Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adan
Roger and Kai - the 28/35/50 Tri-Elmars communicate the focal length actually used via the frame-selector mechanics (in order to shift the frame from 28 to 50 to 35).
While I have not seen anything definitive about the 16/18/21 (none have been released even for review yet), I expect Leica used the same system. No useful framing information (since there are no built-in frames for those focal lengths), but electronic info, in combination with the zebra coding, to ID the chosen focal length for corrections and EXIF.
On the original question: I'm sure there are some differences between the Zeiss and Leica 21s. But not necessarily better vs. worse - just different. Zeiss designs tend to be pinker and contrastier than Leica, on average. I have a Cosina "Voigtlander" 15mm that works quite nicely on the M8, and Cosina also builds the Zeiss 21 f/2.8, as well as their own 21 f/4 design.
I had the Zeiss/Kyocera 21 f/2.8 for the Contax G line, and it is/was probably THE best lens I ever used in that focal length range (and I've used almost all of them at one point or another). The current Biogon is a somewhat different design, but I expect it is still quite good.
|
I have assumed that someone will figure out how to dupicate the 6 bit coding on alternative maker lenses( or possibly Leica will allow for direct entry of the lens selected thru the menu) . This would then allow the firmware to make in camera corrections appropriate for this focal length. That will cover the 21 at least partially. But for say the new zeiss 18 or the CV 15 we may be out of luck ?