The use of a 21mm on Film Leica M

<p>My current use of focal lengths is mainly normal and wide-angle and my subject is documentary photography in general.<br>

I use the 28mm a lot, but also the 35mm and the 50mm, depending on how close I can get and want to get to my subject.<br>

Now I'm considering to go wider, maybe getting the new 21mm 3.4.<br>

Can you share your experience with Leica ultra-wide angles with me, and in particular</p>

<ol>

<li>how practical is the use of the external viewfinder? are there any limitations due to distortion and issues with the correct framing?</li>

<li>to what extent would I need to get <em><strong>very close</strong></em> (as close as a few inches) to appropriately fill the frame when I take photos of people?</li>

<li>given the limited maximum aperture of the lens, which has a good depth of field even at 3.4, are there any optical issues requiring to stop it down to get the proper image quality?</li>

</ol>

<p>Thanks,<br>

L</p>

<p>Do you mean the 21 mm f1.4? I have experience only of the old 3.4. I see that Leica sell a triple viewfinder for £388:<br>

http://www.parkcameras.com/17984/Leica-Viewfinder-for-21-24-28mm-Lenses-Black.html<br>

Possibly this does not seem expensive in the context of a £4500 lens:<br>

http://www.parkcameras.com/17708/Leica-21mm-f-1-4-Summilux-M-ASPH--Black.html?referrer=Froogle++&utm_source=google&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid17708<br>

One thing I found with newer Leica viewfinders (plastic bodies) is that they are so artificially bright that I found it impossible to judge lighting and color and had to take my eye off the finder to do this. Whether you need to get very close is a matter of taste - 24 mm is my favorite WA, with 20 or 21 mm I find I'm always getting my shadow in the picture. Before you spend all that money you certainly would want to handle the Leica items - you might want to buy a cheap 20 mm viewfinder (like a Russian one) and carry it around looking at things to see if you like the perspective - could save you from an expensive mistake. I would think the new Leica lens is diffraction-limited, i.e. it needs to be stopped down only for extra depth of field, but people's heads close to the edge of the frame will inevitably come out an odd shape.</p>

<p>I have the pre asph 2.8/21 and Leica viewfinder, and no experience with the new 3.4. I like the external viewfinder, rough focus if fine with a lens this wide, and I tend not to use the meter in the body. The viewfinder is nice and uncluttered, and I feel free to work quickly. I used to own the Voightlander 21mm viewfinder, which I did not like because it had significant distortion, and the brightlines were always disappearing when the sun hit them at the right angle. The Leica viewfinder is worth the extra money to me. <br>

I find the 2.8 has low levels of distortion, there's a bit, but it's better than any slr lens I've owned around this focal length. I would imagine the new 3.4 has very little distortion, but I've not used it. <br>

The closest these lenses will focus is 70cm. Having said that, you will get away with being closer due to the massive depth of field, but I'm not sure you'd get away with being within inches. </p>

<p>Doh! my mistake - there is a 3.4 as well - quite a bargain at only half the price of the 1.4. Other remarks apply as before.</p>

<p>I use a 21mm f2.8 ASPH on an M7 mostly. I have used this combination quite a bit in the last 2-3 years.<br>

It is not something for taking pictures of individuals unless large groups or part of the background.<br>

The 21mm finders all suffer from one thing or another and cannot approach the capture of an SLR finder but neither can the normal rangefinder window, so who cares?<br>

I wouldn't be worried about proper image quality unless you are a photographic lens reviewer. I would be concerned about distortion introduced by not have the film plane parallel to the plane of the scene you are photographing.<br>

The various finders have one or another problem. Best is to get a Leitz/Lieca finder that has the proper off set to avoid a rotation in your photograph.<br>

Be prepared for a long learning curve before you achieve results you like or accept.-Dick</p>

<p>Thanks David, of course taste comes into play.<br>

I still think it would be good to test the lens to "understand" it. Your suggestion to walk around with a 21mm viewfinder is good.</p>

<p>Thanks Geoff and Richard.</p>

<ul>

<li>I used to own a Nikon 20mm 2.8, which I liked, taking account of the distortion towards the edges. On the other hand it could be focused in less than 1/5th of a turn. I have a photo of a group of people taken with it, and even if I was close, It was not enough, leaving still too much foreground space;</li>

<li>Richard, is the distortion due to film planarity an issue you have encountered? I am no lens reviewer :-), I would just avoid spending the money (I have to get the external viewfinder which adds to the expenditure) and the finding out that it is too wide for what I do.</li>

</ul>

I think the Leica 21 asph I had had more distortion than my Zeiss or the Voigtlander lens that I borrowed.

You can try point and shoot with a 21 without using a finder at all- just point the camera. Finders are fun

too. I got a 21 Voigtlander that works well.. I found myself practically tripping over people because the

finder made them look much further away than they were. You do need to get very close in for the most

part, otherwise you're generally not using the focal length effectively. I kept the 4.5 Zeiss, nice lens, but only use it

once in awhile. It's not really an every day focal length.

<p>Want a great 21mm Leica lens for a fraction of the current price? Look at the 21mm 1:3.4 Leitz Super Angulon R. Couple it to the Leitz adapter 22228 for mounting on the M bodies & add a Leitz (expensive) 21mm viewfinder, or cheaper version frolm S. Gandy, & you have a fabulous 21mm M combo. Here's a shot taken with mine a few autumns ago. . .</p><div></div>

<p>If you shoot film, you might want to also look at the Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 or 21/2.8. I have the 21/4.5 and it's fantastic. It has pretty much zero distortion. I'm not talking about perspective distortion - all 21's will have that if you get in close enough. I'm talking about pincushion/barrel distortion. Anyway, it's very sharp and perfectly useable wide open. The f/2.8 lens is obviously faster and larger and has more distortion.</p>

<p>I've not used the new Leica 21/3.4, but compared to the ZM 21/4.5, it's a bit larger and has a bit more distortion. It also probably has less vignetting and might be a wee bit sharper.</p>

<p>As far as using 21s in general on an M, I don't find using the external finder that hard. If I'm taking my time, it adds an extra step. If I'm shooting with the lens at f/8 and pre focused, it doesn't add anytime at all. I use the Zeiss 21mm finder. Re: filling up the frame with people - It really depends on how much of their body you want in the frame. Here's a shot with the 21 of a couple people sitting at a table. I was sitting at the head of the table and didn't move to take this photo; you can see the corner of the table in the bottom of the shot for reference.</p>

<p><a title=". by ezwal, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6142487363_ff0e48a0fd_z.jpg" alt="." width="640" height="417" /></a></p>

<p>Here's a bunch more of the ZM 21/4.5 shot on film:<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/tags/zeisscbiogon21mmf45/</p>

<p>I've occasionally used an old 21mm f/3.4 over the past 40 years. The distortion inherent in any 21mm when used for portraits can be unpleasantly extreme. The original viewfinder didn't survive a mishap. The M4 viewfinder shows roughly the coverage of the lens, so I haven't got around to modifying my old Nikkor 20mm finder to use on the Leica.</p>

<p>There's a school of thought that says something like if you can't figure out what to do with something you probably don't need it. I don't use my Leica film cameras enough lately. I probably use my 21mm Elmarit not very much but when I do use it I always wonder why I don't use it more. Here are a couple of samples. <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7144098-md.jpg" alt="" /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5863539-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>"Richard, is the distortion due to film planarity an issue you have encountered?"</p>

<p>If the film plane is not parallel to the image plane, distortion is introduced. That's Optics 101 of which taking a picture of a tall bulding is an extreme example. WA and Super WA's only accentuate the results. Today's photogrpahers seem to not understand or care about the problem . I have actually viewed Wedding Albums that made me queasy with all the angles and resulting distortion.<br>

Using a 21mm on and M is difficult because you don't have SLR viewing to help you.<br>

I purchased a Zeiss 21mm finder but because it is not offset to match the offset of the M external mount to the M lens centerline it introduced a rotational off set. I have the pictures to prove it after finding my first shots with this distortion using the Zeiss finder in place of the Leitz 21mm plastic finder I have. I now inly use the Leitz finder.<br>

Any other analysis offered here is purely subjective. Personally I would purchase what I could afford and concentrate on how to use it properly rather than wondering about problems you can't really control or measure.-Dick</p>

Keep the camera level to reduce/elimnate distortion. I have used a piece of ground glass and a high magnification

loupe to see exactly what the lens sees. You can use a less expensive finder, and adjust it to match what you see on

the film plane. You can put shims under the front or rear of the flash shoe to tilt the finder up or down. You can set it

to frame close or far, depending on your style.

<p>I LOVE using my 21 ASPH! Learning where the lens sees in extreme close-ups takes some getting used to, but it can be done! Adjusting for finder paralax is a learned concept. For better sharpness, I always close down one full stop more than what the lens barrel is marked for, and compensate with a slower shutter speed. Foregrounds stay tac-sharp that way!</p>