bag. I also have the 21f4.5 ZM Biogon and I consider that one the best 21 made. Virtually distorsion free (0.01%!!!!), extremely sharp and nice contrast. It is of course more money (2x price of the 21f4 VC) and bigger.
The VC also has another advantage - it can use 39mm filters - and I find wide-angles, at least in bl/w require a yellow or orange filter for outdoor stuff.
If you are considering a 21 for occasional use - you cant go wrong with the 21f4 VC!
HarryW
Established
Tom,
Thank you - appreciate your response.
I'm sorely tempted especially by the cost and size. I don't use a bag so its an M2 with a 40 mm 1.4 in one jacket pocket and some Tri-X in the other and I think that there just might be some space left beside the Tri-X for this small lens
Regards
Harry
Thank you - appreciate your response.
I'm sorely tempted especially by the cost and size. I don't use a bag so its an M2 with a 40 mm 1.4 in one jacket pocket and some Tri-X in the other and I think that there just might be some space left beside the Tri-X for this small lens
Regards
Harry
HenningW
Well-known
All of the considered lenses are fine, and the resolution of all will never be of concern - except the Elmarit non-ASPH. In my opinion that one was a disgrace. I had one for a bit (but I sure didn't sell my SA). The CV is quite decent and as usual an outstanding value, but a definite step down from the Elmarit ASPH, and as some other Cosina products, of rather more variable performance.
For B&W on an M2, I would definitely go for the SA. If you can tell that it has a touch soft corners wide open with 1600 ISO film, please tell me what film that is, 'cause it sure isn't one I've run across. What it does have that can be an annoyance and also helps with that 'vintage' look is the vignetting, which is definitely greater than that of more recent lenses.
At the moment I have 5 lenses to shoot 21mm with, but the Elmarit ASPH has to go since I got the Summilux. I'll keep the SA for sure.
Henning
For B&W on an M2, I would definitely go for the SA. If you can tell that it has a touch soft corners wide open with 1600 ISO film, please tell me what film that is, 'cause it sure isn't one I've run across. What it does have that can be an annoyance and also helps with that 'vintage' look is the vignetting, which is definitely greater than that of more recent lenses.
At the moment I have 5 lenses to shoot 21mm with, but the Elmarit ASPH has to go since I got the Summilux. I'll keep the SA for sure.
Henning
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Now I'm thinking about a Schneider Super-Angulon design if they had access to Leica's aspheric technology. I always wondered why Leitz/Leica took so many years to come up with a competitive ultra wide angel design.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have both the 21/3.4 SA and the 21/2.8 ASPH. I use the ASPH more often than the SA. The excellent center resolution of the SA is not, to me, a selling point, because I compose my shots so the center of interest is off center. So I tend to prefer a lens that is more uniform across the field. I use the SA, though, at times for architecture because of its low distortion. And I like to use it on my M2. You can't meter with an SA or with an M2, so it's a marriage made in heaven. And I use it where the vignetting will enhance the shot, and not detract. The vignetting, by the way, is only evident with a large expanse of uniform tone, like a blue sky. When the subject consists of areas that vary in tone and texture, vignetting will not be noticed. Night time street work might be an application where vignetting is not critical. My experience is that night shots have areas that are well lighted, together with areas in deep shadow. I've not tried my SA in that application, but with ISO 1600, it might work!
Finally, I like the size of the SA. It's right for a Leica! The ASPH is a little big . . .
Finally, I like the size of the SA. It's right for a Leica! The ASPH is a little big . . .