considering the 21mm 3.4 for my second lens...your thoughts...

[jneilt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 50-2 and thought I would pick up the 21-3.4 & finder for the opposite end from my current lens. I have plans for a 35-2 if I can find one reasonable used (or the larger zeiss).

 

But, your experience with the 21?

[jdlaing]

I have a 21 Elmarit 2.8 pre- aspherical and I love it. Very sharp edge to edge.

The only thing I don't like is the big rectangular hood it came with.

 

The Zeiss is also very good and a lot less expensive.

[StephenPatterson]

I have had the 21/3.4 for a few weeks now, and absolutely love it. Very compact, with the same screw on metal hood as the 35 Summilux (not some plastic monster clip on thing). Images are sharp at 3.4, and unless I need max DOF that's where this lens tends to stay. Also very easy to hand hold at 1/15 sec. I had the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 before, and it is a wonderful lens, but larger and heavier than the 21SEM.

 

I first bought the 21 Zeiss for my M8, but it's become one of my favorite focal lengths on the M9.

 

I just posted some photos today taken with the 21/3.4 and 50/1.4. The 21 and 50 make a great team.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/214664-derelict-grain-elevator-bldgs-weston-mo.html

 

Stephen

[jrovner]

Has the new 21mm been released by Leica?

[Humood]

I mounted the Leica 3.4 21mm on my M9 and took a sample shot at the Kuala Lumpur Leica Store, then I mounted my 21 Summilux 1.4 and took the same shot indoors, when I downloaded the pics on my laptop I was thrilled to see that the 3.4 gave a better saturated pic than my summilux!

 

I think it is a great lens, do I regret not getting it? maybe!

[lars_bergquist]

It is out – I have one. It is not only a great lens, it may be destined to be one of the Great Leica Lenses.

 

It is the natural complement to my 35mm Summilux, which is my 'short mainstay lens' (the 50mm Summilux is the long one). The kits I carry are normally 21+35+90mm or 25+50+135mm, depending on the environment I am in, and what my intentions are. The 21–50 gap seems a bit wide, but who knows? Only you can decide, and I insist on that. Your M kit is under construction, and your preferences and its balance may well change during the process.

 

The old man from the Age of the 21mm 4,5 Biogon

[sydkugelmass]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own and use ZM Biogon 21mm/f4,5, Summilux 21mm, Super Elmar 21mm. The latter is, to my eyes, extraordinary. Summilux is excellent but the correction of distortion is much poorer than in the Super Elmar. Add to this the fact that operating the Summilux near its largest aperture often gives rise to strong vignetting especially in contrast-processed photos. All in all: for sharpness, distortion and overrall rendering on film, the Biogon is, to my eyes, a fantastic choice, but it is NOT for the M9, neither for digital. On the M9 the Super Elmar is premium. (Another exceptional use of the Super Elmar is on mu4/3 or APS-C sensors: this leads to wonder.)

[glenerrolrd]

The 21SEM is a superb lens . I ve had one for a few weeks and my experience has been thats from a pure IQ view its the best wide angle . What surprised me was the complete flatness of field and lack of distortion . Only issue is speed and thats very important for the street shooting I do.

 

My process for selecting between Leica M glass ..

 

1. Determine desired FOV .... I generally try to skip over one focal length . So if I started with a 50 ..I would go to a 28 and then a 21 . If you preferred the 35 then I would go 24 and then 18 . The 21 takes sometime to learn to use because of the very wide FOV on an M9 .

 

2. Determine necessary speed ....3.4 is fine for daylight ,landscape on a tripod and tropical light . I have plenty of light 15 min. before sunrise in Florida ..but this speed would frustrate me in NYC in the winter . You lose any quality advantage over a summilux if you have to increase ISO .

 

3. Evaluate weight and handling ....the big advantage to me with the 21/3.4 size is that I will carry this lens . I try to work without a bag ....so adding the 21 1.4 to my kit only happens if I really plan to use it frequently ..like an evening shoot.

 

The budget is always important but often is dependent on the other lenses you plan to invest in. Investing $6500 in a 21 summilux thats used for 2 % of your images makes less sense than if its a important part of your kit.

 

Thats the analytical approach ....the emotional side loves this lens.....the 21 is an exciting lens and I haven t stop using it since I put it on one of my M9s .

[gjames9142]

I own and use ZM Biogon 21mm/f4,5, Summilux 21mm, Super Elmar 21mm. The latter is, to my eyes, extraordinary. Summilux is excellent but the correction of distortion is much poorer than in the Super Elmar. Add to this the fact that operating the Summilux near its largest aperture often gives rise to strong vignetting especially in contrast-processed photos. All in all: for sharpness, distortion and overrall rendering on film, the Biogon is, to my eyes, a fantastic choice, but it is NOT for the M9, neither for digital. On the M9 the Super Elmar is premium. (Another exceptional use of the Super Elmar is on mu4/3 or APS-C sensors: this leads to wonder.)

 

I am curious as to why the Biogon doesn't work for you.

[sydkugelmass]

I am curious as to why the Biogon doesn't work for you.

My version is the ZM f4,5 NOT the f2,8. Only the latter is compatible with M9's sensor and internal processing. With the Biogon 21mm/f4,5 there is NO in camera correction to get rid of Italian Flag Syndrome. This is a well known problem. The Biogon 21mm/f4,5 renders at his best on film, giving an exceptional result. On the M9 I use it just for B&W, exploiting it's near to perfect absence of distortion.

[Your Old Dog]

I have the 21mm 2.8 asph version that I just got and I love it. I also have the 24mm but wanted to see which suited my style of shooting better. I shoot it without the viewfinder and do fine with it. I think the viewfinder is way overpriced for all the more it is.

[markforce]

2. Determine necessary speed ....3.4 is fine for daylight ,landscape on a tripod and tropical light . I have plenty of light 15 min. before sunrise in Florida ..but this speed would frustrate me in NYC in the winter . You lose any quality advantage over a summilux if you have to increase ISO .

 

 

 

But then again, hand held shutter speeds with the 3.4 can be considerably slower than with the 1.4 so I would argue that some of the Lux's speed-advantage is gone when it comes to it given its weight, no?

[rea1412]

I mounted the Leica 3.4 21mm on my M9 and took a sample shot at the Kuala Lumpur Leica Store, then I mounted my 21 Summilux 1.4 and took the same shot indoors, when I downloaded the pics on my laptop I was thrilled to see that the 3.4 gave a better saturated pic than my summilux!

 

Would you mind sharing those 2 shots here? I have been considering getting 21mm 3.4 and the summilux 21 1.4 as well... and still haven't been able to decide which I'd really like to have to compliment my only leica lens (summilux 50mm). Thank you.

[charlesphoto99]

Wow, 50mm to 21mm.... you might want to do yourself (and your photography) a favor and get something in between first, like a 35 or a 28. 21 is very wide on the M9 and can be frustrating to use at first unless one is doing primarily landscapes or people in wide environment type shots. A 28/50 is a very good combo (though a 35 is my carry everywhere lens), and the small 28/2.8 asph is one of the few Leica lenses still easy to find. But of course only you can say what will work best for you....

[glenerrolrd]

2. Determine necessary speed ....3.4 is fine for daylight ,landscape on a tripod and tropical light . I have plenty of light 15 min. before sunrise in Florida ..but this speed would frustrate me in NYC in the winter . You lose any quality advantage over a summilux if you have to increase ISO .

 

 

 

But then again, hand held shutter speeds with the 3.4 can be considerably slower than with the 1.4 so I would argue that some of the Lux's speed-advantage is gone when it comes to it given its weight, no?

 

This hasn t been my experience ..the weight of the 21/1.4 actually stabilizes the camera lens and handholding is maybe even a little better than the lighter lenses .

[MarkP]

This hasn t been my experience ..the weight of the 21/1.4 actually stabilizes the camera lens and handholding is maybe even a little better than the lighter lenses .

 

I completely agree. The extra weight of the 1.4/21 Summilux does NOT compromise handholding it at low shutterspeeds in low light. No-one applies such an argument to the Noctilux which is of a similar weight, and if anything harder to hold at equivalent low shutterspeeds due to it's longer focal length.

 

That doesn't mean one can't have a lighter, albeit slower, 21mm lens for when there is plenty of available light. I have the excellent 4.5/21 ZM Biogon in addition to the 1.4/21 Summilux for exactly this reason (red edges don't bother me as I almost always shoot for B&W) but the 3.4/21 SEM is tempting.

[StephenPatterson]

Wow, 50mm to 21mm.... you might want to do yourself (and your photography) a favor and get something in between first, like a 35 or a 28. 21 is very wide on the M9 and can be frustrating to use at first unless one is doing primarily landscapes or people in wide environment type shots. A 28/50 is a very good combo (though a 35 is my carry everywhere lens), and the small 28/2.8 asph is one of the few Leica lenses still easy to find. But of course only you can say what will work best for you....

 

I completely agree with this. I carry the 21SEM, 35 Summicron ASPH (still waiting for the 35 Summilux ASPH FLE) and 50 Summilux ASPH. I carry a 90 when the situation calls for more reach.

[markforce]

I completely agree. The extra weight of the 1.4/21 Summilux does NOT compromise handholding it at low shutterspeeds in low light. No-one applies such an argument to the Noctilux which is of a similar weight, and if anything harder to hold at equivalent low shutterspeeds due to it's longer focal length.

 

That doesn't mean one can't have a lighter, albeit slower, 21mm lens for when there is plenty of available light. I have the excellent 4.5/21 ZM Biogon in addition to the 1.4/21 Summilux for exactly this reason (red edges don't bother me as I almost always shoot for B&W) but the 3.4/21 SEM is tempting.

 

 

Thanks for your insights, happy to adjust my understanding. I never really considered the 21 1.4 to be honest given its size, weight, and $$$. My new SE complements the 35 and 50 luxes nicely and I am not afraid going to ISO 1600 to get the shot with the 21 at 3.4.

[250swb]

I've must say I agree 100 % with Charles. Superb the 21mm SEM may be, with lots of fans obviously. But enthusiasm for it shouldn't be confused with the stark reality that you are recommending this as a second lens for somebody. Its kind of like having a throttle pedal in your car that is either full on, or full off.

 

A very wide lens takes no prisoners, it either fits your view of the world, or it doesn't and then it is resigned to the camera draw and brought out again only when a very wide view is preferable. Thats an expensive route to recommend to anybody, never mind as a second addition to the lens stable.

 

So I would keep within the framelines available and say a 28mm is a good fit with a 50mm. And it will either be the widest lens that is ever needed, or will hint to the user that later on a 21mm may be a nice addition. Personally I like a 21mm some of the time but its one thing to be a fan, and another to stand back and look at what is reasonable.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

I've must say I agree 100 % with Charles. Superb the 21mm SEM may be, with lots of fans obviously. But enthusiasm for it shouldn't be confused with the stark reality that you are recommending this as a second lens for somebody. Its kind of like having a throttle pedal in your car that is either full on, or full off.

 

A very wide lens takes no prisoners, it either fits your view of the world, or it doesn't and then it is resigned to the camera draw and brought out again only when a very wide view is preferable. Thats an expensive route to recommend to anybody, never mind as a second addition to the lens stable.

 

So I would keep within the framelines available and say a 28mm is a good fit with a 50mm. And it will either be the widest lens that is ever needed, or will hint to the user that later on a 21mm may be a nice addition. Personally I like a 21mm some of the time but its one thing to be a fan, and another to stand back and look at what is reasonable.

 

Steve

 

Spot on!