hankg Posted November 13, 2007 Share #21 Posted November 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Without doubt the M8 is a popular camera but in the scheme of M mount cameras of different brands built past and present its really only a small percentage so for the rest a slower 21mm that wasn't really used as much as the more common focal lengths would be ideal. The Voigtlander 21mm has proven one of their most popular lenses and one of the finest 21's on the market. Leica could have grabbed that market had they listened to users. With issue of a slow 28mm for the M8, well the Voigltlander 28mm f3.5 again was a quite popular lens with good reviews. If a lens is compact enough people are prepared to give up the speed. Even on the M8 there is a market for a less expensive, tiny, high performance wide. For those who want speed there are options. But better a 4.5 then a lens that is faster but not fast enough, still to expensive and not so small. I think you either want a fast optic and then you pay the price in money and size or the opposite. Most of the iconic photos taken on the street with a wide and a Leica where shot at between f/5.6 and f/16. So while not everyone's dream lens, I think it would be a profitable lens for Leica if done right. I think Leica needs both - a 24/2 (which will cost as much as your last car) and a 16 and 21 f4 or 4.5 that are not to pricey, tiny and great performers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Hi hankg, Take a look here Do you think a new compact 21mm is likely?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted November 13, 2007 Share #22 Posted November 13, 2007 Why a slow 21? Because slow is small no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share #23 Posted November 13, 2007 Are they your lenses LCT? How do you find the M mount 21mm Voigtlander? One reviewer claimed it was an improvement optically over the LTM version apparently? How do you find it in comparison with the Leica lens you have pictured? Is that the Pres-ASPH Elmarit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 13, 2007 Share #24 Posted November 13, 2007 The Skopar 21/4P is a great little lens indeed but it vignettes too much, at least on the R-D1. See http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/33232-m8-vignetting.html. No problem with the Elmarit 21/2.8 asph (pic above) from this standpoint but shoving this rather big black thing into people's face proves less easy obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted November 14, 2007 Share #25 Posted November 14, 2007 ... where shot at between f/5.6 and f/16. . In fact, personally I use the 21mm/f2.8 ASPH M lens very often at wide open of f2.8, to produce some very interesting images in interesting lighting situations, large opening is a great advantage and needed that too... This lens is an excellent performer as it is. It is already smaller than the previous one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 14, 2007 Share #26 Posted November 14, 2007 In fact, personally I use the 21mm/f2.8 ASPH M lens very often at wide open of f2.8, to produce some very interesting images in interesting lighting situations, large opening is a great advantage and needed that too... This lens is an excellent performer as it is. It is already smaller than the previous one. There are plenty of choices for fast 21's the ASPH, preASPH and Zeiss-all excellent and there is a large contingent of photographers who make good use of the speed. No need for Leica to replace the existing 21/2.8. So since the fast (and expensive) niche is filled what should a new 21 look like? No point in making a 3.5 that's going to be expensive and big, users will just buy the 2.8. I think they need to go to the other extreme -performance that equals the 21/2.8 in a lens much smaller and much cheaper, only doable if it's much slower. Won't appeal to everyone, that's not the point there are lot's who won't spring for a 21/2.8 who would go for a 21/4.5 with the right price/performance ratio. How about shooting for sub 1,000 Euro for Leica performance? Perfect street/sunny day lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share #27 Posted November 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) In fact, personally I use the 21mm/f2.8 ASPH M lens very often at wide open of f2.8, to produce some very interesting images in interesting lighting situations, large opening is a great advantage and needed that too... This lens is an excellent performer as it is. It is already smaller than the previous one. Its true its slightly smaller but its still too large for me. I prefer to use CL/CLE's these days so I like to keep everything as compact as I can. I would go with the 2 Zeiss lenses before I went with the Leica ASPH, most likely the more compact Biogon. But size being the most important thing I would get the M mount Voigtlander over the Biogon most likely if Leica dont offer a compact 21 sooner or later. I have been reading a few threads on 21's and I came across one where the guy thought his Leica ASPH was faulty as at 2.8 the images weren't that crash hot but turned to excellent in one great leap to f4. It was decided that thats how that lens is and most agreed it wasn't faulty. If at 2.8 its not that good then compact and slow is the go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share #28 Posted November 14, 2007 Apparently one review of the newer M mount Voiglander lens said it was an improvement over the thread mount version? Improved optics or just sample variation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 14, 2007 Share #29 Posted November 14, 2007 I have been reading a few threads on 21's and I came across one where the guy thought his Leica ASPH was faulty as at 2.8 the images weren't that crash hot but turned to excellent in one great leap to f4. It was decided that thats how that lens is and most agreed it wasn't faulty. If at 2.8 its not that good then compact and slow is the go. I had the 21 preASPH for a while which I thought was a great lens. I understand the preASPH is a bit better then the ASPH wide open progressively loosing ground to the ASPH as you stop down until diffraction kicks in. Maybe the lens you read about needed calibration as all 3 of the 21/2.8's are stellar performers. The lens was to wide for me and I never really used the speed so I put the money into a fast lens that I would use but I could see owning a small, 'slow' wide at the right price for certain types of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitz_not_leica Posted November 15, 2007 Share #30 Posted November 15, 2007 My 3.4 SA is good enough for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 15, 2007 Share #31 Posted November 15, 2007 My 3.4 SA is good enough for me. ...simply, so lovely a lens... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 15, 2007 Share #32 Posted November 15, 2007 My 3.4 SA is good enough for me. Never tried it so far. Do you know if it works with digital? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share #33 Posted November 16, 2007 Never tried it so far. Do you know if it works with digital? I dont believe it does as it one of those lenses with a really recessed rear element. The lens has too much light fall off for my liking although it was considered good in its day. LCT, You say the Voigtlander lens has alot of fall off on the Epson? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 16, 2007 Share #34 Posted November 16, 2007 ...LCT, You say the Voigtlander lens has alot of fall off on the Epson? Raws can be corrected more or less easily but light fall off is then replaced by noise mainly in dark parts of the pics as you can see here (FF & 100% crops, no noise correction): Before vignetting correction: http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3243vig-afterweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3243vig-aftercropweb.jpg After vignetting correction: http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3243-afterweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3243-aftercropweb.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share #35 Posted November 16, 2007 And you dont find this with the Leica lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 16, 2007 Share #36 Posted November 16, 2007 And you dont find this with the Leica lens? Fortunately no given the size and the price. As far as vignetting, the Elmarit asph is generally better at f/2.8 than the Skopar at f/4, at least with the R-D1. To compare both at f4 see the jpegs below (tripod, incandescent light, 400 iso, no vignette correction, no noise correction, no filter): R-D1, Elmarit 21/2.8 asph at f/4 (FF & 100% crops): http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3584-afterweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3584-aftercropweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3584-aftercrop2web.jpg R-D1, Skopar 21/4 P at f/4 (FF & 100% crops): http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3586-afterweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3586-aftercropweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3586-aftercrop2web.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 17, 2007 Author Share #37 Posted November 17, 2007 Fortunately no given the size and the price. As far as vignetting, the Elmarit asph is generally better at f/2.8 than the Skopar at f/4, at least with the R-D1. To compare both at f4 see the jpegs below (tripod, incandescent light, 400 iso, no vignette correction, no noise correction, no filter): R-D1, Elmarit 21/2.8 asph at f/4 (FF & 100% crops): http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3584-afterweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3584-aftercropweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3584-aftercrop2web.jpg R-D1, Skopar 21/4 P at f/4 (FF & 100% crops): http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3586-afterweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3586-aftercropweb.jpg http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/EPSN3586-aftercrop2web.jpg Actually size and price has nothing to do with it in this instance. I have reviews that clearly state the Elmarit vignettes by 2.4 stops wide open and 1.8 stops at f4, which is exactly the same as the Voigtlander at f4. It seems to be a trait with your RD-1, possibly the different optical designs with one being more retrofocus than the other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 17, 2007 Share #38 Posted November 17, 2007 Actually size and price has nothing to do with it in this instance. I have reviews that clearly state the Elmarit vignettes by 2.4 stops wide open and 1.8 stops at f4, which is exactly the same as the Voigtlander at f4. It seems to be a trait with your RD-1, possibly the different optical designs with one being more retrofocus than the other. Great to read reviews of course, i used to do this as well when i had more time, now i have to rely on personal experience and from this standpoint the 2 lenses don't play in the same league as far as vignetting, on the R-D1 at least. But in fact i like much the Skopar for its little size and i'd love to get a f/4 Summarit as tiny as that but with less vignetting please Mr Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain Posted November 18, 2007 Author Share #39 Posted November 18, 2007 Great to read reviews of course, i used to do this as well when i had more time, now i have to rely on personal experience and from this standpoint the 2 lenses don't play in the same league as far as vignetting, on the R-D1 at least. But in fact i like much the Skopar for its little size and i'd love to get a f/4 Summarit as tiny as that but with less vignetting please Mr Leica. I dare say that you would have to ignore most reviews other than those dedicated to the RD1 and do you own testing to see what works. How lenses respond with differing retro focus and non retro focus designs with the RD1 are different to the reviews on film. Even with the M8 with its micro lens sensor gives different results yet again. I have had many people point to "comprehensive" tests done on sites that dont really benefit those who use anything other than M8's thinking it accurately reflects that particular lens when it generally is more a test of how well that lens interacts with that particular digital sensor. The 2 lenses mentioned do have the same amount of falloff at f4 but this is strictly for film. With the crop factor of the RD1 it shows what looks like almost 3 stops falloff with the Voigtlander, it seems its compact design does take its toll with that particular camera. Have you tried either of the Zeiss offerings? Zeiss claims they were designed with the limitations of a Digital Rangefinder in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 18, 2007 Share #40 Posted November 18, 2007 ...Have you tried either of the Zeiss offerings?... No i haven't as the 21/2.8 is too bulky for my taste and i've heard rather bad rumors about 21/4.5 light fall off but i could give Zeiss another chance if said rumors proved to be false. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.