Wide-Angle Lens Choice

[Dirk Mandeville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seems to me the two best contenders for a 21 are the Leica SEM and the Zeiss 2.8 Biogon. Anyone that has used both have any ideas on how they compare? I am sure the Leica is slightly better, but is it twice the cost better? I am strongly considering purchasing the Zeiss for use with my M9.

[iedei]

My confusion came from looking at eBAY prices. There are quite a few 21 Elmarit-M ASPH being advertised at prices ranging from 3000-4600 USD and the 21 SEM has a list price of <3000 USD. Was it because the list price of the 21 Elmarit-M was much more when it was being sold by Leica?

 

I would definitely prefer the 21 SEM at the lower price and full warranty.

 

those are VERY high prices for the Elmarit.

 

here's one that recently sold on the forum classifieds..much more in line with real-world pricing.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/market/listing/8649/SOLD__Leica_2128.html

[IWC Doppel]

A used 21mm Elmarit-M is typically 20-25% below a new SEM. The price of the SEM has brought down the secondhand price of the 21mm Elmarit-M ASPH.... unusual for Leica. I tried an SEM before settling on the Elmarit-M, I thought the SEM was incredibly sharp and could't criticise but somehow the Elmarit had something about the rendering that I preferred. I didn't do enough A-B to fully evaluate, but as a used Elmarit-M is cheaper than a new SEM it was an easy decision.

 

I do prefer the 24 Elmarit-M ASPH, but only slightly. I have a 2011 price list next to me the 21mm Elmarit-M ASPH was £3,120 then......

[flyalf]

I dont know if this is of relevance, but for snow winterscapes some wides are problematic even with Cornerfix. Of those I have used: CV15/4,5, Leica ASPH 28/2,8, Zeiss 18/4 are problematic. Leicas ASPH 2 35/1,4 and WATE are cooperative.

 

Best of luck!

[sblitz]

Any thoughts on new voigtlander 21mm f1.8? Reviews seem good. Looking at it vs leica 21 mm sem

[rramesh]

Checked out the CV 21 f/1.8 some time back. My thoughts then.

 

Pluses

 

• Value for money.
  
• Seemed better than the 21 Lux at a price half the 21 SEM.
  
• It's not as resolving in the corners compared to the SEM (pixel peeping) but it's a 1 1/2 stop improvement.
  
• 50cm close focus.
  
• Background blur in an ultra wide-angle comes across handy sometimes.
  

Minuses

 

• The fixed butterfly hood is actually quite nice, however the lens cannot be rested on the table face down.
  
• Bulky - Size (1 1/2 times the SEM) and weight.
  
• No 6-bit coding but there is a groove to accept some paint.
  

In my case, if I were to step up from the CV21, I will buy the 21 SEM as low light is not a consideration for me. Size however is. Plus I have a lot of 46mm filters.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ram-Take a look at an image just posted from Allemande (?) Yosemite with a M9+35mm cron. Stunning!

[rramesh]

Ram-Take a look at an image just posted from Allemande (?) Yosemite with a M9+35mm cron. Stunning!

Is there a link? Can't find with a search.

[elgenper]

Probably this one.

[Photoskeptic]

I recently bought the 24 Elmar for two reasons: 1) holy cow is this itty bitty lens sharp and 2) I can use the frame lines in my M8.2. Never have liked clip on finders.

That said I use the Zeiss 21 on my D800 and it is spectacular.

[rirakuma]

I'm also a huge fan of the 21mm Distagon, do you know if the 21mm Biogon is just as good or better? For some reason I've always felt that the Canikon version of Zeiss is better than the ZM series.

 

I recently bought the 24 Elmar for two reasons: 1) holy cow is this itty bitty lens sharp and 2) I can use the frame lines in my M8.2. Never have liked clip on finders.

That said I use the Zeiss 21 on my D800 and it is spectacular.

[IWC Doppel]

This would have been easier if the question was I want a small light 21 and do not need a wide aperture. ....

[RobertJRB]

I'm also a huge fan of the 21mm Distagon, do you know if the 21mm Biogon is just as good or better? For some reason I've always felt that the Canikon version of Zeiss is better than the ZM series.

 

I think the ZM series in most cases give better results than the ZE or ZF series. The 18, 25, 28, 50 copies are better at ZM side. Some are just different (the 35's) so hard to compare.

 

With the 21mm's I think the distagon ZE/ZF is the better lens. Trough the 21 ZM surely isn't bad.

Is such a shame the 21/4.5 acts badly on digital. That would have been a true "perfect" 21mm.

 

From what I read the leica 21/3.4 Super Elmar is on par, or even exceeds the 21/2.8 distagon trough. So if ur looking for 21 distagon results on the M series that one might be the right choice.

[rramesh]

Looks like it will be a Zeiss 21 f/2.8. Being offered a good price for a near mint copy with hood. Need to check out the lens though. I guess 'value for money' wins it.

[tashley]

I've just published a piece which looks at the performance of the 18MM SE on the M240 and has some observations as to its strengths and weaknesses and suggestions as to how to get the best out of it - might be useful to readers of this thread...

 

It's here

[01af]

Tim, if you're using the Voigtländer Super-Wide Heliar 15 mm 1:4.5 coded as the WATE at 16 mm then it's no wonder you're unhappy with the results (as mentioned at the bottom of your Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph article). The WATE settings don't fit any other super-wide-angle lens well. Use some other lens' code/profile.

[madNbad]

A Linhof and a 90.

[tashley]

Tim, if you're using the Voigtländer Super-Wide Heliar 15 mm 1:4.5 coded as the WATE at 16 mm then it's no wonder you're unhappy with the results (as mentioned at the bottom of your Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph article). The WATE settings don't fit any other super-wide-angle lens well. Use some other lens' code/profile.

 

I'm sure you are correct: the lens was coded on a Millich mount many years back (if i recall correctly that was during the experimental phase of home coding) and hasn't seen the light of day for a loooong time. I had an M8 those days and that was the coding we were all giving them but I seem to recall that the pre-asph 21 2.8 was favoured as a coding after the M9 was introduced but there was a horribly long thread about this at some point that I could look up. From memory, colour cast issues with both lenses arose in the m9 and took more bottoming out than I could eventually be bothered to do, I think I shot quite a few calibration cast frames circa 2009 and was still scratching my head!

 

I am going to do a piece on 'other' lenses at some point, so will look into this some more. In the meantime I will amend that sentence. Thanks for pointing it out.

[IWC Doppel]

Any idea how the comparison might be with the M9, I had understood the 18 SEM was a little 'better' than the review suggests ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tashley]

OK I had a quick look at the correction options for the CV15 on the M240. Here are three shots at F5.6 through a lens cast calibration sheet into daylight sky. The first is coded as a WATE at 16mm, the second as a 21mm f2.8 pre-aspheric and the third a 21mm F2.8 aspheric. Before each image are rounded values for RGB at left edge midway height and right edge similar. Bit of a hurry so hope I haven't done anything daft! As you can see from my article, the 18 SE corrections are vastly, vastly superior whereas I think the CV unusable - I can't be bothered to resort to cornerfix for every frame...

 

As a WATE at 16mm: LEFT 59 53 54 RIGHT 65 56 63

 

 

As a 21mm f2.8 pre-aspheric: LEFT 53 47 50 RIGHT 61 53 62

 

 

As a 21mm F2.8 aspheric: LEFT 52 47 49 RIGHT60 53 61