Which 21mm for M9?

[iiiNelson]

I don't think that you will be disappointed and I'm looking forward to seeing your images with the 21 1.8.

Thanks for the heads up/ report and that is good assurance that it was a god purchase on a whim. BTW I really dig that M-E with the black dot. It beats the red dot to me and really tones down an otherwise attractive color combination.

 

[onaujee]

It looks like a great lens... Looking forward to more photos/samples of the 21 f/1.8.... Thanks for sharing

 

[iiiNelson]

That makes sense; the (older) 50 Nokton is more of a "classic" rendering and the Planar more "modern." I can see why you like it for B&W. The older 28 Ultron is closer to it than the newer, which I was looking into as well. I ended up going with the 28 Cron, and have been in love with it. I wasn't sure about the focal length either, but it really gelled with me (as I liked the 25 on the M8). Something about the entire VF being used, not needed an external, etc. and of course, the performance and character.

I would agree about the 35 Nokton. It's such a sleeper lens. It renders absolutely wonderfully. I've been waffling over replacing it with a Lux or Cron but I like the 28/50 combo more than I expected. So we'll see what happens. I might just stick with the Nokton. I just wish it were a bit smaller, lighter and had a finger tab... I've grown to really like them, LOL.

From what I've seen of the 21 on the M9, I don't think CornerFix will be needed. Just coding it as an Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8 (ASPH?) should do the trick. Very sharp, lovely saturation and color. Hard to comment on the bokeh for a couple of reasons right now...

I have a 35 Cron ASPH that I got before the Nokton II. I will say that they compliment each other in the sense that the 35 Cron ASPH is an "everything/ everyday" lens and the Nokton is a true one lens solution type lens. It's good stopped down or wide open but because of the Size I rather have the 35 Cron ASPH most of the time. I haven't tried a 35 FLE but I did try the 35 LUX ASPH (Non-FLE.) From shots I'd give them a slight edge - they are better lenses overall. Are they 4X better? Well that's a very personal decision but for me they weren't. Maybe my answer would've changed if I was willing to give up my 35 Cron ASPH, my Nokton II, and if the 35 FLE was readily available when I wanted to buy it.

As for the 28 Ultron - again it's a really good lens with really good rendering stopped down or wide open. Again just not the focal length for me and it was easier for me (in my mind) to buy a $500 CV lens and sell for close to the same money then take a chance on a then $4000 lens (new) and force myself to like it or sell it.

I really like 35 and I really like 50. For wide though I really like 24 or wider.. even with a 50. For long I like 75 and 90... So naturally a 75 AA Cron is next in my collection (The 90 Cron Pre-AA is a portrait mainstay.)

 

[Maggie O]

Boy, if it says "Ultron" it's gonna be a great lens, IMO.

 

[scho]

Just one additional shot with the 21 1.8 wide open at close range.

 

[RS]

If money is an object, has anyone tried the russian mir 20mm f3.5 and zone focus?
or old nikon/canon lens?
Am tempted with the 21 f1.8 though...anything pictures indoor shoot with candle light in the middle of winter? or pictures of cats?

 

[Godfrey]

Your first results with the CV 21/1.8 look very good, Carl. I look forward to seeing more.

And much as that damn Magpie is tweeting at me, no: I'm sticking with my Color Skopar 21/4. It's fine for the amount that I use a 21mm lens, and it's a lot smaller, and I own it already... !!!

G

 

[Jason Muelver]

Here's one from today. A bit of work in Lightroom including my mild bleach pass...

 

[thrice]

Forget about the ZM 21/4.5. It has such a severe color shift, that even Cornerfix can't deal with it. As for the ZM 21/2.8, it is very similar in performance to the Leica 21/3.4 as mentioned above. Spectacular performance. But if you want the best wide angle ever made for the M mount, look no further than the ZM 25/2.8, absolute perfection.

I didn't know you'd shot with so many ultrawides Ed. I had the 25 ZM and it was very sharp. The 21/3.4 is sharper though, and better colour corrected especially with regard to CA. Maybe something was wrong with yours?

 

[edwardkaraa]

I didn't know you'd shot with so many ultrawides Ed. I had the 25 ZM and it was very sharp. The 21/3.4 is sharper though, and better colour corrected especially with regard to CA. Maybe something was wrong with yours?

I didn't

However, I did a lot of research on this matter before committing to buy. Online paid reviews and sample shots, MTF comparisons (very valid since both Zeiss and Leica use the same testing machine)... etc.

As for the ZM 25 vs Leica 21/3.4, since they are both stellar, and have different FL, but very similar performance across the frame, it's difficult to say, but still I believe the 25 has a slight edge. Btw, I haven't seen any CA with my copy.

 

[Double Negative]

Between the 21 and 25 I can see how it would be hard to say which is technically better. I can't speak for the 21 yet (probably my next lens) but every image has been jaw-dropping that I've seen. I can say the 25 is definitely awesome by any measure. Even Zeiss is proud of it, and it broke some records. It was my default lens on the M8 (because of the near 35mm equivalency).

So if the consensus is that the 21 is as good as the 25... Good! That's quite a compliment.

 

[Mike Woods]

Here's one from today. A bit of work in Lightroom including my mild bleach pass...

Very nice Jason, and my type of image as well. Currently have my eye on a pretty good deal with the CV21 and viewfinder...

Mike

 

[Woody Campbell]

The 21mm Super Elmar is one of the best lenses that Leica has ever made and worth saving for if you want this focal length. I've now had a copy for about four days and have shot mainly familiarization images with it.

 

[Mike Woods]

The 21mm Super Elmar is one of the best lenses that Leica has ever made and worth saving for if you want this focal length. I've now had a copy for about four days and have shot mainly familiarization images with it.

Very nice Woody. If I had the money, I think this would probably be the lens I'd go for, but it simply won't get enough use to justify that kind of expense....although I remember saying something similar a couple of years ago when I started out with CV lenses and gradually upgraded!

Mike

 

[D&A]

I would fully agree with Woody's assesment of the Leica 21mm Super Elmar on being a superlative lens, but would also recommend for those who might not use a 21mm all that often or desire to throw some budgetary considerations into the mix, the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 's performance is a very close match to the Leica and worthy of serious consideration as a possible alternative. Lots of interesting choices in lenses with regards to the 21mm focal length for the Leica M mount.

Dave (D&A)

 

[thrice]

I would fully agree with Woody's assesment of the Leica 21mm Super Elmar on being a superlative lens, but would also recommend for those who might not use a 21mm all that often or desire to throw some budgetary considerations into the mix, the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 's performance is a very close match to the Leica and worthy of serious consideration as a possible alternative. Lots of interesting choices in lenses with regards to the 21mm focal length for the Leica M mount.

Dave (D&A)

Good point David. That said, bear in mind that the 21/2.8 biogon seems to not respond perfectly to the 21mm leica lens profiles for edge correction.

 

[thrice]

I didn't

However, I did a lot of research on this matter before committing to buy. Online paid reviews and sample shots, MTF comparisons (very valid since both Zeiss and Leica use the same testing machine)... etc.

As for the ZM 25 vs Leica 21/3.4, since they are both stellar, and have different FL, but very similar performance across the frame, it's difficult to say, but still I believe the 25 has a slight edge. Btw, I haven't seen any CA with my copy.

I guess there is no substitute for someone elses experience.
FWIW I owned two copies of the 25zm (swapped when troubleshooting a light leak issue) which both performed identically, so yours must be a cherry if it is completely devoid of CA.

 

[D&A]

Good point David. That said, bear in mind that the 21/2.8 biogon seems to not respond perfectly to the 21mm leica lens profiles for edge correction.

Daniel, excellent point! What I have found (as well as many others), is coding the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 as a Leica 21mm f2.8 pre asph as opposed to the asph version. This almost always results in near perfect edge correction.

I will add though that it has been demonstrated by a few individuals that occasionally, the effectiveness of this coding for this lens as well as some others, seems to be dependent on individual M9 bodies resp[onse to conding. Why this is the case, I honestly don't know.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Gary Clennan]

I highly recommend the 21SEM. It is the sharpest WA lens I have owned. I even think it slightly edges out my ZF21 which in itself is amazing.

 

[henningw]

I have (or had) most 21's available in Leica mount, and currently have the 21/2.8 ASPH, 21/1.4, 21/3.4 SA, 16-21TE amd 21/4 Cosina. I've also used the 21/2.8 and f/4.5 Zeiss for a while, and had the 21/1.8 Cosina for a week a couple of months ago. A local friend has good connections with Kobayashi-san and got serial no. 00001. So it might not be quite representative, but it shouldn't be far off either. Mechanically it felt very good; probably the best of any Cosina lens I've had or tried so far.

On the basis of the sample I tried, however, it would be the one I would get at this point if I could have only one, unless it was really too big. It's getting close to, but not quite as big as the 21/1.4, and it's lighter. It is as sharp as the Summilux with no more optical problems, and it has noticeably less vignetting. I would definitely get it in preference to the 21/2.8 Zeiss or 21/2.8 ASPH, let alone the pre-ASPH. Currently the best 21 is the SE f/3.4, but it comes at the cost of the lack of speed... and relative cost. In use you'd likely not see the difference in quality between it and the 21/1.8 Cosina, though, just as most of the others are also at the same level. The most obvious and easily seen difference is in the level of distortion, where the faster lenses do somewhat (but not drastically) worse.

If you want small, then there is really only one workable choice: the 21/4 Cosina M-mount.

A number of years ago I did a fairly comprehensive test of four 21's for a magazine, which besides the 21/3.4 SA, 21/2.8 ASPH and 21/4 Cosina included the Ricoh 21/3.5 (not that great, and very rare) and the Cosina wasn't that far behind the 21/2.8 ASPH. I also tested some other 21's that are less common, but they didn't really rise above the Ricoh. The 21-35 Hexanon is interesting, but now it too is more valuable to collectors than shooters. If the price and availability had stayed reasonable it might have stayed an acceptable choice as the versatility and performance were quite decent.

I'm not getting rid of the Summilux, because it is really 2/3 stop faster, and the pain of paying for it has been left behind. The TE stays for obvious reasons, the SA is my long time love for film and the Cosina is tiny. The 21/2.8 ASPH will have to go.

Henning