21mm f1.4 or f3.4 for a Leica newbee/addict

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am still undecided on which 21mm to get, there are lots of good feedback since this thread started and I appreciate all the effort that members have taken to give me and others their knowledge and feedback and when I get home next week I will make my mind up and will post pictures of whichever lens I decided to buy along with some shots.

Some of the things that I still need to chew on some more before I make my mind up is;

1. The filter system on the f1.4 (I love shooting landscape so how do I attach a Lee GND)

2. I love street especially at night so the extra f stops of the 1.4 will defiantly help there

3. Shooting landscape for me is normally at f5.6 plus so the 3.4 would be perfect

4. Small/Big is not an issue for me I am 6’ 3” and 219 lbs

5. Price is an issue (the same as everyone else) but what I don’t want to do is buy the f3.4 then wish I had bought the 1.4 and then have two.

6. Whatever happens if I decide to get the f1.4 I will have to wait until the end of next month (bonus time) the f3.4 I can get now and I would then have the 35mm and a 21mm

[Advertisement]

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

[Scarlet]

2. I love street especially at night so the extra f stops of the 1.4 will defiantly help there

It may not only help you defiantly but also definitely, though the latter more than the former will depend on the lighting.

3. Shooting landscape for me is normally at f5.6 plus so the 3.4 would be perfect

I'm afraid this doesn't make sense to me.

5. Price is an issue (the same as everyone else) but what I don’t want to do is buy the f3.4 then wish I had bought the 1.4 and then have two.

Like I said, this risk is low. Just sell the one you don't want/need to have. However, in light of your point 6, point 5 is somewhat difficult to understand.

 

/s

[algrove]

@NDWgolf

 

I would almost forget your Lee filters for the 1.4 since they are quite cumbersome versus a simple Series 8 filter. You unscrew the hood drop (not literally drop) the filter in place and re-screw the hood on. That's it.You must remember to hold the lens upright when doing this as the filter will just drop out once the hood in unscrewed.

 

I know the ease and advantages of Lees since I often shoot with a guy who uses that setup, but even with having to figure out which rotation I want for my polarizer I am always waiting for him to complete his shots and put the stuff away and I am often very slow and deliberate. A graduated ND works most of the time for me. Then again there are some guys who do all the filter stuff in PP although I prefer to do my filter work in the field at time of exposure where possible. As the years go by I tend to use filters less and less.

 

I can understand your desire to get your lenses all set and purchased because I can guess that when that time off the rig begins you will be dying to take some land images immediately. But try to be patient and heed many peoples' advice that to get to know the lens you now have on camera first before graduating up or down the line, will make your next lens selection much easier and more lasting.

 

I have made mistakes in lens selections myself and now agree with the advice on taking it easy. You have your whole life (on dry land) to figure out what lens or lenses will be best for your style of shooting. Also, over the years our style can change and therefore what lens we prefer the most today will most likely change tomorrow.

 

Ok all that said I will try to answer IMHO your points:

1. Use Series VIII filters.

2. The 1.4 has the advantage to me .

3. Landscape in a storm or low light tilts to the 1.4, but it is not necessary for landscape so the 3.4=yes with tripod.

4. Your size actually might favor the 21/1.4 since the lens is not too tiny for largish hands and the camera lens balance is nice.

5. Get the 1.4 when you can afford it if that is the lens you decide you want. If you have a chance to try them both before buying that might seal the deal for you.

6. Don't rush it. You already have a 50/1.4 coming so that and a 35 will give you plenty of flexibility. There is a big difference between the 35 and 50 to me. Also as someone has mentioned do not forget the longer M lenses. I just love the 90 FL. My new 90/2 is tack sharp with plenty of contrast. Still others prefer the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M which I also find sharp.

[thighslapper]

A piece of advice. Looking at your posts, you seem to be buying too many lenses too fast. Suggest to stick to a one or two lens kit for a while and them consider more lenses later. A am on a trip right now carrying 21, 35, 50 and 90 and frankly I can do with just the 35 and 50 most of the time. Your bag will feel lighter and you wouldn't need to fiddle with different lenses and miss the moment.

 

.... well if you have the cash by far the best idea is to buy loads of lenses, try all of them for a while and then sell on the ones that don't suit you ...

 

that gets rid of the 'if only I had a XXmm I could take better photos' business right at the start

 

... that's what I did .... and as I said, most of the lenses I now use are f3.4 or slower (noctilux excepted) as I have found compactness/portability is a greater virtue than speed.

 

what you desire is very rarely what you actually need

[MarkP]

My advice would be to base the decision on:

 

1. cost (remember that the 1.4 is much more than twice the price of a 3.4 which would fund another lens)

 

2. whether you think you will need a lens faster than f3.4. Not necessary for landscape and most general photography. As we have said, or implied, a wide angle such as a 21 can be hand-held to shutter-speeds much lower than a 50 or 35. However, the extra 3 stops or so does increase versatility and options with your photography if you only want one 21mm lens. A bit like in general daylight photography (and forgetting issues of individual lens image rendering) my 50mm lens is rarely used above f2.8-4 in general photography, but using my 50mm Summilux I have the option on the camera, then and there, to use the extra speed whenever I choose without going to another lens. Although the 50 Summilux is not large, it is a fair bit bigger/heavier than an Elmar or Summicron.

 

3. Lens size/weight doesn't seem to be an issue for you, and although a lighter lens is overall more comfortable to carry the 1.4 is only a large lens by Leica standards. It does nevertheless weigh half a kilo.

 

4. Regarding filtration, if you are shooting digital then you may only want a UV/skylight filter to protect the front element and perhaps an ND filter. I would not even try to use any other filtration system than the recommended Series VIII filters. PLs are difficult to use on ultra-wides because of lack of consistent application across the field of view. Of course, there are many on this forum who never use filters. - not right or wrong, just a different approach.

 

5. If distortion for very precise architectural photography is an issue then get the 3.4 although I have never been bothered by the mild distortion of the 1.4.

 

 

6. Finally, to open another can of worms:D, are you planning on getting the Leica 21mm VF (my recommendation). There are endless threads in the Forum on this topic...

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

6. Finally, to open another can of worms:D, are you planning on getting the Leica 21mm VF (my recommendation). There are endless threads in the Forum on this topic...

Mark I will also get the 21mm Leica Viewfinder, if I can make the deal with the seller I hope to get the lens and viewfinder together

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What are you expecting to pay for the lenses (±VF) depending on whether you get the Summilux or SEM?

[glenerrolrd]

I am still undecided on which 21mm to get, there are lots of good feedback since this thread started and I appreciate all the effort that members have taken to give me and others their knowledge and feedback and when I get home next week I will make my mind up and will post pictures of whichever lens I decided to buy along with some shots.

Some of the things that I still need to chew on some more before I make my mind up is;

1. The filter system on the f1.4 (I love shooting landscape so how do I attach a Lee GND)

2. I love street especially at night so the extra f stops of the 1.4 will defiantly help there

3. Shooting landscape for me is normally at f5.6 plus so the 3.4 would be perfect

4. Small/Big is not an issue for me I am 6’ 3” and 219 lbs

5. Price is an issue (the same as everyone else) but what I don’t want to do is buy the f3.4 then wish I had bought the 1.4 and then have two.

6. Whatever happens if I decide to get the f1.4 I will have to wait until the end of next month (bonus time) the f3.4 I can get now and I would then have the 35mm and a 21mm

 

 

The 21 is one of my favorite lenses for street shooting . Its a difficult choice because the 21/3.4 asph is a superb optic ...sharp edge to edge and with very little distortion even wide open . The size is perfect on an M body and it handles perfectly for street type work . Really one of my favorite lenses.

 

However if you enjoy doing much of your shooting in the evening .. I would want the 1.4 summilux . Thats more than 2 EV which is very much needed with the M9 at twilight ...

 

I typically carry the 21/3.4 and the 28/2 . You may find though that if you other primary lens is the 35 that a 24 /1.4 might work better . If you are on the fence go with the 21/3.4 and see what you can do .

[ohnri]

My 21 'lux was my 2nd favorite lens on my recently sold M9. Only my Noct f/1 was used more.

 

I can't imagine not having used it. A slow WA would have been nearly useless to me for indoor sports.

 

Of course, you will know if you need the speed or not.

 

BTW, the IQ of the 21 'lux is outstanding and it is excellent for any purpose.

 

On my D4 I love the 24mm 1.4 G. Speed rules, slow lenses are for tripod toters. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Really, some of my best friends own tripods.

 

-Bill

 

Fashion Meets Fighting

 

April 2012 – Bill Fulcher | HatakeyamaGallery.com

[algrove]

Mark I will also get the 21mm Leica Viewfinder, if I can make the deal with the seller I hope to get the lens and viewfinder together

 

I would seriously consider the Frankenfinder. It is very helpful for framing. I have about given up on my regular 18 & 21 & 24 VF's. Since they are offset from the center point of the lens, I find their framing ability is diminished & inaccurate when compared to the VF Part number 12011. This VF comes with the WATE lens 16-18-21 which I did not mention so not to confuse the discussion. The diameter of the view is enormous when compared to the standard 21 VF or any other Leica VF.

 

This VF allows one to set its frame lines for 16, 18, 21, 24 & 28mm plus should you ever get into near/far work with WA lenses it has a parallax adjustment allowing for 0.5M, 0.7M, 1.0M, 2.0M and infinity. Yes, it is a bit large, but boy it does the job. For me NOTHING is better. There must be plenty of threads on this item.

 

The deal maker for me on it was that I often found that I accidentally pulled off regular VF's from my flash bracket atop the camera when pulling out of or putting the camera into a carry bag. On this 12011, Leica has provided a set screw so that you can tighten it onto the flash bracket ensuring that it does not come off until you want it to come off the camera similar to what a flash has on it to fix it well onto the camera.

 

Now there is one other VF that Leica used to make (I believe they no longer make it though my nearest Leica dealer has one new in his showcase), part number 12013. It also has a flash bracket set screw. The size of its view is similar to the standard VF (smaller than the 12011) , but it is cantered over the center of the lens making its framing more accurate than standard VF's. In addition you can select different lens views- 21, 24 & 28, but no parallax adjustment.

 

So to summarize IMHO you have 3 choices of Leica VF that will work on your 21, no matter which 21 lens you get. Now, many other manufacturers make VF for less money than Leica's VF. If you subscribe to Sean Reid's website, he discusses all kinds of rangefinder items including various VF.

[algrove]

This is why I go for my 21/1.4 for street/nights.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

f1.4, ISO1250, M9, 1/350 because I can no longer hand hold at under 250th even with WA lenses and be sure I will get it sharp for A3+ prints.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

^^^^Great Shot Louis.....................If I can get the right price it will be a 1.4 for me too

[algrove]

I was searching for another. Found it.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

21/1.4 @ 1.4 ISO1250, M9 upgraded, 1/750th because the guy kept flipping the newspaper pages.

[algrove]

Neil-Here's why I decided on the MM.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

21/1.4 @1.4 ISO1250, M9Upgraded, 1/12th. That's what the EXIF says, but if I did hand hold at 1/12th then I did not have enough wine that night!

[Guest snowboarder]

This is why I go for my 21/1.4 for street/nights.

 

[ATTACH]330392[/ATTACH]

 

f1.4, ISO1250, M9, 1/350 because I can no longer had hold at under 250th even with WA lenses.

 

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better. Who knows what

September brings....

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Neil-Here's why I decided on the MM.

 

I am getting one of those as well to go with my leicamm.com domain:)

[algrove]

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better. Who knows what

September brings....

 

That's not optimized, sure I can make it look better. That's OOC JPEG. So do I assume you shoot with Sony and not Leica? This is why I usually do not post photos here, but I am just trying to help a guy see some results. So why don't you show him some better ones with whatever 21mm you use?

[RobertJRB]

That's not optimized, sure I can make it look better. That's OOC JPEG. So do I assume you shoot with Sony and not Leica? This is why I usually do not post photos here, but I am just trying to help a guy see some results. So why don't you show him some better ones with whatever 21mm you use?

 

Thanks for posting and trying to help!

 

Don't really understand why someone would subscribe to a Leica forum, not using a leica himself, to tell the leica sucks en and were better off with a full frame sony.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which suffers at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better. Who knows what

September brings....

 

I think you have missed the point here.

 

You either do not have the photograph at all, or accept technical compromises but have the image. Here it is the camera, not the lens, which is the rate-limiting-step for high-ISO IQ . The equipment is being used at/beyond it's limits. So what. The results within the limits of the system are outstanding. One can only work within the available technology of the system. Whether the results are acceptable is up to the photographer .

 

Regarding CA the 1.4/21is no worse than any many other fast exotic lenses shot wide open on digital sensors. This is pushing the bounds of physics, not design flaws. It is usually readily fixed in PP. Any residual CA is certainly not an issue for B&W conversions.

 

Is the lens perfect? Of course not. Every lens design is a compromise and the 1.4/21 Summilux is no exception...

 

Expensive, heavy, some CA in high contrast areas when shot wide open, some distortion perhaps limiting its use for critical architectural work, limited options for filtration, etc.

 

But the lens is nevertheless very versatile, and even within it's limitations it's IQ will leave almost every other available 21mm lens for dead! It's limitations and dimensions are why I also have the 3.4/21 SEM. Is should add that I had the 4.5/21 ZM C-Biogon which I think is an extraordinary lens and am still not sure whether I prefer it or the SEM. I sent the ZM off to be sold on commission but continue to have second thoughts.

 

I am not posting here to justify to others why I, or other owners own a lens that is outrageously expensive. I don't NEED such a lens but get a great deal of pleasure using the it and seeing the results.

 

Having said that, my MM is hopefully on the way, and for others the M10 is about to be released. This may mean that exotic fast lenses become less useful, or more likely, even more useful as we will all just further push the boundaries in low light situations.

 

Lets face it...no-one NEEDS Leica, everyone here has one because they want one!

[jaapv]

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better. Who knows what

September brings....

It does not look terrible. The plasticity is great, as is the composition and do the colors. You are falling into the trap of looking at pixels instead of content - and the photographer used the right tool to create the content.