[Leica] Zeiss 21mm for M

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> I've been thinking of buying a Zeiss 25mm lens for the M. What has been
> the experience of the Luggers with this lens? Worth it or would the 24
> Leica be better?
> 
> Thank you in advance for your feedback.
> 
> Doug
> 



The Leica 24mm lens is a masterpiece of optical engineering.
Someone may have said that other than me.

And priced accordingly.
The Leica
$2,895.00

The Zeiss
$923.00

$2895.00 / $923 = 3.1365113759


So that's 3 Zeiss lenses for the price of the Leica lens.
If it was made in Germany I think you'd only get one.

I shoot with the Leica.
Is it three times better? No idea.
But its certainly the best.
And that's why I'm into Leica. I'm into the best. I'm convinced Leica has
the best glass.
If it wasn't the best it wouldn't say much for Leica would it costing three
times more than a lens with the word "Zeiss" on it?

Lets skip if they're geniuses or not and just say for sure they're not total
morons.   

I do own a CV 25/4 Snapshot-Skopar
$245
Ultra compact
Which lives on my Bessa L and is about one fifth the size and weight of my
Leica 24 and goes right into my pocket.

2895 / 245 = 11.8163265306

I guess I could have traded in my 24 for 11 of them! Almost an even dozen!

The negatives I get from this little you guess focus gem are stunning.
And I've never guessed wrong on the focus yet. I'm used to guessing with a
40 so I'm reverse spoiled.
Its seems better to me than what I get from my 24mm Nikkor but its just
psychological. As I've not made 16x20 darkroom or inkjet prints from the CV.
And have it right next to the one I did from the Nikon. Which I've made all
kinds of sizes of prints from over 20 years.
The two prints side by side from the same subject done at the same time same
way on a tripod.
I'm thinking there would be an evident difference even without looking at
the print with a loupe.
Looking at the neg even with the best loupe tells you I don't think all that
much. It tells you if they blinked or not.
Or if you did.

As far as uploading to the internet I'd buy the cheapest thing I could find
when they start making cardboard throw away digital cameras I'd use those.
It would not make one slice of difference what you used a couple hundred
pixies across..

But you could always go thought a phase where you start printing 30x40 in
prints. I did that once. Twice.
Then you are real happy when you used real good stuff and you used a tripod
with a cable release and a fast shudder speed and stopped down a bit and the
whole mashed potatoes with chives.
Because its all right there. Every little picket on the fence at infinity.
Or its not.
Infinity a long walk away.
But no apparently I just read its 100 times the focal length of your lens.
Which if you shot ultra wide you could make it there before the next bus.
I just go for it I need the exercise.
I walked a mile tonight down Central Park West beating the bus. Which then
only had to take me another mile.

5279 / 100
= 52.79

Does this mean if you shot with a 52 ft lens a mile would be infinity?
I'm sure I've got it wrong somehow.
I just don't feel like I walked quite that far tonight (no Milky Way) and I
do know I'll never have a lens anywhere near that long.

1,609 centimeters. Is that 16,090 millimeters? Is the Hubble that long?

That's one darned long lens!

I've got a 300mm!


http://astro.nineplanets.org/bigeyes.html

11.8110237
1,181 inchs away is infinity for a 300mmm lens.

That's only 98.4 feet away. I walk that far before breakfast.

That sounds a bit too close for infinity the way I think of it.
I'm sure I've got this wrong.




 



Mark William Rabiner
Harlem, NY

rabinergroup.com