Leica-M 21mm ASPH vs. Contax 21mm Biogon-G

[ray .]

I don't know how this translates in a silver print, at the point of enlargement from 8x10" all the way up to 16x20 and beyond. Maybe there's no difference at all, maybe a little. No doubt the price of new Leica lenses is rather difficult to fathom. However, the fool factor decreases dramatically when you buy lenses used, keeping in mind that if you ever get rid of it- most of the time what you paid originally can be gotten back. Then it starts looking more like a reasonable choice.... Along with the fact that people legitimately prefer Leica bodies, and only certain lenses are going to fit it.

 

If your shooting preferences require lots of equipment, multiple cameras and lenses, etc., then low cost output per piece is probably going to be more a primary consideration.

[james_h]

Lens Z looks better to me, sharper lines/edges.

[james_h]

Fred Lee:

 

I�m with you... I have the Zeiss so if it is better, great :-) Though it

performance is wasted as I haven�t used it since I left the Contax

G for the Leica M. I also didn�t carry it much so I rarely used it

anyway.

 

Jay:

 

Your comments are also encouraging as I bought, carry, and

use the C/V 21mm for its price and size (and purported

performance). Because of its small stature, it goes everywhere

my M goes, in a leather pouch in the bottom of a very small

camera bag with my M6 and a 35 (or sometimes a 50mm now).

The 21mm viewfinder lives in the M6 hot shoe.

 

After buying the Voigt. I played with the 21mm viewfinders. I like

the Voigt better because it appears to have more eye relief and

fits in the hot shoe tightly.

[ray .]

Thinking about a 21 myself, I read Jay's comments sometime back as to build quality problems he had with his VC 21mm. You can get a 7 year warranty on the thing though for about $20- might be the thing to do if you go that way.

[terrestrikon]

I also like the Z image better, while reserving some skepticism about whether the two images were processed identically.

[andy_piper2]

I'll throw in some more technical background while you wait for the revelation:

 

1) All the test shots were on a single roll of film, which ran through both cameras one after the other - so processing is identical - 1 film, 1 can, 1 developer, 1 time.

 

2) Yes, there is the chance of focusing error. However, not being a robot, I DID inspect each negative with a loupe, as well as checking the scans. Things in back of the subjects shown are fuzzy - things in front of the subjects are fuzzy - the sharpest plane is where the main subjects are.

 

3) Looking at the test image on my 96-pitch LCD screen at work - the jpg.ing needed to upload to Photo.net may have softened the whole thing a tad. The original on my 72-pitch Mac monitor at home looks very slightly crisper overall. (For example I can see the hole in the small letter "a" under (not in) the word "Canon" on the originals). But the difference affects the results from either lens equally, so it probably isn't significant to the comparison.

 

4) The "Z" may be a hint - and then again it may be a red herring - or even a freudian slip. Who knows? The shadow knows!

 

To Stuart - yes, Mile High currently has about 15 Leica bodies on consignment - screw mounts, M4, M5, some of the top-end commemoratives (e.g. M6J), every Titanium lens ever released, etc.. Fondler's candy store - they filled the case under my tripod as I shot this test.

[grant_.]

what are you trying to prove with this?

[bruno_menilli]

Andy

 

This is a legitimate test, but because its parameters are so narrow( after all who goes into shops with a tripod mounted camera, taking photographs?) that it can't possibly prove anything one way or the other.Surely the really important aspects of wide angle lenses( of course contrast and resolution are important as well) are flare control (non-coma) and rectilinear distortion control?

 

This test is like asking someone if a car that does 155mph is better than one that does 145mm. There's more to it than just that.

 

Given all that I think Z "looks" better on the screen, in this test, because of the slightly higher contrast and resolution at f/2.8, and I have a feeling it's the Biogon!

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[patricks]

Enough already - just spit it out!

 

Regardless, given the fact that one can buy a minty Contax G2 body WITH a some outstanding glass (the 21, 45/2 and 90/2.8) for less money than a minty 21A alone just goes to show...

[Robin Smith]

Zs better - I vote that that is the Leica (in the vain hope that the extra money might be worth it). Not that I have either.

[jay_.]

<<Thinking about a 21 myself, I read Jay's comments sometime back as to build quality problems he had with his VC 21mm. You can get a 7 year warranty on the thing though for about $20- might be the thing to do if you go that way.>>

 

If you read Jay's comments you would remember that I honked the lens down on the LTM-M adaptor while it was mounted on the camera, in an attempt to make it tight enough so it wouldn't come loose while mounting/dismounting, using my thumb against the focus lever while it rested against the infinity stop, and it pushed past infinty and then seized up. So basically I screwed it up myself by applying force which wouldn't normally be applied in using the lens. Perhaps such a force wouldn't have caused damage to a Leica lens, but that's not the point. My replacement 21 C/V has performed flawlessly and I have used it with no more TLC than my Leica lenses.

[kevin m.]

I did some internet research and decided the Contax 21 was the best buy. I brought it home to try it out, but it kept falling off my M6. Am I doing something wrong?

[tom m.]

Andy, did you use the normal autofocus with the Contax, or did you use the

more cumbersome manual focus? I have both test lenses, but I would be

hard pressed to choose one over the other. Each has been sharp and crisp

when shooting slides. I guess that is what makes your comparison so much

fun.

 

Stuart, the inventory at the store is a little lower now. I just picked up a very

nice 24mm Elmarit f2.8 at a very good price last week. The folks at Mile High

have always treated me well, and I feel good about recommending the store

to others.

[al_kaplan1]

Too bad you couldn't have also shot with the 21mm f/3.4 Super Angulon. I really like the look of my pix with it.

[Allen Herbert]

Well, Leica glass is well expensive, but has beautiful tonal quality. I personally dislike Contax glass, way too contrasty,and lacking in tonal quality, for my taste. I find myself moving to Konica/Cosina glass as value for money and a decent compromise.

[stuart d]

Al,

 

<p>Andy already did a number of comparisons of the 21 3.4 SA, the 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH and the 21 Elmarit ASPH. The threads are below, but sadly some of the formatting means the photos are no longer linked to the threads.

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002jD5" >21 f/3.4 vs. 21 2.8 preASPH</a>

 

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002hc3" >Comparison of Leica-M 21 SA and 21 preASPH Elmarit - what you've been waitng for!</a>

 

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003aZa" >Leica Elmarit ASPH and Super-Angulon f/3.4 compared</a>

[andy_piper2]

The envelope, please....

 

The "Z" lens is, in fact, the Zeiss Biogon (Must have been a freudian slip choosing it as "Z" - oh, well! I was trying to stay away from the front end of the alphabet to avoid looking like I was "grading" the lenses.)

 

Within the limits of this comparison, it produces a slightly cleaner image (cheers go up in all the Contax/Zeiss sports bars!) - which is actually about what I expected. It is a superb piece of optical work.

 

If anything, I'm surprised (and gratified) that the Leica ASPH comes as close as it does - Superb minus 2% or so. Disclosure: It's my own 21 ASPH in the test - newly purchased for practical reasons having nothing (fortunately) to do with optical performance.

 

Grant: I'm only trying to "prove" something in the original sense of the Latin root - probare (to probe or test). You hear a lot of yada-yada from people with a vested interest (on either side) as to how the Contax-G lenses match up to Leica APO/ASPHs. I wanted to see the real deal for myself - and share it in case anyone else wanted objective results instead of - opinions.

 

As to flare - good point - I'll try and test that. As a previous user I can testify that the Zeiss is FAR more flare-resistant than the previous Leica 21s (pre-ASPH, Super-Angulons) when the sun is in or just outside the frame. A few colored 'aperture shapes' (at most) vs. great sheets of veiling flare (at worst).

 

In this test, in the corner pictures, the Leica shows faint 'haloes' above the letters in the word "Canon" - one of the things that is less easy to see in the posted .jpg than in the original scan. Looks like, in correcting the aberrations, the Leica designers preferred a spikier 'core' with a halo, while the Zeiss designers chose a slightly larger but tighter image spot.

 

Distortion - undercorrected barrel distortion in the Leica - straight lines curve a bit, but this reduces the amount of 'football-head' stretching in the corners. The Biogon is - a Biogon - almost as 'square' as the Super-Angulons.

 

Al and Stuart: the images from those previous comparisons are here on photo.net. Go to my portfolio and look in the "Examples" folder (there may also be a "21 test" folder). Back in the Greenspun days I posted them here and linked to them.

 

Any other questions?

[fredlee70x7]

Andy, thx for the fun game. Wonder if similar tests will be done on 35/2 Summicron ASPH vs 35/2 Planar, 50/2 Summicron vs 45/2 and 90/2.8 Elmarit vs 90/2.8 Sonnar?

[patricks]

Thank you. Case closed.

[stephen_w.]

Is the Biogon a true non-retrofocus, symmetrical Biogon? Do the rear elements protrude into the body?

[Robin Smith]

Andy

 

Interesting. I actually borrowed a Contax G/21mm and remember thinking that 1) It was a fine lens and that 2) its quality into the corners was not as good as my 28mm/35mm/50mm Leica lenses - I therefore hoped that the 21mm ASPH would be better, but clearly it is probably not (not that your test is a final result). My conclusion (and I have thought this for some time) is that no 21mm has a comparable performance to a first rate longer focal length lens. MTF graphs clearly demonstrate this and I seem to notice it. None have quite the pazzaz of longer focal lengths. Wides are difficult to make! Of course they can produce shots with great impact though

[Allen Herbert]

Bottom line it's very subject to the individual. Contrasty Contax glass, sorry not for me. Do all the tests you want. Does it matter, yes! a nice piece of glass givws you a nice print.

[andy_piper2]

Oh - two other points.

 

I also shot the same test images at f/5.6. IN ALL CASES (Leica/Zeiss, corner/center) the f/5.6 images are softer than, or at best, barely equal to, the f2.8 images (!!!!). DOF increases, so the soft areas get sharper - but the in-focus areas suffer.

 

Score at least 1 point for E. Puts: he says that f/4 is the optimum for the 21 ASPH, and that things go downhill from there.

 

Focus shift? Diffraction? (f/5.6 on a 21 is an opening 3.75mm in diameter - I don't know when/where diffraction starts to set in.)

 

I will also look for color fringing if I do 'flare' tests - although it's usually an issue more with long lenses. That's why you see lots of "APO" telephotos - but no one bothers to make "APO" wide-angles.

[Robin Smith]

I think both the MTF graphs for these lenses are available by the way, so if you really care one can check them out. Andy's test is not "case closed" but it is interesting.

[andy_piper2]

Steve: The 21 Biogon is not perfectly symmetrical (the lens diagram, mtf charts, and distortion curve for this and other Zeiss lenses are available as .pdf files from Zeiss.de.com). But it does sit well back inside the camera. The 28 Biogon IS almost sym.

 

Personally, my taste in contrast agrees with Allen's - which is part of the reason I switched from the G2 to the M6. There can be such a thing as too much contrast - if it pushes the highlights or shadows off the straight-line portion of the film's response curve.

 

But then - I shoot contrasty fine-grain films (Velvia, Pan F) - often in contrasty sunny-day lighting. On a gray snowy day or in the dull blue dusk the Zeisses can "kick it up a notch" while the Leicas - may - be a bit muddier. It does boil down to personal preference.