R&F review of ZM 18/4

[noimmunity]

Roger Hicks and his wife Frances have a thoughtful review, well-written and well-illustrated, of the ZM Distagon 18/4.

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...8%20zeiss.html

R&F have developed a review style that emphasizes helping the reader understand a lens and make a personal decision, rather than claiming to offer a definitive assessment. Bravo!

*The only thing missing from this commendably reader-oriented review would be a discussion of how the lens works on dRF bodies, particularly the M8, where it apparently has no peers: a 24mm equivalent FOV that is still RF coupled. I guess this makes their reviews the opposite of (most of) those by Sean Reid, hahaha! Also not mentioned, another viable option for a VF is the now-discontinued Cosina 12D.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

Roger Hicks and his wife Frances have a thoughtful review, well-written and well-illustrated, of the ZM Distagon 18/4.

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...8%20zeiss.html

R&F have developed a review style that emphasizes helping the reader understand a lens and make a personal decision, rather than claiming to offer a definitive assessment. Bravo!

*The only thing missing from this commendably reader-oriented review would be a discussion of how the lens works on dRF bodies, particularly the M8, where it apparently has no peers: a 24mm equivalent FOV that is still RF coupled. I guess this makes their reviews the opposite of (most of) those by Sean Reid, hahaha! Also not mentioned, another viable option for a VF is the now-discontinued Cosina 12D.

Dear Jon,

Thanks for the plug and the kind words! I only noticed this after I'd announced the reviews a few minutes earlier (along with the Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar). Previously, I hadn't mentioned that they were up (a couple of days ago) because there were problems with the links inside the site, but the web-master has now fixed these.

I have used it on the M8, reasonably extensively, and it works very well; I'll see if I can add a few M8/ZM 18 pics to the review, but Karl (the web-master) is currently working on a new, illustrated, non-photographic site -- travel, in fact -- which we hope to have up before the end of August.

The reason there's not more M8/18 in the review is because Frances rarely shoots digi, so that's out; I'm not a great lover of the 24mm (on film) focal length; and Frances has been 'hogging' the lens because she likes it so much. No hope for the Epson, though: I don't need one, they're surprisingly expensive, and of course they're out of production.

Cheers,

R.

[Avotius]

A question to Mr. Hicks, you know your website is blocked in China?

ps. sorry for the off topic, I would like to have a look at the site, pity about the times though...

[alan davus]

An excellent review Roger of this lens. Just one thing about the lens hood. In the tech. specie. brochure that Zeiss put out on the distagon, under scope of delivery is "lens shade included". When I got mine a few months back the hood came packed in the box. I thought this was one of it's little extra selling points. Is it being marketed as a separate item in Europe?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by alan davus

An excellent review Roger of this lens. Just one thing about the lens hood. In the tech. specie. brochure that Zeiss put out on the distagon, under scope of delivery is "lens shade included". When I got mine a few months back the hood came packed in the box. I thought this was one of it's little extra selling points. Is it being marketed as a separate item in Europe?

Dear Alan,

Ah! I may be maligning Zeiss. I'll have to check. (Obviously as it was supplied for review there was no bill, but the equipment list gave both separately). Thanks for this information.

Oh: and thanks for the kind words.

Cheers,

Roger

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Avotius

A question to Mr. Hicks, you know your website is blocked in China?

ps. sorry for the off topic, I would like to have a look at the site, pity about the times though...

Yes... I've done quite a lot of work for the Tibetan Government in Exile (not for a few years) and when I visited China some 3 years ago I was horrified at the degree of misinformation that the Chinese are fed about Tibet, e.g. that Tibetan is a dialect of Chinese -- which it might be, if you accept that English is a dialect of French, or that French is a dialect of Latin.

Around 40% of the land area of the Chinese Empire is Han Chinese. The remaining 60% includes Tibet, Uighurstan (Turkestan), parts of Mongolia and the whole of Manchuria. Around 90% of the population is however Han.

Cheers,

R.

[Avotius]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Yes... I've done quite a lot of work for the Tibetan Government in Exile (not for a few years) and when I visited China some 3 years ago I was horrified at the degree of misinformation that the Chinese are fed about Tibet, e.g. that Tibetan is a dialect of Chinese -- which it might be, if you accept that English is a dialect of French, or that French is a dialect of Latin.

Around 40% of the land area of the Chinese Empire is Han Chinese. The remaining 60% includes Tibet, Uighurstan (Turkestan), parts of Mongolia and the whole of Manchuria. Around 90% of the population is however Han.

Cheers,

R.

Ah that explains it, and for sure because of this little blurb RFF will show up on the black list here. In the mean time, yes I do know a lot of the story the three (China, Tibet, everyone else) sides tell, its a rather big mess and explains why your site is blocked here.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Avotius

Ah that explains it, and for sure because of this little blurb RFF will show up on the black list here. In the mean time, yes I do know a lot of the story the three (China, Tibet, everyone else) sides tell, its a rather big mess and explains why your site is blocked here.

I'd not be sure they'd block RFF; I've made similar observations before on RFF without problems. And if they do block it -- well, that tells you a certain amount too. If they do, try to send me your e-mail address beforehand.

Sure, it's a hell of a mess. But better to try rational argument than to pretend that 'Tibet has always been part of China'. Tibet has been under Chinese suzerainty; China has been under Tibetan suzerainty; both have been under Mongol and Manchu suzerainty...

Edit: Oh: and they did give me a visa, despite knowing full well who I was (they were one of the best customers for a propaganda book I did years ago, called 'Hidden Tibet'). There's hope yet.

Cheers,

R.

[Avotius]

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand....

[principe azul]

Thanks, Roger. Makes me want to go back to France again, and interesting observations about focal length choices as well.

Me, I went for lenses twice the area apart (rather than four times), having seen the difference between 35mm and 50mm in extensive use of each. So I added a 25mm to a 35. The sequence meant I should have got the 18mm and the 12mm, but I couldn't see the point of carrying (rather than having) both, and I got the 15mm as a pocketable compromise. 15, 25, 35.

Still, I sometimes wonder about selling the 15mm and going back to the original scheme of 18mm and 12mm, or just getting the 21mm C Biogon now I have an R4a...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by principe azul

Thanks, Roger. Makes me want to go back to France again, and interesting observations about focal length choices as well.

Me, I went for lenses twice the area apart (rather than four times), having seen the difference between 35mm and 50mm in extensive use of each. So I added a 25mm to a 35. The sequence meant I should have got the 18mm and the 12mm, but I couldn't see the point of carrying (rather than having) both, and I got the 15mm as a pocketable compromise. 15, 25, 35.

Still, I sometimes wonder about selling the 15mm and going back to the original scheme of 18mm and 12mm, or just getting the 21mm C Biogon now I have an R4a...

Well, yes. Sorry to say it, but that's the sort of uncertainty I was trying to create, instead of saying, "This is the best thing since sliced bread [a dubious comparison] so go out and buy one immediately!"

My own view is that the 15/25 combo does what you need. Frances disagrees... For my money, there's too much hard sell in many reviews. Even the manufacturers say, "We'd rather you bought someone else's lens, and like it, than that you buy one of ours, and bitch about it."

(Best of all, of course, they want you to buy one of theirs, and love it).

Cheers,

R.

[jbf]

Colin, there are some programs available that'll let you bypass all that firewall garbage. I know some journalists (for olympic games) are doing things similar.

[principe azul]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Well, yes. Sorry to say it, but that's the sort of uncertainty I was trying to create

Thanks - that did make me laugh! True, too...

Sometimes the 25mm could do with being 4mm wider, but it feels more natural (and more useful) to go out with just a 25mm than it did when I went out with just a 21mm. But going wider - or faster - always has an allure. And the thought of going wider and faster had me reading for several weeks about the Olympus 21/2 and Eugene Richards...

For general shooting, I can usually make a 25mm or 35mm do what I want, whichever's on the camera, so even if I go out with both, I don't change them round that often. When I do, it's usually for a more technical reason - using the ZM 2,8/25 for its resolving power and the 35/1.2 Nokton for low light or selective focus.

I have a feeling that getting the ZM 4,5/21 wouldn't in practice split the usage with the 25mm but just take up some of what I do with the 15mm. And I couldn't justify having half the cost of those four lenses tied up in 10% of my shots.

Now you've made me think about it, I actually feel good about having two main lenses that I distinguish mainly on what they can do rather than on their angle of view. If I had the Zeiss 21, 25, 28 and 35 I'd be paralysed with indecision before every shot! As it is, my indecision is just which to take along of the three M-mount cameras I've ended up with...

Ian

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by principe azul

Now you've made me think about it, I actually feel good about having two main lenses that I distinguish mainly on what they can do rather than on their angle of view. If I had the Zeiss 21, 25, 28 and 35 I'd be paralysed with indecision before every shot!

Ian

Dear Ian,

Exactly!

But be prepared for (expensive) GAS attacks after photokina!

Cheers,

R.

[sebastel]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

But be prepared for (expensive) GAS attacks after photokina!

dear roger,

please forgive my curiosity. since i assume that you may not or cannot talk about details, i'd still like to ask - do you _know_ or do you _guess_?

:-)

cheers,
sebastian


ps: oh, and by the way, i believe the aperture 5.6 DoF mark is the IR scale.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by sebastel

dear roger,

please forgive my curiosity. since i assume that you may not or cannot talk about details, i'd still like to ask - do you _know_ or do you _guess_?

:-)

cheers,
sebastian


ps: oh, and by the way, i believe the aperture 5.6 DoF mark is the IR scale.

Dear Sebastian,

Let's just say it's a very well informed guess, based on heavy hints from manufacturers. If I'm wrong, I shall be very surprised indeed.

As for IR, quite possibly, but it ain't marked as such on the lens, nor (as far as I recall) is it in the instruction book, which I seem to have mislaid. I am open to correction by anone who can find the instruction book.

Cheers,

R.

[alan davus]

Yes Roger, you've been dropping hints with all an all most Cheshire cat smirk on your face for a while now that Photokina is going to hold some pleasant surprises for us here on RFF. Without knowing all we can summise is that rangefinder photography will still be alive and well despite all the doomsayers after Photokina.

[sebastel]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

As for IR, quite possibly, but it ain't marked as such on the lens,

dear roger,

thanks for the qualification of your remarks.

concerning for the IR scale: i asked from looking at the product photos, and it looks to me as if the 5.6 DoF mark is laid out in red - in contrast to all the others which are white. that's where my impression is based. neither lens nor instruction book available for me.

cheers,
sebastian

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by sebastel

dear roger,

thanks for the qualification of your remarks.

concerning for the IR scale: i asked from looking at the product photos, and it looks to me as if the 5.6 DoF mark is laid out in red - in contrast to all the others which are white. that's where my impression is based. neither lens nor instruction book available for me.

cheers,
sebastian

Dear Sebastian,

My God, you're right! I just looked VERY CLOSELY at the line and it is, in fact, red-filled. All I can say in my defence is that this is far less clear on chrome (which is what I have) than on black. Otherwise, Department of Egg On Face.

Cheers,

R.

[sebastel]

hello roger,

no need to defend yourself. also from the product pictures i could not be finally certain, that's why i insisted on asking you. what we can tell now is that the DoF scale lines are very fine indeed.

;-)

cheers, and have a nice sunday evening.
sebastian

[Avotius]

Originally Posted by jbf

Colin, there are some programs available that'll let you bypass all that firewall garbage. I know some journalists (for olympic games) are doing things similar.

thanks, I know I am just lazy to go use it right now

[kram]

Thanks for the review Roger. Strange there is no nub on the focusing ring. I take it is wide enouugh to provide a good grip, so did not need one. Would have been good for consistancy though.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by kram

Thanks for the review Roger. Strange there is no nub on the focusing ring. I take it is wide enouugh to provide a good grip, so did not need one. Would have been good for consistancy though.

You're welcome. Yes, the focusing ring plenty wide enough -- but I find a 'nub' useful for orientation-by-touch as I'm lifting the camera to my eye...

Cheers,

R.

[kram]

[QUOTEbut I find a 'nub' useful for orientation-by-touch ][/quote] Yep, I prefer it to the 'tab' on VC lense et al.