Using the 21mm focal length

Tom have you had a chance to compare the new WA Tri-Elmar at 21mm with the Voigtlander and Biogon options? You refer to the Biogon as the new benchmark, is it really worth the upgrade from a Voigtlander if you already have one? One reviewer noted the new M mount P version to be improved over the original LTM version, have you noticed this? How would a pre-ASPH Leica 21mm fit in with all these choices? It is really hard to choose!
 
I have tried the WATE Leica lens and though it is convinient (in a way), I did not find the performance particularly spectacular. The 16 mm setting is similar to my 15f4.5, the 18mm is not as good as the 18f4 Distagon and at 21mm it was on par with a 21/4 VC. Bear in mind, this was not a scientific test, it was shooting as I usually does. What turns me off the WATE is also the price and the finder! For that kind of money I can buy a 15f4.5 VC, a 21/4,5 Biogon (considerably better than the WATE) and a 18f4 Distagon as well as the finders for these lenses and I still would have enough money left over to get an extra body or two (a used M6 and a Bessa R4M) and some more film!
The 21/2,8 Elmarit was an OK lens, not as good as the Asph version, but i would do fine for most stuff. I did have a couple of them, but switched to the ASph when it came out, disposed of the Elmarit 21's and kept my Super Angulon as I liked the "signature" on that lens better.
I kept the 21 Asph for many years, but I never really warmed to it. It is a big "lump" of a lens and though very sharp and contrasty I switched to the more "petit" 21f4 VC when it came out. If I need the extra stop today, I use my 21/2,8 ZM and so far, I have not seen enough (if any) difference between the performance of the 21/2.8 Asph and the 21/2,8 ZM to regret getting rid of the 21 Asph.
 
This is the Voigtlander 21mm. The Chapel here is very small, but the lens made it big and airy.

cv210554.jpg


And the same view with a 28mm lens:

pentacon0472.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tom A said:
I have tried the WATE Leica lens and though it is convinient (in a way), I did not find the performance particularly spectacular. The 16 mm setting is similar to my 15f4.5, the 18mm is not as good as the 18f4 Distagon and at 21mm it was on par with a 21/4 VC. Bear in mind, this was not a scientific test, it was shooting as I usually does. What turns me off the WATE is also the price and the finder! For that kind of money I can buy a 15f4.5 VC, a 21/4,5 Biogon (considerably better than the WATE) and a 18f4 Distagon as well as the finders for these lenses and I still would have enough money left over to get an extra body or two (a used M6 and a Bessa R4M) and some more film!
The 21/2,8 Elmarit was an OK lens, not as good as the Asph version, but i would do fine for most stuff. I did have a couple of them, but switched to the ASph when it came out, disposed of the Elmarit 21's and kept my Super Angulon as I liked the "signature" on that lens better.
I kept the 21 Asph for many years, but I never really warmed to it. It is a big "lump" of a lens and though very sharp and contrasty I switched to the more "petit" 21f4 VC when it came out. If I need the extra stop today, I use my 21/2,8 ZM and so far, I have not seen enough (if any) difference between the performance of the 21/2.8 Asph and the 21/2,8 ZM to regret getting rid of the 21 Asph.
Click to expand...

Very informative and objective ! That's the reason why I always prefer to listen to Mr. A than Mr. P.
 
21mm Super-Angulon-M ...

21mm Super-Angulon-M ...

... bought this lens from Erik here and love it 🙂 Coupled with a good VF this lens can deliver stunning results. I use both the CV 21mm and Leica 21-24-28 but opposite to TomA prefer the Leica VF.

1521584551_1075939422_b.jpg


Cheers,

maddoc
 
Vics said:
Is the 21/4 Skopar the same optical cell in M mount as in Contax/Nikon mount? These pictures have really stirred me to think about the focal length.
Vic
Click to expand...
.

To my knowledge, it is the same optical cell and formula in all three variations of 21mm f4 VC lenses. I have never found any difference that can be ascribed to the lens. With the S-mount (Nikon/Contax) there is the added benefit of the longer focus "throw" - almost 270 degrees. This makes it easy to pin-point sharpness as you are cranking the lens around a bit slower.
The P mount and the LTM is the same. I did ask Mr Kobayashi about this and he said that it would be difficult to improve upon without having to redesign it from scratch. For its prize, it is an amazing feat to design and produce a high quality optic of this caliber!
In most cases, any of the currently available 21's from Leica,Zeiss and VC are more than capable of producing outstanding images. It comes down to factors like , speed,size and price and in the end you are hard pressed to tell images apart!
I find that the 21/4 VC or the 21/4,5 Biogon are small enough that they can come along in a pocket or small bag, without causing you to list heavily. This means, at least in my case. that they get used more often.
I have been trying to get VC and/or Zeiss to make a back-cap with a slot for the finder (and ideally a protective cap over the finder), but so far I have had no success and had to resort to make my own.
 
you guys, stop it! i don't need more reasons to get a zeiss ikon sw.

oh, and check out lee friedlander's book "cherry blossom time in japan"!
 
Last edited:
Tom A said:
I have been trying to get VC and/or Zeiss to make a back-cap with a slot for the finder (and ideally a protective cap over the finder), but so far I have had no success and had to resort to make my own.
Click to expand...
Tom- I have been dreaming of something like this. For a while, I had a piece of velcro stuck to the top of my finder, and the sticky bit on the lens cap, but it was a less-than-satisfactory solution. Now I have a shoe-mount screwed to a rear lens cap, but it's clunky. If you make a back-cap/finder keeper, will you let me know?
 
The Elmarit 21/2.8 is my prime lens for my R-D1, as it gives me an (almost) 28mm which is my preferred prime length (actually 32mm but not worth splitting hairs). I have a pre-asph version and it is the sharpest, most contrasty lens I own. I love it.

This is an HDR image composed of six seperate exposures of different levels of compensation, merged in CS2.

baynes-street-bridge-rff.jpg
 
I have tried the WATE Leica lens and though it is convinient (in a way), I did not find the performance particularly spectacular. The 16 mm setting is similar to my 15f4.5, the 18mm is not as good as the 18f4 Distagon and at 21mm it was on par with a 21/4 VC. Bear in mind, this was not a scientific test, it was shooting as I usually does. What turns me off the WATE is also the price and the finder! For that kind of money I can buy a 15f4.5 VC, a 21/4,5 Biogon (considerably better than the WATE)
Click to expand...

You mention that the Biogon was considerably better than the WATE at 21 and that the Voiglander was the same. Would that mean it was worth the upgrade to the Biogon from the Voigtlander? The Voiglanders filter size does make it handy with every other Leica lens that I have taking 39mm filters.

You also mention that with all the current 21's that you would be hard pressed to tell their shots apart, I have found that Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander all seem to have their own character within their lens lineup (none of which is better per say just different) but that character seems to merge at this focal length for some reason? Depth of field possibly canceling out brand characteristics?

The updated formula of the Voigtlander LTM to the M mount version came about by a Sean Reid review I believe, stating the M mount lens was an improvement, simply lens variation maybe?
 
I've been scanning a few trannies lately (that is, I've been making computerised images from my colour transparencies, not eyeing up the local cross-dressers), and I can't resist offering another few CV 21/4 shots - these three are from Singapore.
 

Attachments

  • 239_019.jpg
    239_019.jpg
    112 KB · Views: 1
  • 239_024.jpg
    239_024.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 1
  • 239_028.jpg
    239_028.jpg
    104.9 KB · Views: 1
Wow... these people really can show off their 21mm shots.

I remember another thread about this focal length. It came up in the summer... and that's when I started thinking seriously about this lens. I may try something... as an advance Christmas gift to myself! 🙂

Thanks and keep 'em rolling! 😀
 
Some amazing pictures taken with the VC 21mm can be seen at the link below, which is a Japanese photo blog that i stumbled across while looking for examples of Neopan F. It pretty much sold me on the lens, as well as the Neopan (via the pic of the ship, for example), though the latter isn't exactly as 'available' as it once was.

http://kazuyank.plala.jp/archives/category/31431_cs214exp.php

--c--
 
Used a 21 Super-Angulon for many years and it gave the world a very different perspective.

One of the 'problems' I had using it ( a super-wide ) with the RF camera was keeping vertical lines straight when its needed - most in architecture - kind of hit and miss even if you think you have it right using the camera's viewfinder frame lines to line up with. So when the 24mm lens came out I switched, still wide enough most of the time, but more forgiving in use, and I feel I can carry it and a 50 for a two lens system where with a 21 I needed a 35 to fill-in the wide to 50 gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

das
Ode to the Voigtlander Bessa R4 Series
Replies
17
Views
1K
Coldkennels
Coldkennels
M
Konica Hexanon Dual 21-35mm owner question: focus behavior
Replies
18
Views
2K
marduk
M
Rob-F
Glimmerglass: Who is using it? How do you use it?
Replies
1
Views
563
Dogman
Dogman
B
Yashica Sequelle Rarest Half-frame camera
Replies
0
Views
417
biggles3
B
B
Synchro-Compur-X (Contaflex Super BC) service manual
Replies
3
Views
553
BernardL
B
Back
Top Bottom