CL and a M 21mm 11134 lens

[davidrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CL and a M 21mm 11134 lens.

Has anyone used this combo?  I am not a M lens user and I have one on loan. It is not performing too well.

Uneven sharpness across the frame. Centre is good open, and little different at 5.6 and 11.  But focus at longer distances and the unsharpness goes to the opposite side.

The adapter is a Urth brand.  Said on the forum is that any brand will do, but since I had the same issue with an adapted R lens…..i’m not so sure.

Is this a particular, ie wide, compatible problem? As the R was a wide too. 35mm.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Advertisement]

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

[Gregm61]

Hard to say. The 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar is outstanding on M bodies and should be equally good on the CL with an able adapter, if a bit boring at a nominal 32mm equivalent focal length and slow f3.4 maximum aperture for that field of view.

I own the 21mm f3.4 Super Elmar-M and do use a 21mm manual focus lens on my CL, but it’s the way faster, more versatile (and bigger) 21mm f1.4 Voigtlander Nokton.

 

 

[davidrc]

A 21mm M 11134 is the f2.8 older lens……in case anyone else thinks I have the super elmar.

Edited December 21, 2024 by davidrc
Ammend

[davidrc]

1 hour ago, davidrc said:

A 21mm M 11134 is the f2.8 older lens……in case anyone else thinks I have the super elmar.

Elmarit M 21mm f2.8 made in Canada. 11134.  Hopefully no more confusion.

[adan]

Any super-wide lens will be tricky to focus manually with an EVF - everything tends to appear sharp, given the huge DoF. Cropping for the CL won't make much difference to that.

Even "focus peaking" (with a contrast-detect sensor like the CL's) can show "apparently sharp" over a large, imprecise distance range. making it hard to focus accurately enough to stay within the theoretical DoF, once viewed large on a computer screen (or big print).

That being said, the 11134 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M (pre-ASPH) is a 45-year-old design (1980)!

It was intended for "binary" rangefinder coincident/split-image focusing with an M body: are the RF/VF images aligned or not - yes/no! Not for focusing by detemining if they are "sharp or blurry or somewhere in-between", as with an EVF.

It was designed long, long before the additional needs of "digital IQ" were even on the horizon.

It was intended for photojournalists to get pictures that were sharp according to the technology of the day - at f/2.8, with grainy 35mm-format Tri-X/HP5 films, often push-processed (even grainier) for work in dismally low light. And the subject usually near the center of the picture.

Or with Kodachrome slides - but stopped down to f/5.6-8 for even focus (more or less) across the whole image.

The Leica lens expert Erwin Puts (RIP) described the performance of the 11134 in 2001 (i.e. on film) as "low to medium overall contrast, crisp rendition of fine detail on axis (center 6mm of the image) with a fairly rapid drop in the field (edges and corners of a 24 x36 frame)...Stopping down to f/4 improves contrast slightly...at f/5.6 the reproduction of very fine detail is brought within visiblity range over most of the image area. The delineation of small textural details is fuzzy, and we need to stop down to f/8 to get a clear recording (even) on axis. In the field, the softness is retained. This lens is a good performer, but it is not a leading-edge design."

This MTF chart from the same source visualizes his description - compare it to Leica's own MTF charts for the more recent ASPH 21s (2.8, 3.5, 1.4). Cropped by the CL, only the left side of the chart will apply, to about 14-15(mm) on the Y axis.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

THAT BEING SAID (AGAIN!)...

The 11134 was the very first Leica M lens I ever bought (also 2001). Paired with M film and digital cameras, it performed heroically for my photojournalism, and focused extremely well.

Yes, the corners and edges were definitely soft and blurry down to f/8 or so. Yes, it suffered compared to the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 G for the Contax G1/2 cameras.

Nevertheless, I used it with FF digital Ms (M8, M9, M10) up until about 18 months ago, when its age really began to show in some mechanical ways (it was 1983 manufacture). In that process, despite its "faults," it helped me win 2nd Place for a magazine photo-story layout in an world-wide photojourmalism contest. All the "super-wide-images" appearing in this story were made with the 11134, on an M9.

See for example "spreads" 6, 7, 15, 22, 26, 39.

https://www.poy.org/69/34/second_01.php

And also this picture from another magazine story (at f/5.6 - M9).

Edited December 21, 2024 by adan

[davidrc]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Any super-wide lens will be tricky to focus manually with an EVF - everything tends to appear sharp, given the huge DoF. Cropping for the CL won't make much difference to that.

Even "focus peaking" (with a contrast-detect sensor like the CL's) can show "apparently sharp" over a large, imprecise distance range. making it hard to focus accurately enough to stay within the theoretical DoF, once viewed large on a computer screen (or big print).

That being said, the 11134 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M (pre-ASPH) is a 45-year-old design (1980)!

It was intended for "binary" rangefinder coincident/split-image focusing with an M body: are the RF/VF images aligned or not - yes/no! Not for focusing by detemining if they are "sharp or blurry or somewhere in-between", as with an EVF.

It was designed long, long before the additional needs of "digital IQ" were even on the horizon.

It was intended for photojournalists to get pictures that were sharp according to the technology of the day - at f/2.8, with grainy 35mm-format Tri-X/HP5 films, often push-processed (even grainier) for work in dismally low light. And the subject usually near the center of the picture.

Or with Kodachrome slides - but stopped down to f/5.6-8 for even focus (more or less) across the whole image.

The Leica lens expert Erwin Puts (RIP) described the performance of the 11134 in 2001 (i.e. on film) as "low to medium overall contrast, crisp rendition of fine detail on axis (center 6mm of the image) with a fairly rapid drop in the field (edges and corners of a 24 x36 frame)...Stopping down to f/4 improves contrast slightly...at f/5.6 the reproduction of very fine detail is brought within visiblity range over most of the image area. The delineation of small textural details is fuzzy, and we need to stop down to f/8 to get a clear recording (even) on axis. In the field, the softness is retained. This lens is a good performer, but it is not a leading-edge design."

This MTF chart from the same source visualizes his description - compare it to Leica's own MTF charts for the more recent ASPH 21s (2.8, 3.5, 1.4). Cropped by the CL, only the left side of the chart will apply, to about 14-15(mm) on the Y axis.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

THAT BEING SAID (AGAIN!)...

The 11134 was the very first Leica M lens I ever bought (also 2001). Paired with M film and digital cameras, it performed heroically for my photojournalism, and focused extremely well.

Yes, the corners and edges were definitely soft and blurry down to f/8 or so. Yes, it suffered compared to the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 G for the Contax G1/2 cameras.

Nevertheless, I used it with FF digital Ms (M8, M9, M10) up until about 18 months ago, when its age really began to show in some mechanical ways (it was 1983 manufacture). In that process, despite its "faults," it helped me win 2nd Place for a magazine photo-story layout in an world-wide photojourmalism contest. All the "super-wide-images" appearing in this story were made with the 11134, on an M9.

See for example "spreads" 6, 7, 15, 22, 26, 39.

https://www.poy.org/69/34/second_01.php

And also this picture from another magazine story (at f/5.6 - M9).

Wow, this is why I love being a part of this community.  Thanks for such a reply.  I’m sure such info could well help others straying into Leica history and doing the same.

I concur. I must add that I have just tried to focus on as near to infinite as I can out the window.  Wide open or even stopped down, using the magnified image EVF.  Focus is way before on the lens distance scale….hovering around the ten feet mark !

So accuracy on any count here is as you say.

The unevenness across the frame (brick wall sq to plane) until f11 will no doubt be as you say. ( wide open right side weak, focus around 15 feet)  ( focus at distance, weak on left side ! )

So a few anomalies in play. 

Safe to say then, old tech v new tech.  I will not fully discount the adapter, but clearly much is going off elsewhere.

24mm modern lens and a few bob spent seems to be in order, which was shown to me on here some time ago.

My thanks again.

Edited December 21, 2024 by davidrc
Additions.

[davidrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

PS.  That’s a very nice image nonetheless.  And in its own way there is a place for everything.

[dg4mgr]

I once tried my 21mm 11134 on a Fuji APS-C camera and can absolutely confirm what @adan has written above. The Fuji should behave similar to the CL sensor-wise. Note that digital M cameras are optimized in terms of off-axis behaviour at short focal lengths, while standard APS-C sensors are not. My conclusion was that I need a genuine system lens for wide-angle, whereas adapted Leica-M glass works perfectly for lenses at 50mm and above.  

[davidrc]

1 hour ago, dg4mgr said:

I once tried my 21mm 11134 on a Fuji APS-C camera and can absolutely confirm what @adan has written above. The Fuji should behave similar to the CL sensor-wise. Note that digital M cameras are optimized in terms of off-axis behaviour at short focal lengths, while standard APS-C sensors are not. My conclusion was that I need a genuine system lens for wide-angle, whereas adapted Leica-M glass works perfectly for lenses at 50mm and above.  

I found that in adapting so far it is ok in some cases or better if 50mm or longer is used.

I should have noted the clue.
I had been told a 24mm M would be ok. Rather more costly. Even red dot forum showed a 21mm…..however both these lenses are asp and modern. That seems to be the base line start.
My R 35mm on a CL showed the same odd anomalies.  Though not quite as bad.

conclusion reached. 

[adan]

3 hours ago, davidrc said:

My R 35mm on a CL showed the same odd anomalies.  Though not quite as bad.

Yes - and for the same reason.

Both the R35 and M21 lens needed a distorted lens design, in order to leave space between the lens and the imaging plane for:

1) in the case of the R cameras, beginning in 1964, a moving reflex viewing mirror in a space ~44mm deep ±, and
2) in the case of the M, beginning in 1970, a planned moving through-the-lens metering arm behind the lens, using up much of the ~28mm-deep space in the M bodies.

The required "distorted" design is called a retrofocus lens - which can sit farther from the film or sensor than its nominal focal length. Allowing space for such intrusions while still being able to focus to infinity.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

And in its previous 40 years of designing camera lenses 1924-1964, Leitz/Leica had never had to do that before. So Leitz faced a steep learning curve in lens design - and their first efforts were mediocre wide-angles, for both the M and R systems. By the 1990s, Leica had become much more expert.

BTW it was the same challenge for most other camera/lens makers in the period 1950-1980, and especially 1957-1970, the "boom years" for the SLR/ttl-metering tsunami.

[davidrc]

7 hours ago, adan said:

Yes - and for the same reason.

Both the R35 and M21 lens needed a distorted lens design, in order to leave space between the lens and the imaging plane for:

1) in the case of the R cameras, beginning in 1964, a moving reflex viewing mirror in a space ~44mm deep ±, and
2) in the case of the M, beginning in 1970, a planned moving through-the-lens metering arm behind the lens, using up much of the ~28mm-deep space in the M bodies.

The required "distorted" design is called a retrofocus lens - which can sit farther from the film or sensor than its nominal focal length. Allowing space for such intrusions while still being able to focus to infinity.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

And in its previous 40 years of designing camera lenses 1924-1964, Leitz/Leica had never had to do that before. So Leitz faced a steep learning curve in lens design - and their first efforts were mediocre wide-angles, for both the M and R systems. By the 1990s, Leica had become much more expert.

BTW it was the same challenge for most other camera/lens makers in the period 1950-1980, and especially 1957-1970, the "boom years" for the SLR/ttl-metering tsunami.

Ah, the design would account for when set at infinity the image is totally out of focus?  Pull back a short way to around the 10 feet mark (or in between if at absolute infinity) and focus is ok.

I would add that using the EVF whilst not fast to focus, it is quite EVF friendly considering. And focus is on the money where you want it every time.  But I can understand how others may struggle.

last question,

How does all of this equate to the super elmar 24mm of today? Any compatibility issues there?  Or has designed changed and things improved?   

[adan]

1 minute ago, davidrc said:

Ah, the design would account for when set at infinity the image is totally out of focus?  Pull back a short way to around the 10 feet mark (or in between if at absolute infinity) and focus is ok.

No - that is far more likely an adapter problem (too thin). Or a lens (regardless of design) that is grossly out of calibration after all these years.

Set the lens to the infinity mark - and things more than 1km away should be at their sharpest - period.

If not, there is a mechanical error in the mounted location of the lens (distance from the sensor).

[davidrc]

10 minutes ago, adan said:

No - that is far more likely an adapter problem (too thin). Or a lens (regardless of design) that is grossly out of calibration after all these years.

Set the lens to the infinity mark - and things more than 1km away should be at their sharpest - period.

If not, there is a mechanical error in the mounted location of the lens (distance from the sensor).

Hi,
I am sure it’s working just fine, as it was originally intended. 
It is clear that in the ‘world of adapting’ all is far from equal and a minefield I won’t bother tip toeing through again.

Most helpful, thanks again.

compliments of the season.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

If you are looking for a WA lens on the CL, the 11-23 is an excellent lens, I find myself using it 75% of the time. Its only fault is that it is slow, so I also have a 23 Summicron. Above that I am using M lenses, a 35mm pre asph Summilux 35, a 50mm V1 Summicron, 90mm Elmarit and a 135 Tele Elmar. All work nicely on the CL.

[davidrc]

19 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

If you are looking for a WA lens on the CL, the 11-23 is an excellent lens, I find myself using it 75% of the time. Its only fault is that it is slow, so I also have a 23 Summicron. Above that I am using M lenses, a 35mm pre asph Summilux 35, a 50mm V1 Summicron, 90mm Elmarit and a 135 Tele Elmar. All work nicely on the CL.

Thanks, but small is the need.  

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I would look at the 23 Summicron, the issue with focusing WA lenses with focus peaking is real. When I first had the CL I tried to adapt my 11-16 Tokina (Nikon), I had to open it to f2.8 to focus well then stop down to make the photo. The focus peaking making everything look like it was in focus and the Nikon G adapter not showing what fstop I had got old very quickly. I have a 25mm Canon that is not retrofocus, just fits the CL and that is a tiny combination. Back to the 23TL, it is decent size, smallish and has autofocus, fits in a large pocket on the CL. I decided not to go with a 21 because of the focus issue and it is just the equivalent of 32mm on the CL, The was what I wanted.