Zeiss ZM 21mm f2.8

Kim · 12-14-2005

Anyone had a chance to shoot with this lens yet? I'm interested in how this lens compares with the Leica 21mm ASPH f2.8 lens.

CameraQuest · 01-04-2006

the feedback that I am getting from users is that the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 28/2.8, and 50/2 are BETTER than their Leica counterparts. The 35/2 ZM is not quite up to the 35/2 ASPH, but about the equal of the last version 35/2 non ASPH - - not bad praise at all considering the price difference. While the ZM lenses are a best buy compared to Leica prices, the Voigtlander lenses are not that far behind for a lot less money. It all it makes it a very tough market for Leica. Yet may loyal Leica nuts just refuse to buy anything else -- regardless of price.

Stephen

jaap · 01-05-2006

I know for about 10 years that i own the best 21mm. That is the 21 biogon for contax G. The latest 21mm from leica comes however in the range. The pre asph. 21 from leica was in imho a monster.

waterlenz · 01-05-2006

I would like to see some comparison shots done straight into the sun on a clear day. The 38 Biogon even T* has a tendency to flare; the standard coated ones rather badly. This may be intrinsic to the Biogon design. Leica's strange (e.g., concave forward elements) designs may have been done that way to avoid flare - this is what I gather from Puts's not too clear English.
Tom

Nick R. · 01-05-2006

I've been shooting with the 28mm M mount Biogon for about two months without a hood and haven't noticed any flaring. However, I just received a new hood for it from Popflash. I'll see if I get a slight increase in contrast which would indicate flaring, albeit very minimal.

jaap · 01-05-2006

My 21mm biogon also tends (like all other lenses) to flare when taken in straight sun light at full apeture. Especially when somewhat overexposed. But stopped down flair is minimal.

Huck Finn · 01-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterlenz

I would like to see some comparison shots done straight into the sun on a clear day. The 38 Biogon even T* has a tendency to flare; the standard coated ones rather badly. This may be intrinsic to the Biogon design. Leica's strange (e.g., concave forward elements) designs may have been done that way to avoid flare - this is what I gather from Puts's not too clear English.
Tom

What 38 Biogon did Zeiss make?

I may have missed it when I've read Erwin, so I'd be interested in your reference to his comments about concave elements designed to avoid flare. He didn't make much of an issue of flare in his review of the ZM lenses.

Just curious . . .

Huck

sdai · 01-05-2006

I guess its a typo and Tom must be referring to the 28 Biogon ... back on topic, I'm also very interested in the 21 Biogon ZM because it converts into a nice 28 mounted on the forthcomin' Leica M digital, I wonder if someone who has it could post some samples please ... many thanks!

waterlenz · 01-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huck Finn

What 38 Biogon did Zeiss make?

I may have missed it when I've read Erwin, so I'd be interested in your reference to his comments about concave elements designed to avoid flare. He didn't make much of an issue of flare in his review of the ZM lenses.

Just curious . . .

Huck

Hasselblad SWC and variants (i.e., 1954 to the present, but may have just ended production based on recent www rumors of the end of hassy V's). I recall the concave bit from discussion several years ago - not sure if it was his website which is now quite different or one of his notes to LUG which he used to participate in.
Tom

Huck Finn · 01-05-2006

Thanks, Tom.

Huck

Planar1.4 · 01-06-2006

I have a G1 and was hoping to get a ZI when available in Black- mostly due to the sound of the G1 AF ruining too many shots- anyway-
I have not purchased the 21 Bio for the G1 yet, though hear it is great- one of the best reviewed lenses I have seen-
My question is which one should I get- the 21 ZM or the 21 G- the prices are very similar, and I imagine I would be using the 50/2 on the ZI most.....

jaap · 01-07-2006

For pure optical performance i think you better buy the contax G 21mm. The ZM 21 is more a compromise for futere digital applications. The film plane lens distance for the 21mm G serie is just a few inches. That's imposoble with the 21 ZM. On the other side if you want to manual focus in the normal way choose the ZM 21. The prices of the two are very different.
You can buy a new 21mm G in hong kong for about $700,- The ZM should do a lot more. Plus the need to buy a seperate finder and shade. In Europe the fiewfinder alone for the ZM costs about 300 euro.

Planar1.4 · 01-07-2006

So do you believe that the optical performance on the G line in general will be better than the Zeiss Ikon? At the 21 range, manual focus is less critical for me.
The 45 and 90 require that more for me it seems.
Maybe just a ZI with a 50/2 as a stealth camera, or a used M6 with 50 ZM.

Has anyone compared the 21 Biogon ZM to the 21 biogon G in use?

jaap · 01-07-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planar1.4

So do you believe that the optical performance on the G line in general will be better than the Zeiss Ikon? At the 21 range, manual focus is less critical for me.
The 45 and 90 require that more for me it seems.
Maybe just a ZI with a 50/2 as a stealth camera, or a used M6 with 50 ZM.

Has anyone compared the 21 Biogon ZM to the 21 biogon G in use?

I have to say that I didn't use the ZM 21 biogon. But one thing is sure distortion of the ZM 21 bio is much higher than that of the G serie 21 Bio. I own a G serie 21mm and the lens has practically no abberations except for the light fall of (actually no abberation). The G 21 leaves nothing to desire at f 4.0 !

Gabriel M.A. · 01-07-2006

I would have to say that, if what I've read in this thread so far is true, I think the best thing to do is, instead of buying an M-mount ZI 21mm lens, is to get the Contax G + G-mount 21mm ZI lens combo, if one is budget-conscious. I dunno. I'm saying that along the lines of people like Al Kaplan, that have a dedicated body for a wide-angle lens.

Does anybody that have knowledge of street prices for both the M-mount ZI 21mm and a G2 (or G1) + G-mount 21mm ZI would think this makes sense?

SDK · 01-21-2006

Well I just got out of the darkroom from printing a couple 6x9" prints of shots taken with the ZM Biogon 21mm/2.8 and have to say I'm very impressed. The images are quite crisp considering they ere handheld in relatively poor light (cloudy day on Boston Commons and in the reading room of the Boston Public Libary). I used my M7 .58 with the Leica 21-24-28mm Finder. The image quality is very similar to the superb 25mm Biogon. Very nice out of focus quality on the indoor shot, with minimal flare and distortion seems negligible. Color rendition is very nice on Kodak 400UC, with smooth tonality. It definitely beats the pants off the AF Nikkor 20mm/2.8 (suffers from high distortion and poor corner sharpness) and the old Leica Super-Angulon 21mm/3.4 (lower distortion but high vignetting and not really sharp by my standards). I would heartily recommend this lens. I apologize for only giving a verbal description, but I have no scanner at home and it's late and I must clean up and go to bed.

jaap · 01-22-2006

enjoy your biogon ! I enjoy mine for years

Trius · 01-22-2006

FWIW, Erwin Puts has published a brief review and opinion of the ZM 21/2.8

CJP6008 · 01-25-2006

Erwin give the 21mm ZM top marks in his review - beats the Leica in his opinion (and presumably therefore pretty much all 21mm lenes ever.)

StuartR · 02-02-2006

I have been using this lens, but rather casually, for the past month or so. It seems absolutely superb to me. The finder is perhaps the best part. It is extraordinarily bright and easy to use with very little distortion. It gives a much better idea of what an actual picture will look like than either the voigtlander (very distorted) or the Leica 21-24-28 finder. I have seen results from the 21mm G lens and they are superb, but I must say that autofocus in a 21mm lens would seem an interference to me in most situations. If I had that lens I would just use it set to 2.5 meters for general use. That is one area where the G series is at a disadvantage -- there are no depth of field scales to allow you to zone focus, which is a major component in using rangefinder wide angles.

Mazurka · 02-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartR

If I had that lens I would just use it set to 2.5 meters for general use. That is one area where the G series is at a disadvantage -- there are no depth of field scales to allow you to zone focus, which is a major component in using rangefinder wide angles.

You can set it at 2.5m with the distance indicator in the viewfinder. You can also use the DOF table from Leica: http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...jektive/49.pdf

StuartR · 02-03-2006

I know that I can set it at 2.5 meters...that is why I said I would set it at 2.5 meters. My complaint is that it does not have depth of field scales. Sure, I know I can find them online, but I don't want to memorize the depth of field scales for every lens I might find myself using hyperfocally. Currently I use hyper focal focus with 35mm, 25mm, 21mm and 15mm lenses, and to memorize all those tables would be a nightmare. Thankfully, they are written right there on the lens. For the G, while I can set the distance using the manual focusing, I don't have any way of knowing whether that is enough depth of field for the given f/stop without memorizing a table. Not a fatal flaw, but an annoyance. Don't get me wrong, the G system is great, but that is one of the areas where it doesn't impress me.

Mazurka · 02-03-2006

Yes, DOF scales are more convenient. Still, those on my Zeiss C/Y lenses are overly optimistic and shooting apertures should be one stop smaller than indicated. Also keep in mind that AF lenses generally have very short focus throws, so any DOF scale would be highly abbreviated compared with manual focus models.

DOF tables are a little more hassle, but they too can be printed on small cards as a portable reference.