21mm

[antigallican]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I need a 21mm for occasional landscape use. I used to use a distagon 21mm for Nikon with an M converter which performed well but was a bit guess and shoot on my M9 - better with my SL of course. But I liked it.  I don't think I want to spend £2000+ on an SEM 21 for the use it'll get from me. I wonder if anyone has any comments on the Super Angulon 3.4 21mm? Of course there are two different 21mm Zeiss M lenses but I read comments about mechanical problems with them. I have a 25mm Zeiss which I've never had a problem with. 

Thanks in advance for any comments.

[a.noctilux]

Super-Angulon 21mm  for M9 = if you can live with edge color flaws and some vignetting.

I have S-A 4/21mm and 3.4/21mm = same troubles with borders of frames not good for lanscape, colors "special" at borders, vignetting at all apertures.

The best buy in Leica for me in 21mm is Elmarit-M asph. 2.8/21mm which also has sometimes "small weird color edges", much less than with those Super-Angulon 21mm.

I use for decades on M also 2/21mm Olympus Zuiko-OM for it's f/2 (not good for lanscape wide open of course) which is much better than same period S-A 21.

For budget minded 21mm, I think that those 20-21mm for SLR (plus adapter for M) are "best buy for money" or for occasional use.

Another vote for my excellent zoom that I use on M Leica with adapter = old Canon FD 20-35mm L = very nice 20mm 😎

[pgk]

I have both the 21mm SEM and the SA. Chalk and cheese. The SEM is the 'best' 20/21mm lens I've ever used. Superb, contemporary lens. The SA has the classic superbly crisp centre with softer corners, substantial vignetting and red edges on digital which require post processing. These two are not easily comparable lenses but the SA would not be my choice for landscape use to be quite honest, because its deficiencies are those which most landscape shooters would be unhappy with.

[ckuwajima]

I have the SA 3.4/21mm. It is superb with film, but not that good for digital.

Depending on the build year, it also have the inconvenience of blocking the exposure metering sensor.

[ianman]

I use the SA and the latest Elmarit ASPH. The SA is more challenging on digital for sure, and of course you'll need to use an external lightmeter or compensate, but it renders superbly.

It's strange how the Elmarit ASPH seems to get ignored. It's a fine lens.

[antigallican]

Thanks all. No votes for ZMs?

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the SA 21 3,4 and both the Elmarits (asph and no) : SA is a bit problematic, indeed, while there is not a strong difference between the Elmarits (expecially at far distances) , and the un-asph is normally at least 5-600 Euros lower in price than the asph… can be a good buy imo.

[Ray Vonn]

I have the ZM 21mm F2.8.  It is superb on an M9.  Great if you like sunstars too.  I had the Nikkor 20mm F1.8 to use with my D800E which by all accounts is a very fine lens.  The ZM was so good that I sold the Nikkor.

[ibramr]

Greetings.  I had the Zeiss ZM 21f2.8 and I liked it very much.  Its performance was very satisfactory, but lost to the SEM because of the haptics and feel.  Please observe that using a dedicated viewer increased the joy of using this focal length considerably, so maybe it is prudent to factor its cost as well.  Saving for the SEM could also be a good route to a securing a long term and stable solution to acquiring this focal length.   Regards.  

[rsolomon]

I’m also looking at 21 SEM, I like it for various reasons, many mention within. I am also looking at the 18 and debating myself on which ... my two concerns are distortion and vignetting.   Any experience comparing these 2

[antigallican]

Eventually I bought a Zeiss ZM f4 18 mm. I found a new one for a good price (perhaps it's discontinued?) and liked the look of pictures taken with it - distortion minimalised, nice and crisp. For this application I usually use a tripod so lens 'speed' isn't very important. Of course at wide open f4 everything from 1.5 metres to infinity is in focus but most very wide lenses are like that. 

[howiebrou]

On 11/20/2018 at 4:43 AM, antigallican said:

Thanks all. No votes for ZMs?

I use a ZM 21mm F/4.5 Very sharp lens and very small. It's perfect for me.

[Michael Hiles]

If you have a 25mm, do you actually need a 21mm? Just an idle and uninvited thought.

[Ronazle]

I have used several Zeiss WAs (they began the modern WA w/the 21 Biogon in the 50's).  I have never had a problem with any of the Zeiss lenses and am particularly happy with the 18mm F4 and 21mm F2.8.  They both correct perfectly in an M9 if manually set to Zeiss's recommendations. Regards, Ron

[antigallican]

6 hours ago, Michael Hiles said:

If you have a 25mm, do you actually need a 21mm? Just an idle and uninvited thought.

It's a good point. I flogged the ZF 21mm when I had a Zeiss ZM 25mm and the SL 24-90 so I thought I had wide angle covered. But the truth is I found I did sometimes need something a bit wider for landscapes. 

[antigallican]

6 hours ago, Ronazle said:

They both correct perfectly in an M9 if manually set to Zeiss's recommendations

Where are Zeiss's recommendations for the M9 please, Ronazle? Thanks

[mmradman]

2 minutes ago, antigallican said:

Where are Zeiss's recommendations for the M9 please, Ronazle? Thanks

Amazing what one can find putting “Zeiss lens coding” in google search...

https://lavidaleica.com/content/leica-lens-codes

[antigallican]

1 minute ago, mmradman said:

Amazing what one can find putting “Zeiss lens coding” in google search...

https://lavidaleica.com/content/leica-lens-codes

Oh dear. Thanks. I imagined there was some official Zeiss list I didn't know about. I know, it sounds stupid when I look at it...

[Ronazle]

Quick answer:  Zeiss has a recommended list of Leica codes to use with their lenses. For the 4.0 18mm they recommend either coding it as a 24mm 2.8 ASPH 11878/11898 or as the 28mm F2 ASPH.  I code as a 11898 with excellent results.  For the 21mm 2.8 they recommend coding as a 28mm 2.8 11809 which also works quite well. Regards Ron

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NigelG]

11 hours ago, antigallican said:

Oh dear. Thanks. I imagined there was some official Zeiss list I didn't know about. I know, it sounds stupid when I look at it...

From memory there was a chart in an old thread where Zeiss had replied to an enquiry and given their own compatibility grades for various codes. It also showed which of their lenses they did not consider gave good results......