Finnkare Posted June 20, 2008 Share #1 Posted June 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi. I currently have a Z28, CV50/1.5 and a L90/2.8 for my beloved M5. I just sold all my SLR equipment, because they just kept staying at the back of my closet. Only Rolleiflex, Retina IIc and the Leica-set stays for now. In the SLR-set I had a Tokina AT-X 17mm, the focal length of which I liked, although didn't use it all the time. So, now to get that super wide potential back, I'd like to buy one for the M. I'm also interested in getting use of one of the pros related to rangefinder cameras: the need for less retrofocus in design. Well, my main question, I guess, is: is 21 "too close" to 28? With 21's there's much more supply, but I'm afraid that a 21 could just confuse me with bringing in one option too many, without a contribution clear enough to the set. I have had this "principle" that the next longer lens should be at least 50% more in focal length than the previous one. Is this system comparable within all focal lengths equally, or do some focal lengths have some different kind of clear "personality" to them in smaller differences? I sometimes find even 35 too near 50 - I like different focal lengths really to have a different character to them so I'm sure it's useful to change the lens. On the other hand, then I also have to. But who said making nice pictures was easy ? A Zeiss Distagon 18/4 would be a nice choice too, and it would also be nearer to the already liked focal length of 17. But of course I might also get bored with a FL so short faster... And it's a bit more problematic when it comes to buying the viewfinder. It's also practically not available used, and I always prefer used. Scale focusing would be easier, though (although more of the near-end of focus scale is "wasted" due to the rangefinders limited focusing on close distances), and I also have 58mm filters ready for it. I use them with the other lenses already. On the other hand, i'm really fascinated about Leica's own stuff, especially a bit older (also because the new ones are a bit over my budget). The SA 21/3.4 would be really nice, a version which fits M5, of course. To throw yet another point: pictures taken with 18 mm are surely rarer in the history of the medium, while ~21 is quite common, also with Leica. So I would be automatically more original with the 18. Also, if I some day would buy a Bessa R4 (not gonna happen in the forseeable future), the 21 would fit more neatly in its finder than the 18. Although I guess it can be quite well estimated from the outlines of the finder, like 28 on the M5. I think 15 is a bit too wide for me. I'll narrow my choises to 18 and 21. I use primes exclusively, so tri-elmars are off the table. What about the Zeiss' 21's? Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, and sorry if this is not a new problem being discussed about in this forum. I just got subscribed and didn't find much related to this topic . Kare from Finland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Hi Finnkare, Take a look here A super wide for my M5 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
innerimager Posted June 20, 2008 Share #2 Posted June 20, 2008 Hi Kare- I haven't used them on my film cameras, only the M8, but I have the CV 15mm and Zeiss 18. They are really great lenses. The Zeiss is the sharpest true wide I have used, a bit high contrast. But for the money, and for lightness, the CV is just great. It is not range finder coupled, but even at 5.6 it's hard to miss focus, and by 8 you are there. It's relatively small price make getting it with a 15mm view finder a bargain even for those like you, and me, who prefer getting used lenses. best...Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 20, 2008 Share #3 Posted June 20, 2008 Kare, welcome to the forum. I'd go for the 21mm. It's a very different focal length to 28, and the Voigtlander lens is well priced and offers good performance - and it comes with a view finder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 20, 2008 Share #4 Posted June 20, 2008 Well, I endorse the "+50%" rule, but I've always observed that (on 35 mm film) 21 is really different from 28... it's undoubtly a SUPER wa: the effect is absolutely and always well distinguible on any pic, and you probably shall use it more than a 18 (but I never had this focal on RF). The Zeiss 18 f4 has received good reviews, I seem, and is a lens which looks of solid construction, but, given that you already have a CV lens... keep well in mind that, for the price of it, you can buy CV 21+15 ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share #5 Posted June 22, 2008 Thanks, mates! Useful information. I might go for the 21, then. Maybe the CV also sounds tempting... I'll have to look into it a little more. A bit surprising for me was this forums positive stand towards the CV-lenses. But maybe they just are good enough to be appreciated even within Leica users. At least considering the cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 22, 2008 Share #6 Posted June 22, 2008 A bit surprising for me was this forums positive stand towards the CV-lenses. But maybe they just are good enough to be appreciated even within Leica users. At least considering the cost. Welcome Finnkare. No need to be surprised. The VC lenses hold their own; many are unique, others offer different performance at an exceptional price-performance ratio. Something that I and many others here appreciate. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 23, 2008 Share #7 Posted June 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Kare, welcome to the forum. I'd go for the 21mm. It's a very different focal length to 28, and the Voigtlander lens is well priced and offers good performance - and it comes with a view finder. I agree entirely. 21 is a perfect companion to 28. It is a LOT wider, but not so much that you frequently wish you had something in the middle as would likely be the case if you went for a 15mm. CV 21P is very good. ZM 21 4.5 spectacular if you can live with the aperture. 21 asph very expensive and arguably no better than the ZM 21 2.8 for 3x the price. The ZMs all use the same 46mm filters you would need on your 28mm ZM, so handy.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 23, 2008 Share #8 Posted June 23, 2008 Well, I endorse the "+50%" rule, but I've always observed that (on 35 mm film) 21 is really different from 28... it's undoubtly a SUPER wa: the effect is absolutely and always well distinguible on any pic, and you probably shall use it more than a 18 (but I never had this focal on RF). The Zeiss 18 f4 has received good reviews, I seem, and is a lens which looks of solid construction, but, given that you already have a CV lens... keep well in mind that, for the price of it, you can buy CV 21+15 ... I do too, but will go to less than 50% at the wide end. If my main wide was 24/5 the 18 makes some sense, but to pair with a 28 would leave a bit too much of a gap for me. Also, the 18mm is much larger than a 21 4.5 ZM for example. Interesting lens though, but perhaps even more specialist than the 21. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share #9 Posted June 25, 2008 Thank you all. I decided to go with the Voigtländer. An almost new one on the house next to me came to my attention, like it was destiny... Also because on the block other side of my house there was a Super angulon 21/3.4, which would have also fitted! I'm surrounded by marvellous lenses... The Leica would be the most interesting not only because of it's remarkable reputation, but also because it focuses the closest, 40 cm. On the other hand, both the CV and Zeiss focus closer than Leica's other 21's (let alone the first version of the 80's) - 50 versus 70 cm, which is quite surprising for me. That was one of the pros choosing between 18 and 21, because 21 has a larger magnification rate. And also the voigtländer was one quarter of Leica's price, without hagging. Including the adapter. Maybe I'll report on some feelings later. Thanks again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.