Which M wide-angle?

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm thinking of buying a super wide for my film Ms and would appreciate any thoughts about the following.

 

Leica 21mm f2.8 (pre-Asph vs Asph)

Zeiss ZM 21mm f2.8

Zeiss ZM 18mm f4

 

Or should I just pull out all the stops and break the bank for the 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar?

[lars_bergquist]

The WATE is not a very practical proposition. Nobody has any real use for all these three focal lengths, especially when they come in a package like that one! Your initial impulse is correct: Chose one lens and learn to use it to the full.

 

All the three lenses you mention are very good. The Zeiss lenses are serious contenders, especially as with a film M, you will not have the hassle of coding, as for a M8. But which one should you go for?

 

That depends on what other wide angle lenses you have. If you have a 28, then the 18mm Distagon is a sensible choice, but the gap to a 35mm would be too large. In that case I would recommend 21mm, and the Zeiss is indeed a good choice, unless you can find an Emarit ASPH in very good condition (but people who have them tend not to sell them). As the 35 will be your primary indoor lens, you will not even need a very fast 21, so the Biogon 4.5, which also seems to be optically excellent, is a practical option. And that one is even less expensive than the 2.8.

 

The old man from the Age of the Contax Biogon

[JBA]

Thanks for the input, Lars.

 

For some background, I'm looking for something roughly equivalent to my 19 Elmarit-R but for my Ms. I'd mostly be using it for architectural photography in some of Tokyo's cramped back alleys, where there are some fascinatingly decrepit old buildings that are doomed to gradually disappear.

 

A local camera shop has all the lenses I mentioned at fairly attractive prices. The one exception is the 21 asph, which is priced in the stratosphere but tempting nonetheless. There are a couple of attractively priced examples of the version just prior to the asph, and I'm thinking one of these might be my best bet. Then again, the 4.5 Biogon might be the ideal compromise for price and speed. I hadn't really considered it.

 

Are the differences between the 21 Elmarit asph and non-asph significant enough to justify the premium?

 

Young man from the age of the Leicaflex SL2.

[lars_bergquist]

(a) The Zeiss 18mm Distagon is a damn nice lens. I own it.

 

( It is difficult to set a price on significance. The non-ASPH Elmarit (which I also own) is more useable than you might believe when you listen to what the gearheads are saying—i.e. that anything but the latest model is crap. It is of course a bit unwieldy with its 60mm front end, large for a 21.

 

The old man from the Age of the Contax Biogon

[tgray]

Is 15mm too wide? If not, think about getting the CV 15mm. Its small, cheap, and great on film.

[atournas]

If money is not an issue, the Elmarit 21/2.8 ASPH is simply beyond comparison. All the wide lenses suffer from distortion--except this one!

 

If money IS an issue, the CV 15mm is your best choice. In any case, stick to a prime lens.

 

Paul

[JBA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lars, again, thanks for the input. The gearhead argument that anything but the latest is crap is not compelling. If there are not objective reasons that actually matter to me, I'm not going to rush out and get the latest thing.

 

tgray, too wide in my opinion is anything that distorts or vignettes noticeably. Then there's the matter of speed. The CV lenses tend to be a bit slow for my purposes. In any case, they're not an opportunity cost for me. Really enjoy your Flickr album, by the way.

 

atournas, this is a helpful comparison. My only question is whether the difference in distortion is worth double the price of the previous version. As Lars pointed out, that's almost impossible to answer, as the judgment is ultimately subjective. The price difference is an opportunity cost but not a huge one.

 

A friend has a 21 Elmarit non-asph that he says I can try. That will at least provide some kind of basis for comparison. Meanwhile, if anybody could post some photos that would illustrate the differences and relative strengths of the lenses under consideration, I'd very much appreciate it.

[lars_bergquist]

If money is not an issue, the Elmarit 21/2.8 ASPH is simply beyond comparison. All the wide lenses suffer from distortion--except this one!

 

The Elmarit and the Zeiss 2.8 have exactly the same amount of distortion, c. -1% (i.e. practically unnoticeable barrel distortion). The Biogon 4.5 has none at all.

 

If money IS an issue, the CV 15mm is your best choice. In any case, stick to a prime lens.

 

Paul

 

Agreed about the price. And I own the CV 15mm too, and have used it on my M4-P. It is great fun but really too wide for general use on film. You will need a more practicable focal length, i.e. 21 or 24mm. And yes, stear clear of the WATE. It is clumsy, needs a finder the size of a flashgun, and has humonguous barrel distortion, especially at 16mm (more than three percent!)

 

The old man from he Age of the Contax Biogon

[atournas]

The Elmarit and the Zeiss 2.8 have exactly the same amount of distortion, c. -1% (i.e. practically unnoticeable barrel distortion). The Biogon 4.5 has none at all.

 

Zeiss is also a great lens, no doubt. Still, in theory, the Elmarit is with lower distortion (Zeiss is the upper chart below). However, the actual comparison will be in the pictures taken and that is indeed a question of personal taste. I speak for the Elmarit since I use it and I can say that,

 

1. Pictures of groups of people taken at close distance show the figures at the edge of the frame without any noticeable distortion.

2. Projecting a slide taken with the Elmarit through a high quality projector lens (the ultimate test for a transparency) will never disappoint you.

 

But, once more, I cannot justifiably say much against the Zeiss. On the other hand, Biogon 4.5 is expected to appear better, since it has a smaller aperture wide open.

 

Paul

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!

[atournas]

atournas, this is a helpful comparison. My only question is whether the difference in distortion is worth double the price of the previous version. As Lars pointed out, that's almost impossible to answer, as the judgment is ultimately subjective. The price difference is an opportunity cost but not a huge one.

 

Lars is right. It is only that you KNOW that the aspherical is just better. Betting on an obvious difference being noticed bare-eyed directly on the slide? No.

 

Paul

[lars_bergquist]

Atournas, published distortion curves for the Elmarit ASPH and the ZM 2.8/21mm are virtually identical, topping out at about 1.2% 3/4 of the way out from the optical axis. What is your source for the curve of the Zeiss lens? My data are from the Carl Zeiss website.

 

The 'drawing out' of subjects at the edges of the image field of wide angle lenses is a completely different phenomenon from that of linear distortion, which makes straight lines less than straight and can be very different for lenses of the same focal length. The other effect, which makes ovals out of circles on the periphery of the image, is simply a function of the short focal length and is unavoidable in a rectilinear lens (as distinct from a fisheye). It is actually a perspectival effect.

 

The old man from the Age of Standard Lenses

[JBA]

Thanks everybody for your input. It's been quite informative.

 

I've taken the plunge and bought a pristine Asph in silver and a Super-Angulon-era external finder. It's rare to find a 21 Asph used and they get sold quickly, so I made my move. I probably would have been quite satisfied with the other options, but when in doubt, I fall back on the principle of buying the newest optical version I can afford.

 

Another consideration was that the shop is one I've been going into for over a year without buying anything, so it was good way to establish a relationship with the shop. They were also having a year-end sale offering 10% off all lenses, so that cushioned the blow a bit.

 

Incidentally, when I asked about the difference between the Asph and the previous version, the guy mentioned better corner-to-corner sharpness but nothing about distortion.

[atournas]

Great buy, JBA. Now is the best part, enjoying your lenses on your favorite camera and taking beautiful pictures.

 

Paul

[lars_bergquist]

No, the linear distortion is just about the same for both versions.

 

As for 'aspherical being better', aspherical surfaces are just one tool in the kit of the lens designer. Sometimes it is useful, sometimes not. Besides, aspericals are old hat. Look at the front ring of a Cosina-Voigtländer 15mm. It says ASPHERICAL! And who says Zeiss do not employ them? They simply do not brag about them. The technology was AFAIK developed by Leica, Zeiss and Schott in conjunction.

 

The old man from the Age of the Contax Biogon

[xjr]

Unless you can afford the tri-elmar I suggest the 18mm Zeiss

[JBA]

Paul, I started shooting immediately and have already shot most of two rolls with this lens. Really enjoying seeing some of the amazing cityscapes in this city in a way I've only imagined till now.

 

Lars, I have asph and non-asph lenses and though I can see a difference in the results they produce, I certainly wouldn't say one or the other is better or worse, just different. The bokeh, in particular, is different, but this will hardly come into play with the 21. I accept the fact that with the asph version of the lens, any improvement in quality is probably marginal rather than major. It should be interesting to compare the results with my friend's non-asph. At least I'm certain to see far less distortion in the lens than I do through the finder, which shows some pretty heavy barrel distortion.

 

By the way, I believe the Zeiss 21 2.8 uses spherical optics.

[offshore]

JBA the choice of the 21 in any version is a good one. I own the pre aspheric version and use it for a majority of my photography. I recently had mine 6 bit coded and there is no curvature on my M8 with it. This is one of my lenses that will have to be pried out of my cold dead hand.

[budrichard]

I have the Leica 21mm ASPH and its not the lens I have the problem with, its the finders. It came with a Leitz 21mm plastic finder with locking baseplate, not a great view so I purchased a Zeiss 21mm finder, great view but not offset as the Leitz is and I am having terrible asymmetry problems left to right. The intial Zeiss had slight turn to the left and after the first set of pictures, I set it square to the camera but the problem persists.

Frankly I am ready to back to go back to my Nikkor 24mm on a SLR a lens of which I'm on my second and do not have this problem.

Any suggestions?-Dick

[JBA]

Having not yet seen the results of the photos I've taken so far, I've been wondering about the slight finder offset and how much the photos will differ from what I see through the finder when I compose.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[offshore]

Having not yet seen the results of the photos I've taken so far, I've been wondering about the slight finder offset and how much the photos will differ from what I see through the finder when I compose.

JBA you don't say which camera you are using. If it is the M8 you can use the entire rangefinder window to frame with (not the framelines but the entire window, I know it's not easy, and I wear glasses, but it works and you get used to it) and you won't have the misalignment problems.