I am considering buying a 21mm WA.

Erwin Claims that Voigtlander lenses "all give better imagery than first class lenses 10 years ago" (presumably that includes Leica), and that Camera Quest reports the 21 "is within spitting distance of the Leica" (spitting distance?)

I know the Voigtlander is a lot cheaper and lighter to carry around and while these are important to me they are not ultimately decisive.

How much of a compromise is the Voigtlander 21 optically and/or in build quality and has anyone found f4 to be seriously limiting?

Your coments would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), May 16, 2002

Answers

Here's something to read from the archives while you wait for answers:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006rWD

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006rWD

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007ah1

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0088xA

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), May 17, 2002.

Its a fine little lens. Build quality isn't up to Leica, but its not going to fall apart either. Its very sharp especially around f8. I don't find the f4 very limiting, the lens is so much lighter and smaller than the Leica alternative that hand holding at slow speeds is easy. And considering it comes with a 21mm finder I think its a bargain. If in the long run you don't like it, its cheap enough to be kept as a spare/pocketable lens, and you have the 'free' finder for your new Leica 21mm!

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), May 17, 2002.

The Voightlander lenses are truly excellent for their price, though you will most likely that to use faster film. OPtical performance wise, for general photography, I doubt if the differences are that visible.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 17, 2002.

Hi all,

As far as I'm concerned I wouldn't consider the f/4 maximum aperture a liability for a 21 mm wide angle

I'd really like to see a case this kind of lens will be usefully used without emphasizing their ability to give a very large DOF from very near to the lens up to infinity, thus magnifying the foreground while revealing all the environment.

I also sincerely doubt anyone will be able to obtain a sufficient blur in the background to properly separate the main subject from its environment… DOF is extended even wide open at f/2.8 with such a focal length and aesthetically speaking I don’t really think it would be valuable. You will probably end up with something where the “not so sharp” part of the picture will mix up with the sharp part of the subject in such way all sharpness will be lost visually for the ones seeing the picture.

I doubt too of the value of a classical “distant horizon” landscape photo without a strong foreground. IMHO it will end up very flat and uninteresting…

But these are my opinions, if someone on the forum has a good example of an interesting picture taken with the Leica 21 mm f/2.8 wide open, please publish it.

I consider more useful to use this kind of lens at f/5.6 or f/8 with scale focusing…

Friendly

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 17, 2002.

i own the sc (nikon/contax) version of the lens, and it has been more or less permanently mounted on my s3. i love the lens. its contrast performance is better in my subjective opinion than my leica 21. its not quite as biting. i also don't think f4 is a prob. due to the low mag, i find that i can routinely hand hold this lens down to 1/4 second (at least for subjects more than six feet away). 1/8th is never a prob. the 21, 25 and 75 are, in my view, the best lenses in the voigt line, and some of the best optics out there. i'd also like to test the new 50 2.5 and the fast 28.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 17, 2002.

I used my VC 21/4 (on a Bessa-L) all over Italy loaded with Provia 100 film, and never felt that the lens speed hampered me.

You can read my report and see some sample photos here.

I've since swapped that lens for the 15/4.5 Heliar. Not that there was anything wrong with with it, but I just feel I can compose a wide angle shot better with my slr.

For the money, however, the 21/4 is a steal.

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 17, 2002.

I have the 21mm and the 15mm and the 28mm CV lenses. All are very good to excelent.

The 21 is my favorate of the three; get the rectangular CV shade for it; the one supplied with the lens is ineffective.

It is a "Best Buy" IMHO.

Tony

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), May 17, 2002.

1) Jim - gorgeous stuff!

2) IMHO the V'lander lenses are very well built.

3) I shoot the old Leica f/3.4 21, and don't find many times when the extra half-stop to 2.8 is critical. As noted, subject movement aside, the Leica-Ms hand-hold 1-2 stops longer than most SLRs, so a 21 f/4 is almost the equivalent of a SLR 21 f/2. Plus you're not viewing through the lens, so finder brightness isn't affected.

4) Leica Historical Society ran a comparison by Tom Abrahamson in which the V'lander beat out everyhting except the Leica ASPH for sharpness, but showed a bit more distortion, esp. compared to the 21 f/3.4.

5) All the V'landers seem to run a notch pink compared to the average Leica lenses - especially my 1980's versions, and especially on the Fuji slide films (it shows up a bit in some of Jim's pictures - stone wall and skies, e.g.). But this seems to be the new standard in image color, since everyone, from Nikon to Zeiss to the newest Leica lenses, appears to have added a little rosy glow for skin tones. And image color is probably a matter of taste, anyway.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 17, 2002.

"For the money, however, the 21/4 is a steal"

I've shot the Sistine Chapel ceiling with this lens wide open and the results were surprisingly good. Mine CV 21 has the chrome finish and even though its build quality is not up to Leica but is quite nice. The optimal optical performance seems to be at f8. I believe the lens (with the finder) can be had from Delta International for $340, which is almost the cost for the price of a Leica 21mm finder alone. Considering the price, it is a *great* lens for the money.

-- Gerald (hsus@netzero.et), May 17, 2002.

Many thanks to all. On the strength of so much helpful advice and possitive coment I have placed an order for a black 21 with M adaptor. And for those who remember a previous post, I ended up buying a new black M6 classic as a second body to my TTL for Aud$2450 = aprox US$1300. Full warranty. (It's a long story but they had two new ones in stock from 1996 and yes the other is sold!). I feel most fortunate.

Thanks again for your thoughtful contributions. Cheers

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), May 17, 2002.

All the V'landers seem to run a notch pink compared to the average Leica lenses - especially my 1980's versions, and especially on the Fuji slide films (it shows up a bit in some of Jim's pictures - stone wall and skies, e.g.).

My shots are probably not that good of an example concerning any color shifting, or color-cast. All of those shots were originally batch-scanned, and I'm just now going back through them and adjusting them individualy.

I'm a complete novice when it comes to the finer points of photoshop.

-- jsnack (jimtardio@earthlink.net), May 18, 2002.

Tim

The 21/4 is a good lens but does not have the "snap" of the 35mm or 50mm Summicrons. Whether this is a general feature of ultrawides I am not sure, but I am beginning to think so. As I don't have a 21mm ASPH to compare it to I don't know. Most accounts here imply that the 21mm ASPH is not that much different, just faster. It is well made and a bargain. The f4 is not all that limiting, I agree, with the others.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.