Which is smaller? Leica pre-asph 21/2.8 vs. Zeiss ZM 21/2.8

[mxwit]

Hello everyone,

I'm a new member here, just purchased an R-D1 (thanks zoom2zoom) and am trying to decide on a lens for it. I use a 5d plus 24-70 for most of my work, but wanted to get back to a rangefinder. In the film days (as a working photojournalist, I was virtually forced to switch to digital), my favorite setup was an M4P with 35/1.4. I'd like to get as close to that setup as possible with the R-D1.

So, it seems that means a 21mm, and I tend to shoot a lot in low light and prefer shallow DOF...so that means 2.8. The Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 seems like the best value, but the lens looks quite large/long. One of the big appeals of RFs for me is the small size, and I'm thinking the ZM might negate this somewhat.

I think I can get a Leica pre-asph Elmarit 21/2.8 for a couple hundred more than the ZM. I think it's a smaller lens, but am having a hard time finding any specs or photos.

Is the Elmarit noticeably smaller than the ZM?

thanks for your help,
max

------
www.maxwhittaker.com

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not a lot in it: I've had both. From memory, the Leica lens is slightly smaller, but not enough to worry about. If either were grossly oversize, I'd remember.

Also consider a 4/16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, a seriously nice bottle. The difference in d-o-f between f/4 and f/2.8 really ain't all that great with a 21.

Cheers,

R.

 

[foto_fool]

Roger will second that the Avenon/Kobalux 21/2.8 is a small and tidy package. Also that with a 21mm even at f2.8 the DOF is not portrait-style shallow.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger will second that the Avenon/Kobalux 21/2.8 is a small and tidy package. Also that with a 21mm even at f2.8 the DOF is not portrait-style shallow.

...Preferably with one of the other finders 'cos the Avenon/Kobalux/Pasinon finder is HUGE and not especially good.

I have both the Pasinon and the 21/4 Voigtländer and use the f/2.8 when I need the speed, the Voigtländer when I want something more compact. Depth of field does not really enter into it.

When I borrowed the Zeiss I did not see enough advantage over the Pasinon to replace it, though if I had no 21mm I'd probably go for a 21/2.8 (or the Tri-Elmar) rather than f/4 or f/4.5.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mxwit]

Thanks guys...keep em coming!

Yeah, DOF between f4 and 2.8 isn't much, but that extra stop of light is a huge difference and very needed.

I've heard of the Kobalux/Avenon, but haven't seen one available for sale. Anyone have a black one they'd like to sell?


------
www.maxwhittaker.com

 

[mars]

ZM21 is longer but narrower.. 21f2.8 pre-asph is shorter but larger.
For example, 21f2.8 pre-asph use E60 filter and ZM21 uses E46. Besides, it has a huge lens hood.
The length for 21f2.8 pre-asph is 46.5mm and ZM21 is 64mm..
From the practical point of view, ZM is smaller.....

 

[mxwit]

Good info, mars. Thanks.

Length is more critical to me than width, although I hear you on the Leica hood – that thing looks huge.

thanks guys...

------
www.maxwhittaker.com

 

[ERV]

Another option is the Zeiss 21mm f4. I tried one at B and H over the weekend and its an amazing lens and about the size of a 35mm summicron.
Its F4, however. Congrats on the RD-1. Its a great camera.

 

[Kawabatnam]

Another option is the Zeiss 21mm f4. I tried one at B and H over the weekend and its an amazing lens and about the size of a 35mm summicron.
Its F4, however. Congrats on the RD-1. Its a great camera.

Hi, sorry not to agree... With the R-D1, choose the Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Leica, not the Zeiss 21/4.5 (max aperture is 4.5 not 4): they are more or less in the same range sharpness-wise, and their respective sizes should not bother you at all (just think how large their SLRs equivalents are...). However, vignetting-wise it is another (sad) story: the Zeiss 21/4.5 displays really strong vignetting at all apertures, maybe even worse than the Cosina Voigtlander 21/4 P (which wins easily the compactness race anyway), while vignetting from the Zeiss 21/2.8 (from my own experience) or the Leica (from Sean Reid's review) is quite mild to non-existent. Note that on film, the Zeiss 21/4.5 seems very good (from Tom A's flickr's pages and posts here at RFF). I have no direct experience with the Avenon/Kobalux though it looks not much larger than the Zeiss 21/4.5. Hope this helps.

 

[ERV]

Hi, sorry not to agree... With the R-D1, choose the Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Leica, not the Zeiss 21/4.5 (max aperture is 4.5 not 4): they are more or less in the same range sharpness-wise, and their respective sizes should not bother you at all (just think how large their SLRs equivalents are...). However, vignetting-wise it is another (sad) story: the Zeiss 21/4.5 displays really strong vignetting at all apertures, maybe even worse than the Cosina Voigtlander 21/4 P (which wins easily the compactness race anyway), while vignetting from the Zeiss 21/2.8 (from my own experience) or the Leica (from Sean Reid's review) is quite mild to non-existent. Note that on film, the Zeiss 21/4.5 seems very good (from Tom A's flickr's pages and posts here at RFF). I have no direct experience with the Avenon/Kobalux though it looks not much larger than the Zeiss 21/4.5. Hope this helps.

I'm not sure I agree about the vignetting.
This is the Zeiss 21mm 4 on my M8 at B and H, straight up, no filter or lens coding.
Looks good to me.

 

[sonwolf]

I'm not sure I agree about the vignetting.
This is the Zeiss 21mm 4 on my M8 at B and H, straight up, no filter or lens coding.
Looks good to me.

Lenses produce greater vignetting on an R-D1 than an M8. The Leica possesses both complex optical and software systems to minimize vignetting, which are totally absent from the Epson.

 

[willie_901]

I can accept the M8's sensor design being superior with regard to vignetting.

I am puzzled how the Leica firmware can properly attenuate vignetting if the lens is not coded. Please enlighten me.

Also for uncoded lenses, the FOV for a given lens' focal length is smaller for the RD-1, so wouldn't the lens' inherent vignetting be less of an issue with the smaller sensor?

Finally, a couple of years ago I seriously researched the NIKON D100 DSLR which uses the same sensor as the RD-1. I do not remember reports of extraordinary vignetting with wide-angle lenses.

 

[Honus]

... I tend to shoot a lot in low light and prefer shallow DOF...

Max,

I went to your website to take a look at your work. Excellent images.

Back to the topic, let me suggest a contrarian opinion. Rather than trying to fit your preferred field of view (35mm) to the camera, may I suggest using a 35/1.4 just like you did before. The lens will give you the speed and dof control that you need, but with a more cropped field of view (53mm). For those times when you need the width, you could supplement it with a slower 21mm lens. The field of view will fit right in the middle of what you are using with your 5D (24-70).

When I purchased my R-D1, my biggest concern was adapting to the 1.5 crop factor. In reality, I end up using my 35/2 and 50/1.4 lenses in much the same way that I use them on my Leica M2.

Just a little more info to chew on. Good luck.

 

[mars]

Good info, mars. Thanks.

Length is more critical to me than width, although I hear you on the Leica hood – that thing looks huge.

thanks guys...

------
www.maxwhittaker.com

Just took out my ZM21 and my 21 pre-asph and try to see how big they actually are..To be surprised, the ZM is indeed not much longer.. I guessed they take the measurement from the bottom to the filter thread. In the case of the ZM, it is significant longer (~0.8cm) because the element stick out due to the biogon design?? in the case of the Leica, the front is sooo much bigger especially with the hood. I don't have the hood with my ZM, so I can't compared directly. Anyhow, I here attached few pictures

 

[mxwit]

Honus: Thanks for the kind words about my work. I think there's a good chance that you're right, but I'm going to have to try my preferred FOV and see what takes hold.

mars: Thanks so much for the pictures! That helps a bunch...

------
www.maxwhittaker.com

 

[ampguy]

that was my experience too

that was my experience too

with the RD1. Was using a Rokkor 40/2 on film cameras, and it became my favorite on the RD1, even at ~60mm or so. I went back to 28 and 35 on the RD1s to try, and always reverted to the 40/2 on that body, while I am now into 50s and 75s on film.

Max,

I went to your website to take a look at your work. Excellent images.

Back to the topic, let me suggest a contrarian opinion. Rather than trying to fit your preferred field of view (35mm) to the camera, may I suggest using a 35/1.4 just like you did before. The lens will give you the speed and dof control that you need, but with a more cropped field of view (53mm). For those times when you need the width, you could supplement it with a slower 21mm lens. The field of view will fit right in the middle of what you are using with your 5D (24-70).

When I purchased my R-D1, my biggest concern was adapting to the 1.5 crop factor. In reality, I end up using my 35/2 and 50/1.4 lenses in much the same way that I use them on my Leica M2.

Just a little more info to chew on. Good luck.

 

[DwF]

This thread is played a bit but I hope this will help.

Below is link to a page with several photos taken hand-held with R D1 and 21mm Elmarit. I haven't used it much lately but plan to again. I really like the lens and would recommend it to anyone considering buying one. I personally preferred the feel of it to the Zeiss, and emphasize "personally".

The Fountain Shot in that gallery revealed some vignetting (exp. is wide-open) as is to be expected and it was easy to deal with and not real bad or problematic. Others shot with the 21 are: At the Workbench, Readers, and there is the shot of the lens on the R D1 Body. Note shutter speeds in low light! The lens balances nicely on this camera body.

http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/epson_r_d1&page=all

David

 

[victoriapio]

Mxwit,

I use the Biogon: http://www.ocgarzaphotography.com/gallery2/v/EpsonRd-1Swork/ and would recommend the new Voitlander 28mm finder for it - small and bright.

O.C. Garza