Best Land/CityScape Lens for M9?

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two weeks into ownership of my M9 + ZM 35 & 50mm f2 lens, I am still very much into discovering their capabilities. However, looking to the future (when I have saved up some more pennies), I would like to add a wider-angle lens to capture landscapes with sweeping vistas and huge DoF, cityscapes and architectural shots (external and internal). Currently I use a 5D MkII + EF 16-35mm MkII for such activities but one of the drivers for the M9 purchase was the need to downsize in terms of weight and bulk.

 

After trawling through this forum, reading threads about WA lenses and reading various test reports, my short-list (in no particular order) is:-

• 18mm Super-Elmar f3.8
  
• 24 mm f3.8 Elmar-M Asph
  
• 28mm f2.8 Elmarit-M Asph
  
• 21mm Zeiss Biogon T* F2.8
  
• 25mm Zeiss Biogon T* F2.8
  

The 28mm may be too close to my 35mm and I wonder how the 18mm is for cityscapes (distortion?). Do the Zeiss 21mm and 25mm lenses both suffer the red-fringing problem? The 21mm and 24mm f2.8 Elmarits are to expensive but the 18mm and 24mm f3.8 are a tad slow for many internal cathedral-type situations. All in all something of a quandary! All suggestions gratefully received.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[BerndReini]

The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon is a great lens bang for the buck and anything wider is unnecessary and annoying (too much sky) unless you are in places with narrow streets and high buildings like New York etc.

 

The Leica 28mm Summicron is unbelievable. It is super-sharp and useful also as an allround street lens. the only drawback is that it is very contrasty, which may not be ideal for some landscapes.

[lars_bergquist]

You must understand that there cannot be any general answer to your question. On one side of it, it depends completely on what you are going to photograph (and 50 and 90mm lenses are excellent landscape lenses, depending on the landscape) and on the other, it depends on your own eye, your sensibilities, even about your way of moving through that landscape, rural or natural or urban.

 

I can agree that if you have a 35mm lens and use it, 28mm may be too close. The rest is entirely up to you.

 

And yes, I have used a 18mm 1:4 Distagon successfully inside a gothic cathedral -- with ISO 200 film!

 

The old man from the ADOX Age

[MarkP]

Hi Bernd,

 

In the end it's what suits your style of photography and only you can answer the question.

This forum is full of threads discussing this same issue.

 

Rather than suggest the focal length you should invest in I would recommend :

 

1. borrow some wider lenses, even for an SLR if you can't get any for the M9,

to get the feel for which FOV suits you.

 

2. buy a new or second hand Voigtlander in the focal length which interests you.

They are good lenses and cheap enough to keep or sell as you see fit.

 

3. look through the landscape photography forum here to see what you like and if your style of photography is represented, and then what focal length is used.

If the member has not mentioned what lens was used just ask.( I learn much more from the photography than the discussion forums)

 

4. search for and look through other posts on exactly this question, but be warned as per my comments above.

 

For what it's worth, my personal choice of 21 & 35 Lux Asph's, and 75 Cron (on order) was to have a range of lenses with FOV approx. 90° 60°, 30°. I now have a 50 Lux approx. 45° in between....tried to do without a 50 but have 'rediscovered' this focal length. I found that after years using a 24mm on my Nikon it was not quite wide enough for my style of photography, and I agree with Bernd's comment. Of course, the disadvantage of is it is quite wide and I think harder to use than the 24, and it really needs a viewfinder.

 

Many would advocate over 21, and again there are many good reasons both practical and personal for this choice. I cannot comment on wider lenses as I've never used them.

 

I think 28mm is too close to your 35mm lens.

 

Again, you need to see what suits you. It is always a difficult decision because of the financial outlay..then once you have the lenses, you need to decide which ones to take with you if you want to travel light. Fewer lenses makes the decision easier. I'm not buying any more....I think:rolleyes:

 

Regards,

Mark

[christer]

Add the Voigtlaender f/4 21 mm to your list. Read what Ken Rockwell has to say about it. Having had both both the Leica 21 mm f/2,8 ASPH and its precdecessor, I can only say that KR is right.

[MarkP]

Hi Bernd,

 

Many would advocate over 21, and again there are many good reasons both practical and personal for this choice.

 

Sorry,

 

should have read:

Many would advocate 24mm or 18mm over over 21mm...

 

Mark

[holgerf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Add the Voigtlaender f/4 21 mm to your list. Read what Ken Rockwell has to say about it. Having had both both the Leica 21 mm f/2,8 ASPH and its precdecessor, I can only say that KR is right.

 

Take care: Ken Rockwell is NOT recommending this lens for the M9 due to the color shifts it produces.

 

Best

Holger

[Keith (M)]

Thank you everyone for taking the trouble to respond. In making the move to the M9 + 35 and 50mm lenses, one intention is to spend considerably more time/effort on street/reportage photography whilst at the same time reducing the weight and bulk of camera and lens with the added (important) bonus of anonymity and a quieter, more discrete approach.

 

However, I also want to retain the ability to capture sweeping landscapes and cityscapes etc by the addition of one WA lens - hence the original questions. At the moment my 5D MkII and EF 16-35mm meets those needs but I have no desire to be laden with both camera outfits. At GBP 2,800 the 21mm Elmarit f2.8 is too expensive, as is the 24mm Elmarit. The 18mm f3.8 S-Elmar is more affordable but perhaps a little too extreme for cityscapes. The 24mm Elmar is more affordable still (and I might even manage without the considerable expense of the ext viewfinder for the 24mm) but may not give me the land/seascapes that I like to capture. So logically, in terms of price, image quality and WA performance this points to the 21mm Zeiss Biogon T* F2.8 but:-

 

• is there still a problem with red fringing on the M9 with this lens?
  
• as a Leica camera owner, I can't help feeling I should have one Leica lens in my collection rather than add another Zeiss
  

I shall continue to ponder on the problem and if anyone has some wise words on the subject, they will be very welcome!

[BerndReini]

You should have all Leica lenses in your collection, but that depends on how deep your pockets are. If it helps at all: I own a lot of Leica lenses and bought most of them used right when the M8 came out. I would come out ahead if I sold them now. If you get a good deal on a high-end Leica lens (any of the asphericals), it is like money in the atch out, I am an enabler.

[MarkP]

So logically, in terms of price, image quality and WA performance this points to the 21mm Zeiss Biogon T* F2.8 but:-

 

 

Sounds like you've already decided on the focal length for your needs by using the 16-35mm Zoom, and I assume 21m is where the Zoom sits most when you're shooting.

 

Go and buy it the 21mm, and then take some good photos .

 

Regards,

Mark

[W4Leica]

I would choose 24mm f3.8 Elmar-M Asph for landscape. I thought 18 would be too wide, and agreed 28 would be too close to 35. W

[LeicaBraz]

The 24mm

[The_hog]

How about the 25 Zeiss then?

 

I am contemplating the very same question as the OP.

So please, those with the 25 Biogon, isn't that one the answer?

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Keith,

 

I know this topic has been done to death, but I am in a similar position to you. I have a Cron Asph 75 & 35, and I'm waiting for a 50.

 

However, I'm tossing up getting a wide angle, and holding off on the 50. Initially, I thought that a 21 would do the job (75, 35 & 21 seems a nice separation), but being able to use the rangefinder with the 24 appeals, and from what I've read the 24 is perhaps more useable.

 

One of the problems is price, as I've got it into my head that I'd like these next two lenses to be the new Summiluxes. Dumb, I know. But I can't shake the thought ...

 

Cheers

John

[Keith (M)]

Well, I have spent the day juggling various options (and reading the replies here) and to fill my foreseeable lens requirements have decided on:-

 

• 21mm Zeiss Biogon f2 (+ viewfinder) and
  
• 75mm Summarit-M f2.5 (+ lens hood)
  

From everything I have read, the ZM 21mm f2 is the sharpest knife in the drawer, so to speak and the 75mm Summarit-M f2.5 will meet a requirement for short telephoto (street, reportage, portraiture etc). Therefore my lens line-up would be ZM 21mm, 35mm, 50mm and Summarit-M 75mm. Enough to meet my M9 needs whilst still being a small, relatively light comprehensive outfit!

 

PS - anyone want to buy a mint EF 16-35mm MkII ?

[RobertJRB]

Well, I have spent the day juggling various options (and reading the replies here) and to fill my foreseeable lens requirements have decided on:-

 

• 21mm Zeiss Biogon f2 (+ viewfinder) and
  
• 75mm Summarit-M f2.5 (+ lens hood)
  

From everything I have read, the ZM 21mm f2 is the sharpest knife in the drawer, so to speak and the 75mm Summarit-M f2.5 will meet a requirement for short telephoto (street, reportage, portraiture etc). Therefore my lens line-up would be ZM 21mm, 35mm, 50mm and Summarit-M 75mm. Enough to meet my M9 needs whilst still being a small, relatively light comprehensive outfit!

 

PS - anyone want to buy a mint EF 16-35mm MkII ?

 

Looks like a nice line up to me.

But to react on your original question. I have had the 18 super elmar and for landscape and cityscape its just great on my M8. I used it for architecture and cityscapes mostly and had no problems with distortion and the relative slow speed. Most of the time I had to go to f/8 for a normal speed. And inside churches (did a classic architecture tour trough Italy last august) setting the M8 to 640 or 1250 with f/3.8 was enough.

 

On my M8 it acted as a 24mm lens, with was wide, but not to wide. Great for most times and I had not one time the need for a wider lens. So a 24 elmar would be my choice on the M9.

 

Using the SE or Elmar with the extra finder is good to do. Because the smaller aperture and wide angle there is a lot of D.O.F. so just guessing the focus is easy. Especially with the focusknob of the lenses.

 

Unfortunately I sold it two weeks ago to fund the 28 summicron. But thinking of buying it back this friday. Its just an awesome lens.

And about sharpness, I did not use the 21 zeiss ZM. But heard its not as good as his SLR brother. And from what I saw Out of my 18 SE. Its pretty much up to the sharpest I have used.

For the costs, 21 + 75 is about 1000+1300. The Elmar costs 1700 so you would have 600 left for a used 90 elmarit or summicron.

 

Also, for the finder. I bought a used plastic leica finder (old model) from B&H. Costs are low (lower than the zeiss, en especially the leica's) and its really nice to use. I think I like it better than the new brightline finders from leica.

Can't tell about the zeiss trough. Did not had the change to use them.

[Archiver]

I have:

 

ZM 21/2.8 Biogon

ZM 25/2.8 Biogon

ZM 28/2.8 Biogon

CV 25/4P Skopar

M 28/2.8 Elmarit

 

among others.

 

The Zeiss lenses are all super sharp and contrasty. The Elmarit has a different colour cast and a little less contrast IMO, but renders oof areas even more pleasantly. The 25/4P Skopar has an annoying red edge which only goes away when using a 21mm lens code.

 

For landscape and cityscape work, I often use the Zeiss 21. I love the way it is sharp all the way to the edges, and how sharp it is overall. I use the 25 and 28's for a more natural perspective and less panoramic look, often as default lenses. I only step up to the 35, 50 and 75 when I want more subject isolation. Most of the time I want to be able to capture as much of what I'm seeing as possible without overly noticeable perspective distortion effects.

[NZDavid]

Just from my experience, the 2.8/24 Elmarit ASPH is brilliant for cities and landscapes.

 

I think this question applies to any full-frame M, not just the M9.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Keith (M)]

 

For landscape and cityscape work, I often use the Zeiss 21. I love the way it is sharp all the way to the edges, and how sharp it is overall.

 

Do you use the Zeiss viewfinder and if so, are there problems with framing? I have read that it is offset from the lens centre-line.

[lars_bergquist]

I use the Zeiss 18mm viewfinder. It's superb. With a wide angle lens, an offset of a few millimeters is nothing to worry about.

 

The old man from the Age of the SBLOO