anyone go G1/G2 just for a 21mm?
I'm curious because I'm contemplating this option. I have a Leica so I can go MF too but this seems like a very good choice.
I figure that I have 4 options:
-G1 (green sticker) / G2 + 21mm f2.8
-ZM 21mm f2.8
-CV 21mm f4.0
-Leica 21mm f3.4 Super Angulon
Pros/cons for each option but I'm leaning on going Contax G or ZM.
I'd prefer a S.A. but the price for the finder and hood adds up (well they all need finders...) and the CV is a bit slow.
1. How is MF with this thing. It's scale focus, I know, but is it usually OK? I'm not sure how important MF is to me, but having the option is important.
2. How is the G's external viewfinder?
I'd probably go with a ZM. The CV lens has a really awesome reputation, but the extra speed could go far in low light situations.
ETA: Maybe get the ZM and the CV finder?
No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.
I have a G1 and a G2 and the 21mm lens. This is an unbeatable combination. The G2 is preferable, but the G1 with green sticker will work just fine in most circumstances. The Contax 21mm f2.8 is one of the best lenses ever made at that focal length - it's super sharp at all apertures, so much so that you can tell the difference between sharply focused and not sharply focused at f2.8 at infinity and near-infinity. That is a "you can pry it from my cold, dead hands" combo.
How is the 21mm external viewfinder for the G?
This past summer I shot with my normal collection of rangefinder gear. Then I had the great idea of using my CL and just using the 18mm and finder on it.
A dedicated camera to just one lens. The other cameras I would use in a normal fashion.
After a while I started to ask myself why am I carrying an entire camera for just the one lens. (Yes I know the CL takes other M-mount lenses but it doesn't have all the framelines and you need a viewfinder anyway. It's a somewhat limited M choice.)
So to answer your question. I think the 21mm with the dedicated camera is a nice option but would use the m-mount lens on my existing Leica body instead. It's less to carry, cost less, and gives you more flexibility.
Why carry a camera and lens when you could just add the lens to your line-up.
The ZM 21mm is the way to go.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The external finder for the G series is excellent. Bright and easy to use, and it lines up nicely so the framelines are fairly accurate. I don't recall if there is any parallax correction in the finder or not, but I can't recall any particular composition errors from it - then again, I've not used it as a macro-esque lens at minimum focus so I can't say for certain.
thank you fro the responses so far.
A G1/G2 + 21mm + viewfinder is probably going to be cheaper than the M equivalent. However, I'm not sure if the difference is really that much to warrant another mount.
If I were attracted to the G because of the camera, then there would be more sense in my decision. My only reason for turning G is for the sake of economy but I think spending a bit more is going to give me more mileage in the long run.
Quick question. Anyone have a size comparson between these two lenses? Or the size of the G1/G2 + 21mm f2.8 + hood compared to an M + 21mm f2.8 + hood. The 21mm G lens look smaller than the ZM lens. This matters to me, but not that much.
I've been a Contax G2 owner since the late 90's with a set of lenses (21/28/45/90). They are ALL amazing, the 45 Planar being the one lens I'd keep if I could only use one lens for the rest of my life. I also have a Leica MP and M2. But I do not own any newer Leica lenses than a 50/2 DR Summicron (but I do have the Zeiss 35/2 Biogon). I like using Leica for more classic, moderate contrast B&W work and my Contax G system for color work and higher contrast, more 3-D look B&W (those with Contax G glass know what I mean). I love it all frankly.
That said I'll recommend you go the G 21 because I'd tell you to one day try the other G lenses and see if you too love them as much as I do. However, if you already own more modern Leica lenses, are happy with them, and feel you'd really not have any interest in the other G lenses (and perhaps even worry about the AF of the G system, which is unfounded but some people complain) then I'd say stick to Leica and just get the ZM 21.
Actually, I own no modern lenses and have no immediate interest in getting any unless older lenses were unreasonably priced. I shoot older lenses because they are cheaper and I believe they were built to a higher standard. I don't shoot color but I told myself that if I wanted to get a modern flavor on things then I'd go Zeiss for value (Contax G or ZM). However, my primary concern isn't the minute differences in sharpness, signatures, and contrast, but the actual focal length and speed.
I have thought about the Contax G from time to time but the viewfinder puts me off (for using a normal lens, atleast) and I do not see that much added value in another mount. Many people seem to like the camera and many people don't.
Last edited by msbarnes; 11-02-2012 at 08:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.