CheshireCat Posted October 30, 2015 Share #41 Â Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) [...] the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4 which unfortunately you would need a DSLR brick to run it on .... Â I use my Sigma 24/1.4 on the A7R2, and even get AFÂ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here 21mm question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Herr Barnack Posted October 30, 2015 Share #42  Posted October 30, 2015 So is the Voigtlander a good undervalued lens to own or not? That is a call that each photographer will have to make after buying a given lens and wringing it out on his/her own; it seems that is pretty much the only way to be 100% certain.  I would be inclined to say yes regarding the 35/1.2 Nokton. I had the v.1 and found it to be an excellent lens; I would hope/presume that the v.2 is even better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 30, 2015 Share #43 Â Posted October 30, 2015 That is a call that each photographer will have to make after buying a given lens and wringing it out on his/her own; it seems that is pretty much the only way to be 100% certain. Â I would be inclined to say yes regarding the 35/1.2 Nokton. I had the v.1 and found it to be an excellent lens; I would hope/presume that the v.2 is even better. Thanks. Most of what I have heard and read is the Voigtlander is really good at 21 and under. Iffy up to and including 50. Read Sean Reid on the Ultron 21mm as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 30, 2015 Share #44 Â Posted October 30, 2015 Thanks. Most of what I have heard and read is the Voigtlander is really good at 21 and under. Iffy up to and including 50. Â Sorry, but this generalization is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 30, 2015 Share #45 Â Posted October 30, 2015 Ok. How so? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted October 30, 2015 Share #46 Â Posted October 30, 2015 Ok. How so? Â Because I have a few CV lenses... and 2 counterexamples to your generalization: Â - The 15 v1 (v2 has the same glass) is quite iffy on digital M bodies due to color vignetting (it is quite good for film and digital B&W). - The 35/1.2 is really good, not iffy at all ! Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted October 30, 2015 Share #47 Â Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have used a 21 Elmarit ASPH for many years, I use 21mm an awful lot at the moment as I am renovating a house and like to keep a record, I prefer the 'look' of 21 over the 18 if I can get the framing right. I also have the pre asph and prefer the look with closer objects and the colouring a little, but the ASPH is clearly better wide open and at the edges. Â I dislike anything slower than 2.8 to be honest and if Leica made an 18 or 16 f2.8 I'd buy it in an instant. Sorry Leica but 3.4 doesn't do it for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 30, 2015 Share #48  Posted October 30, 2015 I dislike anything slower than 2.8 to be honest and if Leica made an 18 or 16 f2.8 I'd buy it in an instant. Sorry Leica but 3.4 doesn't do it for me I kind of have that same feeling, but I'm wondering if it's relevant today with the high performance ISO of modern cameras, including the M240, etc. Especially for a wide angle lens. I find I hardly ever use wide apertures with my wide angle lenses on my DSLR. I'm seriously considering the 21 f3.4 or 24mm f3.8 at the moment. I'd like them to be faster (and silver!), but I'm beginning to reconsider and think those apertures will be fine...as will black! haha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 30, 2015 Share #49  Posted October 30, 2015 Those apertures will be fine in most situations. I like the versatility of faster lenses but I do not always shoot them wide open.  I currently have both the 1.4/21 Summilux, and 3.4/21 SEM which replaced a 4.5/21 ZM C-Biogon only because of red-edging. I initially bought the Summilux but found that using 21m a lotI really also wanted a more compact light-weight lens.  The 21 SEM gets far more day-to-day use than the Summilux due to it's compactness and lighter weight.  In most situations a maximum aperture of ~4 is really not too slow for such wide-angle lenses.  In fact in most situations f4.0 is fast enough for my 4.0/28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. I prefer shooting at as low ISO as possible but pushing the ISO 1/2-1 stop jumps the 3.4-3.8 to 2.8 gap if you're pushed. Remember that the wider the lens the slower the shutter speed  you can hold it at so f3.4-3.8 is therefore not that slow, not like f8!  I also have the 3.8/24 which renders similarly to the 3.4/21 so the difference is really only which FL you prefer.   If you prefer the rendering oft the 2.8/21 Elmarit over the 3.4/21 SEM than that would be a reason to get the faster lens but the less-than-one-stop difference is irrelevant in my opinion, and the SEM is a spectacular lens. If you really want a faster lens then you should jump to either the Smilax or the fast 1.8/21 CV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted November 2, 2015 Share #50 Â Posted November 2, 2015 I initially purchased the Voigtlander Color-Skoar 21 f/4 Â and used it for a year to become familiar with the FL. It's a very good lens, really compact and the new M version requires minimal fixing for color when used on an M9-P. Â I eventually replaced this with the SEM with 21 viewfinder, once I became comfortable with this FL. Note that I only use the SEM for < 10% of my pictures as most of the time it's split between the 28 and 50. Â I did briefly try the Zeiss 21 f/2.8. Whether it was my copy or not, but I had challenges with light leaks on my camera with long exposures using a tripod. Â Only you can answer which 21 will be cost justifiable and/or desirable. For me a key criteria is the need to have a compact lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted November 4, 2015 Share #51 Â Posted November 4, 2015 I am really curious as to why nobody brought the WATE (16-18-21 mm, f 4.0) into this discussion. Â I recently got one and I have been impressed with the results, especially given the added flexibility of the 18 and 16 mm settings and the relatively limited number of occasions when such wide angle lenses are needed. Â Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted November 4, 2015 Share #52 Â Posted November 4, 2015 The WATE has a bit more flare and is less sharp wide open. However from f8 there is no difference. And I prefer it's look, the colour rendering and contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted November 5, 2015 Share #53 Â Posted November 5, 2015 A number of years ago I glued a spare summicron finger tab onto the "speed bump" of the 21 Biogon focus ring. It improved the ergonomics tremendously. It's a very good lens. I like the look of the 21/3.4ASPH (it does look to have better resolution in the corners at wide apertures) but cannot justify the price premium at this time over the Biogon because I have no real complaints. I use 21mm for landscapes and interiors, for which 2.8 is a useful aperture. Mounting any of these lenses on a tripod and stopping down will give excellent results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 5, 2015 Share #54 Â Posted November 5, 2015 I use 21mm for landscapes and interiors, for which 2.8 is a useful aperture. Â The SEM 21 is just half a stop slower. I considered getting rid of my SEM for a f/1.x lens, but never did. The lens is so good and compact, that there is no excuse not to put it in the bag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 5, 2015 Share #55  Posted November 5, 2015 The SEM 21 is just half a stop slower. I considered getting rid of my SEM for a f/1.x lens, but never did. The lens is so good and compact, that there is no excuse not to put it in the bag  Thats true, but I REALLY notice my 18mm SEM being slow. Turn the dial to find you need to move heavily on ISO or try hand holding at 1/8, 1/4 too often for my liking. True this is with an M9 and MM but I notice because 2 is normal, 1.4 fast, 2.8 slow. 3.8 or 3.4 is very slow in my book.  Personally I'd mush prefer Leica compromised a bit wide open at the edges for a wide as I would rather have corner softness than sharp digital noise..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted November 5, 2015 Share #56 Â Posted November 5, 2015 Thats true, but I REALLY notice my 18mm SEM being slow. Turn the dial to find you need to move heavily on ISO or try hand holding at 1/8, 1/4 too often for my liking. True this is with an M9 and MM but I notice because 2 is normal, 1.4 fast, 2.8 slow. 3.8 or 3.4 is very slow in my book. Â Personally I'd mush prefer Leica compromised a bit wide open at the edges for a wide as I would rather have corner softness than sharp digital noise..... Â Isn't that what the Summilux is? Â Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted November 5, 2015 Share #57 Â Posted November 5, 2015 In a previous incarnation I owned an f/4 wide angle zoom. I thought f/4 would be enough on a wide angle lens given the slow hand held shutter speeds possible. I was wrong. Half a stop less than f/2.8 might be okay but I spent several years trying to live with that f/4 and regretting the purchase every time I took it indoors, so I'm understandably reluctant to revisit anywhere close to that experience. I'm shooting on am M9 these days and I know latest generation sensors are better now, but in any case I've grown to like the look of the Biogon up close at 2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted November 5, 2015 Share #58  Posted November 5, 2015 Isn't that what the Summilux is?  Guy  Yes I'd love a 21 summilux, if they could reduce the price and size a little I'd definitely have a 21 summicron. Unfortunately the only 18 they produce is an 18mm f3.8, its stuck to my monochrom as I type Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 6, 2015 Share #59  Posted November 6, 2015 Yes I'd love a 21 summilux, if they could reduce the price and size a little I'd definitely have a 21 summicron. Unfortunately the only 18 they produce is an 18mm f3.8, its stuck to my monochrom as I type  21 is not much different than 18  There is not much to do about the size... actually, if price is the most important issue, you could get a Sigma 20/1.4 DSLR lens for $900. Big size and needs adapter, but if it is as good as the 24/1.4 I have here, you will love it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the warrior Posted December 24, 2015 Share #60 Â Posted December 24, 2015 Each photographer alos others think differently.You should test each objective and draw conclusions, this is the best advice.More or less open, more or less clearly, everyone has different tastes to others.I tested all have 21mm and 21mm ASPH finally bought, I like what this goal generally spawn, now I go out every day with.But it is just my opinion.You can view my photos on my flickr: Â https://www.flickr.com/photos/108295717@N08/ Â But are only my photos, maybe you do not like my photos with a 21mm ASPH. Â Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.