Which 21mm M mount lens?

[mgd711]

I'm sure this has been asked before but when I did a search I found nothing recent.

I was considering a 21mm lens and seen a couple of S.A's for sale here recently. Unfortunately I hesitated and missed out. I was also considering the CV21 until I seen somebody post the Biogon 21/4.5 here. This set me looking for more info on 21's for the M.

I found a post where Tom A said he had tried just about every 21 and said the Biogon 21/4.5 was probably the best 21 available now but in another thread he also said it was rather contrasty and 'snappy'.

I do like a sharp lens but it's not the most important thing, I also quite like the way old glass paints a picture. This is more important than sharpness. Films used will be 5231, 5222 and Neopan 400/1600 (I haven't used the movie stock yet, but its sitting there waiting on me).

What is your preferences on the currently available new 21's and second hand one's? (Body is an M6TTL)




Mike

 

[Avotius]

If you like the way old glass paints then go for old glass, for black and white its wonderful!

That said I got the Zeiss 21 f2.8 and it is a really fantastic lens, in a way I wish I had the 4.5 because of size but then again I have found a few situations where I am awful happy I had the speed! The Zeiss lenses do have a lot of contrast going for them and if you shoot color look no further, black and white is up to you if you like the Zeiss b/w signature. I also shoot on a M6TTL and found that it was a heck of a lot easier to shoot with my Bessa R2A instead because I generally hyper focal shoot so I can spend less time thinking about the lens and more on the picture and the r2a lends itself better to that kind of shooting.

Also dont rule out the CV offerings, great lenses and a lot smaller then the Zeiss's and though you might not get the Zeiss color bite I think the CV's render black and whites with a nicer signature.

Here is the lens on camera and a few shots:

 

[mgd711]

I love those images!! Thanks for posting them.

I haven't discounted the CV lenses. I have a 35/1.4 SC and LOVE it. It seems to be able to pierce the deep shadows produces some beautiful negatives.

I shoot mainly B&W but don't want high contrast, a CV 21 Single Coated would be nice.

I'm surprised to see the 21 on your M6 looks quite small, that is a big plus.

 

[Avotius]

I will try to shoot a different view of the lens on my camera later so you can see how long it is.

 

[andreas]

I own a CV in Ltm and absolutely love it. Great size and ergonomics. I once compared it to a friends Biogon 2.8/21 ZM:
Tripod, Delta 100, printed 50cm x 70cm with ApoRodagon on Durst Laborator 1200... well, we weren`t able to tell them apart and i have seen a lot of prints. The CV is just a tiny bit wider in it`s field of view, f:8 seems to be the sweet spot for both, and the Zeiss at 2.8 was significantly worse than both at f:4 (as to be expected)
Considered that i shoot TriX handheld most of the time, any possible differences are lost anyway.
So, try to handle them before you buy, i think ergonomics may be the deciding difference.
Hope this was helpful,
andreas

 

[mgd711]

Just throwing this out there - do you care about external VFs? I don't particularly care for them and is part of the reason I chose to go with a 25mm. On the Ikon I just use the entire VF, and on the M8 the 24mm framelines (I use the entire VF with the 18mm).

I love Zeiss ZMs, but as mentioned they're sharp and somewhat contrasty/saturated. That's not a bad thing, but if B&W is your primary goal then an older, softer, lower contrast lens might be better. I shoot both and I'm quite happy with the results I get with ZMs, however.

External VF's don't bother me. I have a 28 Elmarit so the 25 is too close to that.

I like the 28 but can't say I feel totally comfortable with it and looking for the next step wider.

 

[mgd711]

So, try to handle them before you buy, i think ergonomics may be the deciding difference.
Hope this was helpful,
andreas

The LTM CV 21 might be a good choice as the only thing I don't like about the 35SC is the dog ears on the focus ring.

 

[Krosya]

If you like "old" look - your best bet is Avenon/Kobalux lenses, if you can find one. They are 21/2.8, come in LTM usually (M-mount hard to find). Sharp and high quality built.
You can read more about them here:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/kobalux.html

and here:
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/kobalux2.html

and here is a pic from mine:

Another great lens is Zeiss ZM21/2.8 sharp, great signature, longer than Avenon, though. I really like it too - here is a pic from it:

 

[35mmdelux]

Erwin Puts, the Leica guru, gives the 21VC a favorable rating comparing it to the 21SA.

 

[mfogiel]

New Look ?

Old Look?

The important thing is that it is the right look for you...
Both taken on Tri-X, both with the C Biogon 21/4.5, just go for it.

 

[noimmunity]

New Look ?
Old Look?
The important thing is that it is the right look for you...
Both taken on Tri-X, both with the C Biogon 21/4.5, just go for it.

Persuasive!

 

[mgd711]

Persuasive!

Very persuasive! Thanks for posting them.

 

[mgd711]

How does the 21 Elmarit (non aspherical) compare to these lenses?

 

[jplomley]

I just swapped all my Zeiss glass for Leica because I found the Zeiss too contrasty for the M8 sensor. Once the highlights are blown, they are gone baby gone. Yeah, the Zeiss had better "punch" straight out of the camera, but nothing that cannot be emulated with the vibrancy slider in PS, or working out of Lab mode. No question the Leica glass has a very different signature than the Zeiss. I found a lot of the apparent resolution from the Zeiss glass was due to their inherent contrast. The Leica glass has excellent resolution as well, but not with the added penalty of excessive contrast. The Leica glass also draws very differently, particularly the 28/2 Cron Asph. Sharp and smooth at the same time. It is the oddest thing to observe the first time you see it. One last item to note is that the Leica lenses are truly sharp wide open. I cannot make this claim for the Zeiss.

 

[notturtle]

I find the ZMs work fine for B&W assuming you are doing your own developing and printing. Just give plenty of exposure and dont dev too long. You get a very smooth gentle tonal scale. If you cannot develop yourself I suspect they might be tough for automated systems to handle. If rating at box speed in a leica and using D76 you are going to lose an awful lot of shadow detail. I rate mine at about 1/2 to 2/3 box speed in dilute Xtol and get nice shadows and devent highlight. You will notice that if shooting in very contrasty light that your shadows drop out fast as the lenses produce little to no internal flare, so you have to hike exposure if relying on the in camera meter.

I personally found the 21 2.8 biogon a significantly better performer than the CV 21 in all respects. the 2.8 is not large, just a little long. Unless the you need the speed, the 4.5 is the better bet as it is half the length. According to Sean reids tests, the 2.8 produces higher contrast than the 4.5 too.

 

[oldoc]

I am a big fan of my Biogon ZM 21/2.8. Contrasty, yes.
Sharp to an amazing degree.
I think it probably is a bit too wide for me for general use, but since landscape is my thing, I will always have a21, though I would prefer the Leica glass.

Unless you have tall ceilings indoors, you do have problems and have to be careful, as with any 21...

 

[mfogiel]

jplomley
The high macro contrast of Zeiss lenses comes also with the high microcontrast and great bokeh. This is why I find the latest Leica lenses "soulless". They just lack the bite of the current Zeiss glass, and they also lack the great gradation of the greys and bokeh of lenses like the Rigid/DR Summicron or the old Nocilux. I have just bought the CV 28/2 and when it arrives I am going to make a test between that one, the Biogon 28/2.8 and the Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH. Will post the results for the benefit of everybody.

 

[raid]

For a lower contrast 19mm~21mm lens I am using a Canon 19mm 3.5 FL with Canon Adapter B. I have recently purchased a Minolta Rokkor 21mm 4 that I use with a Miolta-Leica adapter. I bet that such lenses work well for someone who wants to use those lenses on the M8.

 

[Al Kaplan]

For several decades, from 1967 0r '68, I had a Canon 19mm f/3.5 FL (non-retrofocus) with the lens adapter B to put it on my Leicas. It was at least as sharp as the Super Angulons I tried, but had just a bit more contrast. I liked the finder a lot more. Unfortunately somebody stole it. I shot some of my favorite and most published pictures with, both B&W and color. Raid, does your 19 have a piece of blue Dymo labeling tape on it embossed with white letters saying "Al Kaplan"?...LOL

 

[raid]

Al,
I have the Canon 19mm lens but not the finder. I use a Russar 21mm finder. It works. The lens is a joy to use.