Real world 21mm lens comparisons

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wanted to throw this question out to you all.

I'm primarily a wide angle shooter with my M's, film and digital. Just seems to be more natural for me to use focal lengths of 50mm and under with this camera system......and I rarely use a 50mm, 28mm is my "normal".

I have all Leica glass from 18mm to 50mm, some doubled up with a mix of Elmars', Summicrons' and Summiluxs' with a smattering of Voigtlander M mount glass in the mix too.

Here's my question, the one focal length slot that's solely Voigtlander right now is 21mm. I have the VC M mount 21mm f4 and frankly really love it for it's size and performance, but I am thinking of getting a Leica 21mm too. Have any of you got both the VC 21mm f4 and a Leica 21mm, if so which Leica 21mm and really do you notice a lot of difference?

I regularly print to A2 with the VC from M240 files and find nothing in them to moan about at all, again I love the compact size of the VC f4 on an M.

I wouldn't be interested in the 21/f1.4 as it's price and size are real put-offs, thinking more so the newer f3.4 or maybe the older f2.8.

So, any thoughts?....Thanks!

 

[Brett Cambern]

While it's the only 21 I've owned for my M240 so I don't have any basis for comparison, I have yet to find anything not to love about the 3.4.  Obviously not as compact as your VC f4 but it is not heavy and balances very well on the M.  Not cheap but you won't be disappointed.

[Ernstk]

I have the same question.

 

I have a CV 21/4 which I really like. However, I keep wondering, would I see a real improvement in image quality and rendering with Leica glass?

[ECohen]

I have the same question.

 

I have a CV 21/4 which I really like. However, I keep wondering, would I see a real improvement in image quality and rendering with Leica glass?

 

 

I too have the CV 21/4   Would you see a difference with Leica glass ....side by side.....yep you would.

Its it worth it cost and the weight of the lens.....Not to me.

 I love the size and weigh of the CV 21/4  and for as often as I use it 10%....I don't have to think about it.

 

I get a little color fringe, fixable in LR...and little distortion ...nothing I can't live with.....I'll bet the Leics lens has a few less quirks .

You cant beat how easy the CV is tt carry.....but it is your call.

[lct]

I own this little beauty as well as Elmarit 21/2.8 asph and Super-Elmar 21/3.4 asph. At f/4 both Leica's are a bit sharper than my CV copy but at f/5.6 and on it's hard to tell which is which. My only problem with CV 21/4 is DIY coding does not work on the M240 while it does on the M8.2. so i use the lens on the latter preferably. Also it is my favorite "slow" 21 on the A7s mod where it shines with no significant corner smearing. Great little lens indeed, a must have IMHO.

[250swb]

I have both a 21mm Zeiss f2.8 Biogon and the CV 21 f4 in LTM mount. The Biogon is a fine lens and gives nice colour and very sharp images, but I do prefer to use the CV on any of my Leica rangefinders, I prefer the look of the images even though they aren't quite as sharp. I use a cheap code-able M mount adapter and it reads OK. I have no desire to buy a Leica 21mm.

 

 

Steve

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a CV 21/4 which I really like. However, I keep wondering, would I see a real improvement in image quality and rendering with Leica glass?

 

I have not used the CV lens however I have used a great number of 20/21mm lenses and can quite firmly state that the current Leica 21/3.4 is by far the best that I've either owned or used. Perhaps the question you should be asking is not whether you will see an improvement but rather whether you are dissatisfied with the CV21/4. From posts I've seen here on the forum it has a good reputation and although I can thoroughly recommend the Leica lens, the improvement it may offer in terms of image quality and rendering, whilst it may be reasonably easy to see and appreciate, will be costly. FWIW I still keep my old Super-Angulon 21/3.4 and it still gets used - modern lenses like the SE are absolutely superb but sometimes other, older designs still deliver.

[markforce]

While it's the only 21 I've owned for my M240 so I don't have any basis for comparison, I have yet to find anything not to love about the 3.4.  Obviously not as compact as your VC f4 but it is not heavy and balances very well on the M.  Not cheap but you won't be disappointed.

+1!!

[wizard]

...

I have all Leica glass from 18mm to 50mm, some doubled up with a mix of Elmars', Summicrons' and Summiluxs' with a smattering of Voigtlander M mount glass in the mix too.

Here's my question, the one focal length slot that's solely Voigtlander right now is 21mm. I have the VC M mount 21mm f4 and frankly really love it for it's size and performance, but I am thinking of getting a Leica 21mm too.

...

 

Ha, what we have here is a serious case of GAS. You have got my sympathy though   . I own and use the CV 21mm, too, and quite like it. Optically, the current Elmar 21mm lens will be better, especially towards the edges, but it is considerably bulkier than the CV lens. So in the end the CV lens gets more use, as it is always in the bag.

[omalat]

I have owned the little Voigtlander 21 and I loved it for its size and sharpness. It wasn't so happy at rendering colours in night shots and it was sometimes hard to meter with. After about a year of trying out Elmarit, Elmarit ASPH, Super Elmar and Biogon I settled on the Zeiss Biogon 2.8. It was about half the price of an Elmarit but that aside, I bought the Biogon it because of superior colour rendering. Lush and smooth. It has a gorgeous focussing action and feels every bit as well made as Leica glass. It is bigger than the CV but takes the same filters as my 50 and 90. Have never regretted buying it and use it more than any other lens. Also very nice on the Monochrom.

[james.liam]

I've read that amongst the VM lenses, QC issues and sample variance have been particular problems with the CV 4/21 (not as if those things don't frequently affect Leica or Zeiss).

Anyone experience this?

[lct]

I've read that amongst the VM lenses, QC issues and sample variance have been particular problems with the CV 4/21 [...]

 

 

Never heard of this info (or rumor?)... Would you have a link?

[james.liam]

 

 

Never heard of this info (or rumor?)... Would you have a link?

 

 

I'll have to track the sources down but recall reading this being the case, especially with the LTM version.

[Gregm61]

21, 35 and 75 user here.

 

The first 21 I purchased was the 21mm f4 CV, which works great on my film M4 but files shot with the Leica digital bodies show a color cast along the edges I prefer not dealing with. I then purchased a 21mm f1.8 CV. Big lens for sure, but works wonderfully on the M9 and my new M262.

 

A few months ago I did finally break down and purchased a second-hand Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH, which I now use the most of the three, even though the 21/1.8 CV is both faster and has less distortion. I prefer the reduced weight compared to the CV 21/1.8 and the handing of the Elmarit.

[Hayek]

Some digression from the OP's query. He isn't interested in buying a Biogon or a CV 1,8/21. Only Leica.

Down to the older Elmarits and the SEM. For clean, sharp images without color issues and a flat field, no contest here. SEM in the US now ~$2300 but the discounts dry up on May 10.

 

Heed 'pgk'.

[james.liam]

Down to the older Elmarits and the SEM. For clean, sharp images without color issues and a flat field, no contest here.

 

 

Assuming that he seeks the lean, transparent Karbe-look.

[Printmaker]

I love my 21 SEM. Very, very sharp.

[Guest]

Some digression from the OP's query. He isn't interested in buying a Biogon or a CV 1,8/21. Only Leica.

Down to the older Elmarits and the SEM. For clean, sharp images without color issues and a flat field, no contest here. SEM in the US now ~$2300 but the discounts dry up on May 10.

 

Heed 'pgk'.

 

Hi Hayek, actually not so......I threw this posting out there just to see what others were using for a 21mm, and how they compare with the Leica offerings. I find the postings that mention others use of the Biogon and the larger Voigtlander f1.8 interesting and helpful. The CV f1.8 has always been of interest but when push came to shove it's too big for me, but now maybe I'll be considering the Biogon if I do decide to go for another 21mm.

[lct]

Beware of red edge on the ZM 21/4.5 (link). I have no experience with this lens but it looks significantly worse than the CV 21/4 from this viewpoint.

https://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/zeiss-c-biogon-t-4521-zm-and-removing-the-reds/

BTW i'm surprised at colleagues complaining about red edge on the CV 21/4. Mine is an M version and properly coded as Leica 21/2.8 or 21/2.8 asph i don't need Cornerfix at all.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

 

BTW i'm surprised at colleagues complaining about red edge on the CV 21/4. Mine is an M version and properly coded as Leica 21/2.8 or 21/2.8 asph i don't need Cornerfix at all.

 

I also get good results with the CV 21 f4, with very little hint of edge color that is typically not apparent unless shooting blank white walls. When set as the 21 2.8 the M9 now corrects for it well, unlike the earliest M9 firmware, which may be why it got a bad name. Also, the edge corrections work best at ISO 160 and are less effective as ISO is increased, so I make sure of ISO setting with this lens.