21mm F/1.4

[john_j]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings All,

 

As a long time M user that recently traded an 8 for a 9 but still uses 2- 6's and an "O" (love that Tri-X and my darkroom), I'm pondering this 21, 1.4. The potential interests (and even smitten') me while the $$ cautions me.

 

Any Comments?

 

Best,

[Walt Calahan]

Help the world economy — buy one. HA!

 

If it works with your photographic vision, it is necessary. If it doesn't, then it is a very expensive chunk of metal and glass.

[adan]

It's big. It's heavish for an M lens. If you need f/1.4 there is no alternative. if you need f/2 there is only one alternative (Olympus OM 21 f/2). It is probably not quite as sharp as the 21 f/2.8 @ f/2.8 and below, but infinitely better at f/2 and f/1.4.

 

If you need f/1.4, then price is irrelevant. If you don't need f/1.4, then price is still irrelevant. Do you need f/1.4?

[MarkP]

Hi John,

 

I recently bought a 21mm f1.4 Lux (with Zeiss VF) for M9 to complement 35mm f1.4 Lux

 

My issues regarding the purchase were:

Do I want 21mm over 24mm FOV (major issue)? Yes

Do I want the size & weight (major issue)? No, but has subsequently not been a problem in use

Do I want f1.4 for low light (major issue)? Yes

Do I want f1.4 for shallow DOF? I thought no until I started using the lens

Is the purple fringing when wide open a major problem? No (mainly into B&W)

Do I want to spend this much money? No!

 

BUT, you do need to be aware of potential back-focus which can compromise the use of the lens wide open on close subjects (major issue!). My lens was back-focusing approx. 5-10 cm on subjects 90cm away, enough to render the subject out of focus at f1.4-2.0. It was sent and corrected under warranty.

 

These were what influenced my decision and I don't regret the purchase at all.

 

However, only you can decide what you need depending on your own style of photography.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Mark

[budrichard]

Before the anticipated demise of Kodachrome, I would have traded my 21mm f2.8 ASPH for this lens but not today as I don't see any value for me. Certainly the M9 doesn't require a 21mm f1.4 for exposure nor B&W analog photography so other than a shallow DOF for a 21mm which is not what I use a 21mm for, I just can't see the need.-Dick

[ezc203]

I know size is a big factor when choosing M gear because well, most people go M to stay small and portable. But I am an M user because rangefinder > SLR for me. That said, I never shy away from big/heavy lenses. 90 'Cron? Love and use often. 50 Nocti? Love and use from time to time (can't afford to own for extended periods of time. 24 Lux? My favorite.

 

Mark mentioned that the choice between 21/24 is very important and I could not agree more. Personally I prefer the 24, but if the 21 is what you want, nothing beats the Lux. I really enjoy how these lenses render subjects both in and out of focus.

 

Also, having the luxury of a wide-fast prime is a lot of fun. Shooting wide open at these angles really create very unique images that I am very into. Hence my purchase was justified.

[john_j]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all-

 

Thank you for your comments. Most of what I do is with a 50 and 35 Summicron. I have a 90 and 28 2.8 and 75 Lux as well. M lenses are timeless each with its own characteristics, most I purchased used and have had for 15 or 20 years. The 28 and 75 are newer having owned them a mere few years. I have considered selling the 28 to take the bite out of the 21 purchase but may well hold onto it for a while or longer. I once sold a 50 because I had two, one for each M6 and later bought another because I really like the 50 viewpoint and wanted it for both bodies one with Tri-X the other for transparencies.

 

I am intrigued by the potential of a 21 and realize its learning curve for focus and more importantly keeping the "lensy" wide angle look tame. I like low light! It is heavy but well balanced. The purple fringing I've read about but understand it is easily corrected in Lightroom, correct?

 

Like anything Leica, it is a commitment but in most cases, one that is timeless.

 

Best,

[ohnri]

Certainly the M9 doesn't require a 21mm f1.4 for exposure -Dick

 

Yes. Yes it does.

 

Best,

 

Bill

[MarkP]

I agree with Bill regarding the advantages of f1.4 with the M9, at least for my photographic needs/wants.

 

John, LR isn't bad for removing purple fringing. C1 does a better job but overall I prefer using LR. Of course it's irrelevant for B&W.

 

Mark:)

[Overgaard]

BUT, you do need to be aware of potential back-focus which can compromise the use of the lens wide open on close subjects (major issue!). My lens was back-focusing approx. 5-10 cm on subjects 90cm away, enough to render the subject out of focus at f1.4-2.0. It was sent and corrected under warranty.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

The back focusing was fixed, right?

[christer]

Try the Voigtlaender 21mm f/4.

 

A great lens - except for size, weight and price!

 

Better than 2,8 ASPH and non-asph, both of which I used to own.