21mm Lens for M8 - asph, non-asph or Zeiss?

[urban-exposure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

I am finally about to take the plunge and order my M8. I have decided that 21mm is the focal length for me, however, the Aspherical Leica Elmarit is out of my budget. Would anyone recommend that I go with the cheaper E-60 non-aspherical version, or would it be worth considering the Zeiss 21mm?

 

I am working on the basis that I will be just about able to frame the whole scene in the Leica's viewfinder - can anyone confirm they have successfully used a 21mm lens on the M8 without an external finder?

 

Thanks for your insight.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Vieri]

Hello,

 

I am finally about to take the plunge and order my M8. I have decided that 21mm is the focal length for me, however, the Aspherical Leica Elmarit is out of my budget. Would anyone recommend that I go with the cheaper E-60 non-aspherical version, or would it be worth considering the Zeiss 21mm?

 

I am working on the basis that I will be just about able to frame the whole scene in the Leica's viewfinder - can anyone confirm they have successfully used a 21mm lens on the M8 without an external finder?

 

Thanks for your insight.

 

Hey James, I can confirm that, as an eyeglass wearer, I haven't any problem in seeing the whole scene in the VF with the 2.8/21. I own the pre-ASPH version (E60), recently CLA, coded, and I am thinking about selling it - I use the 24 much more and don't have the need for two such close focal lengths. PM me if interested. About the Zeiss, I didn't use the 21 but have owned the 25, 35, 2/50, 1.5/50 and they are all great lenses, I assume the 21 wouldn't be much worse. If you didn't do so already, I would recommend Sean Reid's subscription website, his reviews are always on the money and very helpful. Best of luck with whatever you choose, and enjoy the M8!

[urban-exposure]

Thanks Vieri, I will private message you.

 

I recently noticed a 0.85x viewfinder adaptor on eBay which claims to assist with framing a wider lens:

 

Find 0.85 x 0.85x for Eyeglass Wearers for Leica M6/M7/MP/M8 on eBay within, Camera Parts Accessories, Film Camera Accessories, Photography (end time 23-Nov-07 13:31:09 GMT)

 

Can anyone confirm this?

[Vieri]

Thanks Vieri, I will private message you.

 

I recently noticed a 0.85x viewfinder adaptor on eBay which claims to assist with framing a wider lens:

 

Find 0.85 x 0.85x for Eyeglass Wearers for Leica M6/M7/MP/M8 on eBay within, Camera Parts Accessories, Film Camera Accessories, Photography (end time 23-Nov-07 13:31:09 GMT)

 

Can anyone confirm this?

 

James, indeed the adaptor you mention should widen your view in the VF - I use the regular M8's VF and can frame the 21mm pretty ok - in fact, I also use my CV 15mm without an external VF!

[johnwolf]

...can anyone confirm they have successfully used a 21mm lens on the M8 without an external finder?

 

James,

 

I use the CV 21 without an external finder. It does fill the viewfinder very well, but the problem is that it's difficult to see the edges of the full viewfinder without angling your head just right. It's an awkward way to compose. It would be OK for occasional shooting, but in my opinion it is not practical as a standard lens or for fast work.

 

I'm sure you'll get other opinions, but if I we're you, I'd consider a 24. A footstep or two takes you to 21, and I think you would appreciate the framelines.

 

John

[stunsworth]

I recently noticed a 0.85x viewfinder adaptor on eBay which claims to assist with framing a wider lens

 

Ther ewas a thread a few weeks ago on the LUG about this adaptor, and the person who bought it found it useless and had tried, unsucessfully, to get a refund.

 

The higher magnification adaptors - for use with longer lenses - work ok, but based on the experience of the person in the LUG I'd be very cautious about buying one of the 0.85 adaptors.

[urban-exposure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't really understand the concept behind this adaptor.

 

Presumably it widens the view in the viewfinder by 0.85x, but surely it is impossible to widen the view of a lens from its rear? This must done from the front? (a real world example would be a wideangle convertor / fisheye adaptor).

[stunsworth]

James, I think the intention is to make it easier for people wearing spectacles to see all of the viewfinder. As I say the person on the LUG - who I happen to know personally, and he's by no means a 'whinger' - found the device useless.

[urban-exposure]

Thanks for the insight - you have saved me 20 quid

[robertwright]

I have the pre-asph 21 E60 and the zeiss 25-

 

I got the 21 shortly after buying the M8 because the 28 FOV was my favourite on the M6. Well I did not like looking through the viewfinder so much so bought the excellent 25/28 zeiss accessory viewfinder which works a treat. That was ok for static subjects like interiors, and I have used it for prefocused street shooting, but it got annoying after a while which is why I bought the zeiss 25, which is now on my camera 90% of the time.

 

I think the zeiss 25 wide open is a hair better than the pre-asph 21 wide open, but they are such different lenses you can't compare. the 21 is overall a gentler lens on everything, which is why I have been so loathe to sell it, although I am not using it and will probably sell it and get the zeiss 18 for better spacing.

 

I think what happens is having to adapt to the new crop factor makes people buy lenses and you lose the familiarity. I used to have only three lenses, now I have 7! It is very hard to keep track of that, it encourages bad habits. I miss the 28 on the M6 but I can live with the 25 on the M8.

[doubice]

There was a thread a few weeks ago on the LUG about this adaptor, and the person who bought it found it useless and had tried, unsucessfully, to get a refund.

 

The higher magnification adaptors - for use with longer lenses - work ok, but based on the experience of the person in the LUG I'd be very cautious about buying one of the 0.85 adaptors.

 

I would definitely concur with that. The M8 has a 0.68x finder, adding a 0.85x magnifier will turn it into 0.58. I don’t know about the majority of M8 users here but, I find the M8’s rangefinder not as good as the one in other M’s I have owned or still own. My findings are that one’s eye has to be dead on center in order not to get incorrect distance measurements or horizontal discrepancy.

 

As to the HK finder attachments - I ordered their 1.25x version and was not impressed. While well made, it lessens finder contrast and makes it more difficult to see the 24mm and even the 28mm frames. Additionally, it sticks out quite far out of the back of the body.

 

I replaced it with the Megapearls 1.15x which is much better (it does however, cost twice as much). It is also ready for times when I will need a finder with dioptre adjustment - it is built in.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[Maggie_O]

I use the CV 21mm Color-Skopar LTM w/ Milich adapter and a CV 28mm external viewfinder. It's a fantastic lens and the VF allows me to frame with great accuracy, while also seeing what's going on outside the frame. Since the lens has a great DOF, I only occasionaly have to return to the Leica's VF to focus. I got my kit from Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest Home

 

Here's my 21 rig:

 

Here are some photos taken with the CV 21.

[Dan States]

I use the CV 21mm Color-Skopar LTM w/ Milich adapter and a CV 28mm external viewfinder. It's a fantastic lens and the VF allows me to frame with great accuracy, while also seeing what's going on outside the frame. Since the lens has a great DOF, I only occasionaly have to return to the Leica's VF to focus. I got my kit from Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest Home

 

Here's my 21 rig:

 

Here are some photos taken with the CV 21.

 

I'm also using that finder with the 21 and it works well. While you CAN get by without the extra finder, I found I had tons of paralax error when I just used the camera finder. It was hard to be sure your eye was dead center to the finder, which is necessary without the brightlines as a reference.

 

I have the Zeiss 21 F2.8 and I can't imagine needing a better lens. It's already so sharp at f2.8 that you will see moire artifacts in some images when you would not expect them.

[dseelig]

I had boththe 21 leica non aspherical and the zeiss 21 f2.8. I much preferred the zeiss it is sharper and much better ergonamically. I hated the big 60 mm filter size. The zeiss at 46 is very nice handling. The zeiss is so sharp too.

[urban-exposure]

The only potential issues I see with the Zeiss is that it brings up the wrong framelines - but perhaps this is not much of an issue considering I will be relying on the extremeties of the viewfinder to frame?

 

Also the Zeiss is bigger - is the difference in size considerable?

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks Vieri, I will private message you.

 

I recently noticed a 0.85x viewfinder adaptor on eBay which claims to assist with framing a wider lens:

 

Find 0.85 x 0.85x for Eyeglass Wearers for Leica M6/M7/MP/M8 on eBay within, Camera Parts Accessories, Film Camera Accessories, Photography (end time 23-Nov-07 13:31:09 GMT)

 

Can anyone confirm this?

 

Avoid those things like the plague. I bought one for someone when I was in Japan. It was the MS-MAG...a supposedly nice one from Japan. All they do is make the view smaller and more distorted. Your eye position has to be absolutely perfect, and you don't see any more of the area around the viewfinder...it just looks like you are because everything is smaller. There is no more actual coverage. All it does is distort the finder, make eye centering absolutely critical, make the view smaller, dimmer and lighten your wallet by 100 bucks or so. Magnification on the other hand is quite easily done....

[adan]

IR filtering is a must for color work, and coding is a must to use a filter on a 21. Take that into consideration.

 

Since the coding works in concert with the frame selection to ID the lens, seems like the Zeiss would take a lot of fixing to work - likely as expensive as a pre-ASPH Leica lens by the time the mount has been reworked and the coding added.

 

The c/v, by contrast, is likely fairly cheap and easy. Just get a Milich 28/90 screw-to-bayonet adapter, screw it on, and you're in.

 

I'd go for either the pre-ASPH (coded by Leica) or the C/V. The first is what I actually did - my preASPH 21 was first lens to get free coding last March.

 

As to using the built-in finder "edge" for a 21 - without glasses it probably works. With glasses (my case) I wind up with way too much excess in the final picture compared to what I could see comfortably in one glance. Peering around inside the finder like a chameleon (or Marty Feldman - you have to be able to look up and right, and down and left at the same time to see all the corners at once) is silly when there are all kinds of 28mm finders out there.

[doubice]

James,

 

The Zeiss 21mm is a superb lens (both 4.5 and 2.8 versions), as is the latest M mount Voigtlander 4/21mm. I have the 21mm Elmarit Asph, only because I got a superb deal on it about a year ago, before the prices started to become insane. If I were to make the decision today, I would probably go with any of the Zeiss lenses - both can be had for around US$1,000 as compared to at least US$2,000 for the Asph Elmarit.

 

If you are not a member yet, join the Reid Review Site. Sean Reid has an excellent comparison of all the superwide lenses - Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander etc. Here is the link:

 

Welcome to ReidReviews

 

Best,

 

Jan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[urban-exposure]

Unfortunately the f4 of the CV is not bright enough for me. If I was willing to sacrifice this much light then I would happily go for the new Zeiss 18mm for an even wider view, however f2.8 is my absolute limit which restricts me to the Leica E-60 or the Zeiss.

 

Judging by some other threads, the Zeiss is a brilliant lens, but perhaps more trouble than it is worth in terms of coding etc.

 

It looks like my only option then is the Leica E-60 pre-aspherical. If anyone can comment on whether there is a significant difference in quality between the aspherical and non-aspherical versions of this lens, then that would be of interest to me.

[MartinL]

I just spent a few minutes on your site. Very nice professional work. "Influences" noted without being derivative. I'm especially impressed with the high proportion of portrait aspect. IMO, this is generally a real challenge for street and documentation work, and much less tolerant of wides below 35. But when you get it right, it's the first and most important framing decision and skill.

 

I'm evidently in the minority in that I have no particular problem with post-process cropping to "adjust" my framing. For me, it's just another editing tool limited only by the net resolution needed for print size. Get where I'm going with this?

 

I've been using a CV21 on my M8 without added finder. I have the finder. Is it more accurate? Yes. But I'd rather tolerate small, usually correctable framing error (which is getting much less with experience using the camera/lens combo) than make the camera bigger.

Martin