Which wide angle lenses work very well with the M9?
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 9K
raid
Dad Photographer
So you are saying that no other brand has managed to design a wide angle lens that works very well on the M9 for color images? Maybe so. I don't know.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
There's examples of purple fringing from all the manufacturers aside from the newer Leica designs. They have the same issues on the Sony bodies as well.
raid
Dad Photographer
This makes it then "final", but I wonder if a 28mm lens shows far less purple fringing than a 21mm lens, and maybe, a 28mm lens that is not made by Leica may be OK in the end?
ferider
Veteran
Hi Raid,
on Dec 20, one closed for US 809 on ebay (282297710171), similar to mine. There is one coming up (282319772588) in similar price range, but of course it might go up, now that I mention it.
Anyways, they are there, if you are patient.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
I will keep my eyes open for such lens offers, Roland. There will always be new offers. I am content with having to wait and be patient about it.
Thanks.
Thanks.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
28mm are better. Most of those are fine. You can get a new Voigtlander 28/2 Ultron for $600.
raid
Dad Photographer
Some prefer the CV 28/1.9 while other like the 28/2. I am currently using a Rokkor 28/2.8 M, which is a slower lens and which may be a little less sharp than either of these CV 28mm lenses.
uhoh7
Veteran
Just in terms of 21mm:
I think the best performance/price 21 for the M9 would be the ZM21/2.8
I wanted to replace my CV 21/4 and I really studied up and almost bought one. The CV 21/1.8 will shoot fantastic, but it's way too big. I bought a SEM21 and of course it is the best technically. They can be found for around 1800 now.
However, I still use the CV 21/4 often, because it is so tiny and easy to take with. It's cheap so I don't worry about it either.
If you code as 21 pre-asph elmarit, color shift is not a issue...well you guys tell me:
Indian Summer by unoh7, on Flickr
L1054204 by unoh7, on Flickr
L1054095 by unoh7, on Flickr
normally you stop it down as much as you can, but I shot this wide open by accident:
Yellow Giants by unoh7, on Flickr
The lens is famous for copy variation, and many are decentered. Nico over at FM tried 4 till he really liked one, and he shoots it very clean right out to the edges, but usually at F/11
I still can't decide if mine is a good one or not, but it's fun to see if I can make it work. I even shot it on the Kolari A7 and managed this:
Bluebelt by unoh7, on Flickr
So you guys tell me, how does the CV 21/4 Skopar look in the shots above? None are cropped.
What other wides are good on M9? ZM18 and SEM18 are fantastic. SEM 24 is incredible. I'm not sure about the older 24s. ZM25/2.8 is excellent. 28 cron is unbelievable on M9.
Again the big secret, if you see colors shifting, code any FL as 21 elmarit pre-asph, or just set that profile. (although that lens is famously not fully corrected LOL). In the case of ZM18 and CV 21/4 this seems to work even wide open.
But for about 650 you should find a ZM21/2.8 and it will take no prisoners at 21mm. Only thing better would be SEM 21, or MAYBE 21 asph, which is also great. All of those beat the trip-elmar which is a good lens, but also not a match for ZM18 or SEM 18.
I think the best performance/price 21 for the M9 would be the ZM21/2.8
I wanted to replace my CV 21/4 and I really studied up and almost bought one. The CV 21/1.8 will shoot fantastic, but it's way too big. I bought a SEM21 and of course it is the best technically. They can be found for around 1800 now.
However, I still use the CV 21/4 often, because it is so tiny and easy to take with. It's cheap so I don't worry about it either.
If you code as 21 pre-asph elmarit, color shift is not a issue...well you guys tell me:
Indian Summer by unoh7, on Flickr
L1054204 by unoh7, on Flickr
L1054095 by unoh7, on Flickr
normally you stop it down as much as you can, but I shot this wide open by accident:
Yellow Giants by unoh7, on Flickr
The lens is famous for copy variation, and many are decentered. Nico over at FM tried 4 till he really liked one, and he shoots it very clean right out to the edges, but usually at F/11
I still can't decide if mine is a good one or not, but it's fun to see if I can make it work. I even shot it on the Kolari A7 and managed this:
Bluebelt by unoh7, on Flickr
So you guys tell me, how does the CV 21/4 Skopar look in the shots above? None are cropped.
What other wides are good on M9? ZM18 and SEM18 are fantastic. SEM 24 is incredible. I'm not sure about the older 24s. ZM25/2.8 is excellent. 28 cron is unbelievable on M9.
Again the big secret, if you see colors shifting, code any FL as 21 elmarit pre-asph, or just set that profile. (although that lens is famously not fully corrected LOL). In the case of ZM18 and CV 21/4 this seems to work even wide open.
But for about 650 you should find a ZM21/2.8 and it will take no prisoners at 21mm. Only thing better would be SEM 21, or MAYBE 21 asph, which is also great. All of those beat the trip-elmar which is a good lens, but also not a match for ZM18 or SEM 18.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for your very informative post above. There seem to exist several good options. Even the low cost CV 21/4 looks good.
ferider
Veteran
Hi Raid,
I (still) have all three lenses. The 28/1.9 is the softest, the other two feel on par. The 28/2 noticeably shifts more than the Rokkor. If you have a good Rokkor (Gabor had mine CLA'ed and modified to bring up the correct frame-lines by Will van Manen), I feel you are all set for 28, unless you need more speed ... your sensor will be more limiting than the lens ...
Regarding 21, have a look at Andy's review of Mandler lenses (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/45272-in-praise-of-the-mandler-lenses). I happen to have all the lenses that he reviewed (as you know, I'm a Mandler fan), and agree with him on the details. Nobody ever mentions contrast and tonal range for Ultra-wides, I feel the more the online pictures pop, the better the lens is judged to be 🙂 Among other benefits, having a long tonal range does make PP easier; remember what people said about the raw files in my PP challenge - Lynn worked on a 21 pre-asph Elmarit file:
Regarding the Color Skopar, it took me 4 samples to find a truly sharp 28/3.5. Still it has color'ed edges on the 240. I'm not willing to do the same nr. of experiments with the 21/4 (although the size would be great to have).
Cheers,
Roland.
willie_901
Veteran
Yes... depending on how one interprets "very well".
With film the angle of the light exiting the lens rarely has a significant effect on image quality.
With digital the angle does matter. The greater the field of view, the more difficult it becomes for light at the edges to hit the sensor assembly's micro-lenses at favorable angles.
Leica knows the micro-lens' optical properties. Leica has expertise to design and manufacture wide angle lenses for the M mont register with 24 X 36 mm sensors that optimize the angle at the sensor's edges.
Optical deficiencies that remain due to the multi-faceted compromises faced by lens designers are compensated during rendering in-camera or in post-production. Leica has complete knowledge regarding the unavoidable issues in their lens designs. This gives Leica a significant advantage over others who create lens correction parameters with less information.
There are third-party software tools available to correct these artifacts. These work well. With some effort one can find parameters that are well-suited to correct for vignetting, color fringing and shifts. With optimal parameters in hand the corrections for a particular lens an be conveniently used.
As far as I know there are no solutions for resolution degradation at image edges.
This situation is not unique to M digital cameras. Still, the M mount lens register makes the problems more challenging.
raid
Dad Photographer
This is good to know, Roland. I am glad that you have used all three lenses and that you veiw the Rokkor to be fine for a 28mm lens.
I can then use the money for 120 film developing and scanning from my SWC. Its lens is similar to a 21mm lens, I think. maybe this is "my 21mm lens" in the end.
I cannot resist 50mm lenses though. This is my weak spot. I may one day get a Hexanon 50 2.4. It just looks so nice to me, and you may have said at one time that you find this lens to be very sharp too.
Raid
I can then use the money for 120 film developing and scanning from my SWC. Its lens is similar to a 21mm lens, I think. maybe this is "my 21mm lens" in the end.
I cannot resist 50mm lenses though. This is my weak spot. I may one day get a Hexanon 50 2.4. It just looks so nice to me, and you may have said at one time that you find this lens to be very sharp too.
Raid
raid
Dad Photographer
You have explained to me why I should not/cannot get a 21mm lens, Willie. Thanks!
Your explanations are very useful and very interesting too.
Raid
Your explanations are very useful and very interesting too.
Raid
uhoh7
Veteran
While all of this is basically true, the conclusion to which it has lead Raid is utterly silly.
The M9 can shoot 18 and 21mm lenses incredibly well, and you certainly do not need a "digital lens". You just need to choose the right film lens and the correct profile, and there is no compromise compared to film or a DSLR. Certainly there are details in those comparisons which swing back and forth, because M9 UWA, FILM UWA, and DSLR UWA are different. It's easy enough to make a case the M9 beats them all, but there are various points of emphasis which might be stressed by one shooter or another to argue in favor.
Raid, I would suggest you ask you Leica contacts if they think a digital M is not able to keep up UWA.
This is not to say some lenses don't make extra steep ray angles which really are better on film, and the skopar 21 is an example, as are a number of older UWA lenses. My examples from the Skopar link to full size files, so they could be compared directly to a scan, which would be interesting.
But the ZM 18/4 and ZM21/2.8 are superb by any measure on the M9 and much more modern designs than the 28 Rokkor, which I think you have owned. There are not many 28s better than those lenses in terms of resolving. The 28 cron is better. The whole "microlens" thing is very dated. Most modern sensors offset the micro lenses to get the ray angles better just as much or more than any sensor Leica has chosen.
The real difference today is the coverglass and filter stack above the sensor, which all Leica Ms have configured differently to any other digital camera. It's not complicated at all.
Sony A7= Sensor+.7mm clear coverglass + 1.9mm IR and misc filters.
Leica M9= Sensor + .8mm IR cut coverglass. Nothing more.
Some lenses still shift color, but that is what the profiles are for, especially the 21 Elmarit pre-asph. Why on earth would Leica bother with profiles at all if the camera was no good at 18 or 21mm? Look at how many you have on the menu. They put that work in to get the UWA lenses performing at a professional level.
There is only one reason not to shoot the M9 at 18 or 21mm. You don't feel like it. Which is a perfectly valid reason of course. You can listen to explanations which simplify a bunch of variables, or you can look at images and decide if such image quality is OK. I'm amazed you thought the skopar was OK and then let a technical explanation talk you out of what your eyes saw. And having heard you say one does not need the great camera, now suddenly you are ready to believe the M9 cannot/should not shoot 21mm?
Why let the perfect ray angle be the enemy of the excellent image? They aren't perfect lenses on film either. UWA lenses are harder to make. 90s are easy. Sure we could just shoot 90s.
If you want to try a 21 there is only one way to find out if you like it. Lenses can always be sold. Probably many would love to hear your conclusions. 🙂
High Spring by unoh7, ZM18
L1038906 by unoh7, SEM 21
L1021309 by unoh7, ZM 18
L1000713 by unoh7, ZM 18
In the last image the ZM18 is coded as the Tri-Elmar, before I had learned the profiles.
raid
Dad Photographer
Again, this is a good discussion here. I pay attention to such discussions so that in the end, hopefully we can all learn something new that is actually back up by extensive photography based evidence.
uhoh7
Veteran
Please take no offense from me, Raid or anyone.
I am not averse to changing my views on better evidence, and have done so many times, right here. 🙂
reading up on the subject again this evening, the ZM 21/4.5 is lamentably better suited to film just as alluded to above, which is a shame as it has little distortion and is technically excellent. M9 does not like it.
The zm 21/2.8 is another story completely.
As you can see in the samples above, even the stock Sony A7 can make decent edges with the ZM 21/2.8 I would assume it's stopped down in those shots.
The very best UWAs for M9 or 240 would be the SEM18 and 21, both of which are under 2k now on the used market, and are excellent. I mention the ZM21/2.8 because it's only 650USD or so, and obviously is way better than the CV 21/4 and a bunch of older UWAs on the digital M cameras.
Zeiss has experimented and here are the M9 profiles they choose for a number of ZM lenses:
Zeiss Profiles by unoh7, on Flickr
As a comparison here is the SEM 21, which most consider superb on digital M:
East Fork Salmon River by unoh7, on Flickr
Last Bend by unoh7, on Flickr
L1049757 by unoh7, on Flickr
uhoh7
Veteran
The 28 Cron was designed for film, I believe, however the M9 I think sets a benchmark for 28 performance from any camera using this lens.
Old Trail by unoh7, on Flickr
Thunder over the Green by unoh7, on Flickr
Dead Stand by unoh7, on Flickr
Old Trail by unoh7, on Flickr
Thunder over the Green by unoh7, on Flickr
Dead Stand by unoh7, on Flickr
uhoh7
Veteran
Now one last time let's examine the 650USD (used) ZM18 on M9 and compare to the 2200USD 28 cron above:
L1051389 by unoh7, on Flickr
L1022197 by unoh7, on Flickr
Sawtooth Lake by unoh7, on Flickr
Somebody is going to tell me this lens does not work well enough on the M9 to bother with it because it was designed to be used on film? Really?
Would the SEM18 be better? Yes. At 1/3 the cost the Zeiss Distagon looks pretty excellent to my eye, but I'm certainly open to education.
L1051389 by unoh7, on Flickr
L1022197 by unoh7, on Flickr
Sawtooth Lake by unoh7, on Flickr
Somebody is going to tell me this lens does not work well enough on the M9 to bother with it because it was designed to be used on film? Really?
Would the SEM18 be better? Yes. At 1/3 the cost the Zeiss Distagon looks pretty excellent to my eye, but I'm certainly open to education.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks for the evidence supported statements on using UWA lenses thta are not made by Leica on a Leica M9 camera. As I said before in this thread, such discussions are very useful.
You asked me to contact Leica about it, but I hesitate doing is becuse I doubt it very much that anyone at Leica will comment on Zeiss lenses other than saying (maybe) that Leica can only vouch for its own lenses when used on Leica cameras.
Showing images, as you have done, is the most convincing discussion.
I garee with you that "At 1/3 the cost the Zeiss Distagon looks pretty excellent"
You asked me to contact Leica about it, but I hesitate doing is becuse I doubt it very much that anyone at Leica will comment on Zeiss lenses other than saying (maybe) that Leica can only vouch for its own lenses when used on Leica cameras.
Showing images, as you have done, is the most convincing discussion.
I garee with you that "At 1/3 the cost the Zeiss Distagon looks pretty excellent"
Similar threads
