Nick De Marco
Well-known
As followers of my blog will know I'm a bog fan of the Zeiss 21mm Biogon f2.8
- see my latest entry where I tried it with my new M.....
http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/further-reflections-on-leica-m-typ-240.html (and one pic below)
It is such a high quality, sharp lens - and not too big - with minimum distortion. In fact i sold an sold 21mm f2.8 Elmarit (pre-asph) to buy it and never regretted it (the Zeiss really is better).
As you can tell from my photos on my latest blog the 21 Biogon excels also on the M (T240). I have no complaints about it...
BUT - I can't say I am not tempted by this new Voigtlander 21mm f1.8. I have read stunning reviews of if (including Rockwell/Huff, who, whilst both sometimes prone to hyperbole don't usually rate CV lenses so highly), and heard it compared to the 21 Summilux which is beautiful but bigger and far too expensive (I love Thorsten O's use of the 21 Lux with the M)...
I'm now seriously considering buying the CV 21 for low light/big bokeh wide work. Does anyone have any experience of how it compares to the Zeiss and/or how it performs on the M?
Thanks in advance
Nick
L100Natural History Museum - Monochrome Wide Shot1243 by nickdemarco, on Flickr
- see my latest entry where I tried it with my new M.....
http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/further-reflections-on-leica-m-typ-240.html (and one pic below)
It is such a high quality, sharp lens - and not too big - with minimum distortion. In fact i sold an sold 21mm f2.8 Elmarit (pre-asph) to buy it and never regretted it (the Zeiss really is better).
As you can tell from my photos on my latest blog the 21 Biogon excels also on the M (T240). I have no complaints about it...
BUT - I can't say I am not tempted by this new Voigtlander 21mm f1.8. I have read stunning reviews of if (including Rockwell/Huff, who, whilst both sometimes prone to hyperbole don't usually rate CV lenses so highly), and heard it compared to the 21 Summilux which is beautiful but bigger and far too expensive (I love Thorsten O's use of the 21 Lux with the M)...
I'm now seriously considering buying the CV 21 for low light/big bokeh wide work. Does anyone have any experience of how it compares to the Zeiss and/or how it performs on the M?
Thanks in advance
Nick
L100Natural History Museum - Monochrome Wide Shot1243 by nickdemarco, on Flickr
bobbyrab
Well-known
A good friend of mine recently bought the VC 1.8, we compared against my Zeiss 21/4.5 biogon C, and I hate to say it but I thought the VC was quite the better of the two, I might still have the shots we made I can send you.
That said the C biogon is not a good match with the M9, and the VC is big and quite heavy, but I'm very tempted by it myself as the 1.8 would be very useful.
That said the C biogon is not a good match with the M9, and the VC is big and quite heavy, but I'm very tempted by it myself as the 1.8 would be very useful.
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Thank you both for the advice and comments
I have the 35mm Nokton f1.2 vII and think it is a wonderful lens though big
I understand the 21mm Summilux ASPH is even bigger than the CV 21mm, in addition to being about 5x the price!
I have the 35mm Nokton f1.2 vII and think it is a wonderful lens though big
I understand the 21mm Summilux ASPH is even bigger than the CV 21mm, in addition to being about 5x the price!
rscheffler
Well-known
I wrote up a review of four current M series 21mm lenses on the market currently: 21 Lux, 21 SEM, 21/1.8 and ZM21/2.8.
Back when I started off with my M9, the ZM21/2.8 was one of the first lenses I bought, and was quite happy with it. But I do a fair amount of event work (corporate, weddings) where I prefer to shoot available light and with the M9 really needed something faster, so splurged on the 21 Lux. Then added the 21 SEM as a 'perfect' 21mm.
I was quite surprised with the 21/1.8. It's competitive with the 21 Lux in terms of sharpness and once stopped down past f/4-5.6 is pretty much on par with the ZM and SEM. Compared to those two about the only difference seems to be a somewhat lower micro and macro contrast rendering. The CV doesn't quite have the Zeiss pop of the ZM or the spectacular performance of the SEM, but it's not that far off. The only advantage of the 21 Lux is it really is faster, so if you need more light gathering capability, it still has an edge. And, it has a flatter plane of focus, which means background separation and blur characteristics of the Lux remain stronger into the edges/corners, where the 21/1.8 seems to lose background blur strength compared to the center of the frame. But the Lux has a major tradeoff of relatively poor mid-zone sharpness character in the 2.8-5.6 range.
For someone without a 21 looking to buy, the 21/1.8 is a compelling package of speed and high image quality at an attractive price point. Had it been available in 2010, I might have bought it instead of the ZM and may never have had the interest to later get the 21 Lux.
Back when I started off with my M9, the ZM21/2.8 was one of the first lenses I bought, and was quite happy with it. But I do a fair amount of event work (corporate, weddings) where I prefer to shoot available light and with the M9 really needed something faster, so splurged on the 21 Lux. Then added the 21 SEM as a 'perfect' 21mm.
I was quite surprised with the 21/1.8. It's competitive with the 21 Lux in terms of sharpness and once stopped down past f/4-5.6 is pretty much on par with the ZM and SEM. Compared to those two about the only difference seems to be a somewhat lower micro and macro contrast rendering. The CV doesn't quite have the Zeiss pop of the ZM or the spectacular performance of the SEM, but it's not that far off. The only advantage of the 21 Lux is it really is faster, so if you need more light gathering capability, it still has an edge. And, it has a flatter plane of focus, which means background separation and blur characteristics of the Lux remain stronger into the edges/corners, where the 21/1.8 seems to lose background blur strength compared to the center of the frame. But the Lux has a major tradeoff of relatively poor mid-zone sharpness character in the 2.8-5.6 range.
For someone without a 21 looking to buy, the 21/1.8 is a compelling package of speed and high image quality at an attractive price point. Had it been available in 2010, I might have bought it instead of the ZM and may never have had the interest to later get the 21 Lux.
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Thanks very much
NazgulKing
Established
I have used the 21/1.8 and the ZM 21/2.8. At wide open, there's some vignetting. Stopped down, it disappears mostly. Some purple shift does occur at wide open, but mostly gone stopped down, and used with the 21/2.8 correction.
If there's any discernible difference between the ZM 21/2.8 and the 21/1.8, it would be the color rendition. Zeiss lenses tend to be warmer, but Cosina's Voigtlander lenses are generally cooler. It's a matter of taste, and not unsolvable without some manipulation in Lightroom.
If there's any discernible difference between the ZM 21/2.8 and the 21/1.8, it would be the color rendition. Zeiss lenses tend to be warmer, but Cosina's Voigtlander lenses are generally cooler. It's a matter of taste, and not unsolvable without some manipulation in Lightroom.