21mm Viewfinder - Leica or Zeiss

[Guest Linsengericht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I was questioning was the fixation on the quality of the imagine in the viewfinder, when its core purpose is to frame the shot.

 

Distortion will make it much more difficult to align the camera properly.

I am shooting a lot of architecture and find low distortion a requirement to align the camera with horizontal/vertical structures.

[IkarusJohn]

Distortion will make it much more difficult to align the camera properly.

I am shooting a lot of architecture and find low distortion a requirement to align the camera with horizontal/vertical structures.

 

HAven't had that problem at all.

[Guest]

Glad to have an (almost) new 24mm Leica viewfinder on the M9 now.

 

On the M8 the simultaneous 24mm + 35mm frames helped for a square (=cropped) composition.

 

(Every non-user of a 75mm lens complains of the simultaneous 50 + 75 frames in the cameras own viewfinder, since the M6.

I like this feature for square crops with the 50mm lens.

With the M9 I lose less of the superb IQ of the 50mm SummiluxA than with the M8 when cropping to a square.)

 

Now with the external Leica VF on the M9, I can have square framings without guessing with the 24mm lens, because Leica wants their latest VF to be usable for M8, too.

 

Fans of cropped 2:1 panoramas out of their FF M Leicas enjoy the same benefit.

 

The same holds true for 18mm, 21mm and 28mm new Leica external VFs. They are good for 1:1 (square) and 2:1 (pano) croppings.

 

Because of, I repeat for clarity's sake, the additional M8 frames they all have, this being a bonus versus old plastic and metal Leica VFs, and all other brands, too.

 

It's true they distort and are less bright than the equivalent Zeiss VF , which cost a lot less.

[rsh]

The Newer Leica 21 Finder is very useful if, like me, you have both the 21 and the 28 because it has the secondary 28 mm Frame Line. I often use it with the 28 and it lets me compose more easily. Personal choice.based on versatility.

 

I have not seen or used other viewfinders, but I am sure they are just fine.

[StephenPatterson]

The Newer Leica 21 Finder is very useful if, like me, you have both the 21 and the 28 because it has the secondary 28 mm Frame Line. I often use it with the 28 and it lets me compose more easily. Personal choice.based on versatility.

 

I have not seen or used other viewfinders, but I am sure they are just fine.

 

It's also very useful if you have a 24mm lens, because you can split the difference between the frame lines.

 

I originally bought the Zeiss 21 VF to go with my Biogon, and I really like it. Recently I purchased the Leica 21 finder (got a great deal), and now I prefer using it because I find the frame lines are much more pronounced. Also I like the size of the Leica finder, as it's a little smaller than the Zeiss. An added bonus is the Leica comes with a case. It's ridiculous that Zeiss does not offer a case or even a pouch with a $400 VF.

[MarkP]

I earlier wrote that I would get back to this thread after I had the opportunity of comparing the Zeiss and Leica (new model metal) 21mm Viewfinders. I have an M9 and 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH.

 

Some of us had earlier complained of problems framing with the Zeiss VF, mainly a rotational error when composing which I found led to problems especially with architectural photography. As the Zeiss is designed for use on the Ikon (where the hotshoe is centred to the centre of the lens axis), it is not corrected for the hot-shoe on M-Leicas being offset to the centre-of-lens-axis.

 

 

These are my thoughts:

 

I had the opportunity of comparing in-store the Zeiss, Leica 21mm, and the Leica variable 21-24-28 VF (which was there second-hand) . I could have taken them home for further (and perhaps more precise and scientific comparison) but the outcome was obvious to myself and two of the specialised Leica staff with me so my decision was made. Most importantly we compared (as best we could) where the centre of the image was on the external VF compared with the camera's inbuilt viewfinder (using the centre of the image at the focusing rectangle) at both 2-3m and ~10m. I also attempted as best as possible to line up horizontals and verticals by eye through each of the VFs and checked whether this was correct on the final image.

 

At both distances, both Leica external VFs aligned horizontally & vertically to the centre of the image determined by the in-built VF. With the Zeiss finder the image centre was significantly up and to the right when compared with the camera's internal VF and the Leica external VFs. Therefore, one unintentionally frames incorrectly using the Zeiss finder as it leads to significantly rotation down and to the left. This may not be noticed in some standard photography, but becomes a problem for more accurate framing, especially in architectural or other photographs especially where line distortion needs to be avoided.

 

 

In summary:

the Zeiss 21 VF is a delight to use: relatively cheap, a bit large compared with the Leica 21 (but not with the 21-24-28 variable (or Frankenfinder), well constructed, and has a glorious bright image with average frameline visibility, but poor framing accuracy However, to me it does not fulfil it's primary purpose as a viewfinder (accepting limitations inherent in VF accuracy with RF cameras) and especially with the rotational error that it encourages when framing.

 

The Leica 21 VF is outrageously expensive and not as bright as the Zeiss or Leica variable 21-24-28. However it is quite bright enough, much more compact than the others, well constructed, and the framelines (including perspective correction lines). Most importantly I believe it to much more accurate than the Zeiss, and after all this is the main purpose of the VF. I had no problems with framing and especially accurately aligning verticals & horizontals. It also comes with a lovely little padded leather box (so it bloody well should for the price).

 

With all three it is relatively easy to smudge the front glass and eyepiece (perhaps more so the eyepiece of the Leica 21)

 

I am told the previous plastic clad Leica 21mm external VF is much brighter but I haven't seen one.

 

I should add that I considered the Leica variable 21-24-28 VF as it was only $400 and in mint condition. However, I don't need one for 24 or 28, it is very large, distorts much more than the others, , there are no frame-lines and one simply frames to the black edge of the field of view, and the distortion and out of focus areas at the periphery at 21 and 28mm only (24mm is fine) make it very disconcerting to use for anything more than very quick framing.

 

Despite the outrageous price (however let's put it in perspective compared to the cost of the 1.4/21 Summilux) I didn't hesitate buying the Leica 21mm because in the end it does the job accurately and the Zeiss does not! For the first time I am confident framing with 21 now I have this VF, it is surprisingly accurate for framing and perspective!

 

 

Regards all,

Mark

 

 

ps: I should add that I appreciated the very generous trade-in I was offered on the spot for the Zeiss VF (which I've now used for over one year) as it was recomended to me by the dealer in good faith before this issue was identified).

Edited October 14, 2011 by MarkP

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is interesting to me Mark.

 

I've often wondered about the framing accuracy of the Zeiss finders. I have an old Leica 21 which isn't terribly bright but does its job and is nice and accurate within the limitations of any VF. I've often considered swapping it for a nice bright Zeiss but I simply couldn't understand how it could be accurate even though people consistently rate it very highly.

 

So thanks for this pretty-much definitive explanation. Much appreciated.

[algrove]

I own both the Zeiss 18 VF and the 25 VF. Both are a joy to use. Even non photographers often come up to me when using a tripod and ask to see what image I'm shooting. While looking into the viewfinder the first thing they comment on is the clarity and brightness of the Zeiss VF even though they might not even know who Zeiss is.

 

Just thought of a question. Can I use my 18 VF once I get a Leica 21 mm lens?

[budrichard]

"You seem to be the only "expert" to have that issue."

 

That Post and Quote was directed at me in this Thread.

Now another member who I congratulate for having the curiosity to investigate and not take the word of the 'Expert's on this and other Forums has confirmed what I investigated in a technical manner with comparison photographs Posted in another forum referenced in this Thread for anyone to view.

It causes me wonder how for all these years so called 'Experts' could praise the Zeiss finder and never visually see the results in their work or even bother to understand what i Posted.

My conclusion is that these 'Experts' are in fact just Posting on their laurels and actually don't bother to use the equipment for which they supply information. As to the other Forum members that derided my investigation and results, I am owed apologies 'if the shoe fits'.-Dick

[sblitz]

i own the voigtlander in metal and it works just fine with the biogon 21mm -- at a fraction of the cost.

[algrove]

I earlier wrote that I would get back to this thread after I had the opportunity of comparing the Zeiss and Leica (new model metal) 21mm Viewfinders. I have an M9 and 1.4/21 Summilux).

 

hey, Mark, how is the 21 lux? Is it feeling very front heavy on the M9? Also in what way do you use it? Street? Landscape? Architecture only? Mostly?

Edited October 14, 2011 by algrove
Added question

[MarkP]

A few comments:

 

It doesn't matter how much brighter and clearer the Zeiss finder is, and how much nicer it is to use if it does not allow correct composition. This is more of a problem than just something being left out of the edge of the frame. The Zeiss finder causes one to incorrectly frame more down and to the right. This erroneous rotation throws out perspective control as well as subject framing, most important whenntryimg tomcontrol straight lines. in other words it does NOT work no

matter how nice the view is because of VF malalignment

 

I have no experience with the 18mm,but would assume the problems would be exagerrated with a wider lens and malaligned finder especially when it comes to control of straight lines. I stand to be corrected though.

 

The older Leica external VFs should all be corrected as all leica M cameras have a hotshoe offset tomthe mid-lens axis. I note that the earlier Leica external VFs have an external compensatory offset (including the 21-24-28'variable finder discissed above. The new Leica metal finder has no such offset so the correction must be an internal optical one.

 

Mark

I'll come back to my thoughts on the 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH in my next post.

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks for this Mark.

 

I agree, the only reason for having an external viewfinder is for framing. If it doesn't do that, what's the point?

 

I'll stick with my old metal Leica 21 view finder.

 

Cheers

John

[MarkP]

Thanks for this Mark.

 

I agree, the only reason for having an external viewfinder is for framing. If it doesn't do that, what's the point?

 

I'll stick with my old metal Leica 21 view finder.

 

Cheers

John

 

Exactly!

 

The Zeiss 21mm VF with its large prism & eyepiece and bright field is lovely, but that does not translate to more lovely photographs. It should stay on the Ikon for which it was designed.

 

Regrding your old Leica 21mm VF, my understanding is that the earlier model xternal VFs are a bit brighter than the current one. I wouldn't have thought there is any reason to upgrade it unless you want the new metal cased one, and to pay a truckload of those NZ dollars with their poor exchange rate:D

 

Regards,

Mark

Edited October 15, 2011 by MarkP

[MarkP]

hey, Mark, how is the 21 lux? Is it feeling very front heavy on the M9? Also in what way do you use it? Street? Landscape? Architecture only? Mostly?

 

My thoughts on the 1.4/21 Summilux ASPH? I should start by saying that I am relatively new to this FL, and consider myself still towards the bottom of the learning curve with this FL and this lens in particular.

 

I really enjoy using the 21 Summilux, and all the more now I have an external VF I trust to allow accurate framing & control.

 

I have not done any street photography with it but may explore this. It is obviously not a new concept as others have discussed this in the forum before. One of my elderly patients is a retired professional photographer and back in the 60s was using a 21 for street photography. He felt that apart from the panoramic inclusion of the whole scene, subjects really didn't appreciate where the lens was pointed. He was always surprised how close you could get to the subject with this FL.

 

So I've mainly used the lens for other things but am still exploring.

You may have already seen some of these examples:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4682.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4699.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4973-picture7060.html

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4973-picture7061.html (cropped)

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/members/72811-albums4853.html

 

 

 

It is big, but not particularly when compared with the 1.0/50 Noctilux, or the old Nikkor AI-S primes I used with my F3/T. It is front-heavy on the M9 but the camera only tilts down about15-20° from the horizontal with the lens fitted, and the M9/lens combination is a nice secure and stabilizing weight in the hand.

 

My biggest dilemma before ordering the lens was not whether I bought the Summilux, but whether I should get the 21 or 24. Not having a wider lens than 24mm before I'm much happier with the 21 as it gives me a bit more reach, but I can think & compose for 24 and crop accordingly such is the IQ of the M9. It's versatility is such that I can use the one lens it in all lighting conditions (but still waiting for my 3xND Series VIII filter).

 

I consider it to be like a wide angle Noctilux. At 1.4 and being wide it can be hand-held to similar or lower shutter speeds than the Noctilux and I like being able to keep ISO as low as possible. SBeing wide the shallow DOF is easier to control than the Noctilux. It is an especially useful companion to the Noctilux in low light situations.

 

Some have argued elsewhere that it demonstrates a bit more distortion then its slower counterparts such as the 2.8 and 3.4. I have no personal experience with these lenses but I have no complaints whatsoever with this lens performance. Perhaps for professional/critical architectural images it may not suffice.

 

I use this FL less that 28/35/50 but if that changed I would buy a lighter one to take with me where I knew there would be adequate light. The other lens would be the relatively cheap and light (280gm) but Zeiss 2.8/21 Biogon (outstanding reviews and just have a look at Bill Alsop's photographs with this lens in the Photography forums). I see no reason to get the Leica equivalents over this lens. In fact I may just think about getting one soon:rolleyes: Of course I would still use it with the Leica 21mm external VF!

 

Regards,

Mark

[algrove]

Mark- Nicely done. Hey, did you hand hold these shots including the night shots at La Tour Eiffel? Your comments have me thinking of getting the 21 over the 24 now since I own the 35.

[MarkP]

Mark- Nicely done. Hey, did you hand hold these shots including the night shots at La Tour Eiffel? Your comments have me thinking of getting the 21 over the 24 now since I own the 35.

 

All handheld. Part of the advantage of having a Leica with fast lenses is to travel light and uncluttered. Also, do you think my family would put up with me travelling with and setting up a tripod? I spent enough time trying to catch up with my wife & kids after I'd held back to photograph something:rolleyes:!

 

Having said that, I have recently bought a light tripod (Carbonfibre Manfrotto 732CY) with a very versatile and easy-to-use Novoflex Mini&Magic Magicball head) for some of those occasions when I'm off on my own and have more time.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

ps: Take your point about stepping down from 35 to 21 which was plan when first buying lenses. I then got the 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH which fills the gap nicely. The step down from 28 to 21 (which I can crop to 24 if I wish) also makes more sense for what I use than owning a 24 as well. It works well for me.

[IkarusJohn]

Regrding your old Leica 21mm VF, my understanding is that the earlier model xternal VFs are a bit brighter than the current one. I wouldn't have thought there is any reason to upgrade it unless you want the new metal cased one, and to pay a truckload of those NZ dollars with their poor exchange rate:D

 

Mine is the metal one, but made prior to the inclusion of the M8 frame lines. It;s very nice. Not as clear, I guess as the main viewfinder in the camera, but perfectly good for my purposes.

 

For my next trip away, I will be taking the 50 Summilux (unless my Noct has arrived by then), the 28 Summicron and the 21 Summilux. Nice combination of focal lengths, speeds and size.

 

Cheers

John

[MarkP]

Exactly the lenses I would take (and can also use the 21 finder for the 28 if so inclined)

 

Although I'd also take the 35 Summilux as an option for when I only want to go out with one lens.

 

Regards,

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bmacw]

I just want to add some comments, since it's not very clear everyone got the ROOT cause of the problem.

 

Leica's hot shoe is off center of the lens axis. Leica's engineers are almost too clever, so much so they designed the hot shoe to have a rotational off set. so that at a set distant (i.e. 2 meters) the flash will intersect the lens axis

 

THIS is the offset leica has built-in to their view finder. When the VF is mounted on the hot shoe, the plane of the viewfinder is parallel to the film plane, even though the hot shoe is not. The left/right offset has almost nothing to do with this.

 

You can easily test this by mounting a flash to the M9, look from top down, you will see the front edge of your flash is NOT parallel with the front edge of the camera.

 

Hope this helps. Someone can correct me if I got anything wrong.