aoresteen
Well-known
Tom & Roger,
I justified the 21mm VC & IIIf as a substitute for a SWC. I still want one but the cost is still more than what I want to pay. Last summer I bought a mint Mamiya M645 35mm N lens & 1000S body for $630. It is very good but why do I still want the 38mm Biogon? :bang: Now I have a bunch of Mamiya 645 stuff!
Maybe I should just get a 35/5.6 Apo-Grandagon for my Cambo 6x9 view and forget about the SWC. Roger, sounds like you like the 35mm lens!
I justified the 21mm VC & IIIf as a substitute for a SWC. I still want one but the cost is still more than what I want to pay. Last summer I bought a mint Mamiya M645 35mm N lens & 1000S body for $630. It is very good but why do I still want the 38mm Biogon? :bang: Now I have a bunch of Mamiya 645 stuff!
Maybe I should just get a 35/5.6 Apo-Grandagon for my Cambo 6x9 view and forget about the SWC. Roger, sounds like you like the 35mm lens!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Tony, you will still want to have a SWC! Resistance is futile. For many years I used the SWC commercially and as i could write them off - I had a couple of them. One for work and a back-up (just in case!). My personal one was outfitted with a quick focus lever, pistol grip modified to use the trigger and the crank advance. With 400 asa film it was (and is) one of the great street shooting set-ups.
Oh well, the fact that I would have to pick up another Focomat IIc has so far proven succesful in avoiding this, but resistance is weakening!
Also, Roger's set up with the ALPA is a very tempting one. I have seen and played with the ALPA and it is stunning.
The 35 Grandagon is pretty unique too. It will cover 4x5! No movement and substantial fall off, but it is actually wider than the 12 Ultra Wide VC!
Some years ago I was tempted to make a 120 camera. either 6x9 or 6x12 with the 35 Grandagon. It went as far so that I had the basic drawings made for it and it would have a coupled rangefinder, using fiber optics instead of prisms/mirrors. A severly damaged back stopped me from pursuing this project (it would have been a heavy camera) and some of the new glass from VC and Zeiss made 35mm film competitive with 120 (as well as the lack of enlarger for 6x12!).
Oh well, the fact that I would have to pick up another Focomat IIc has so far proven succesful in avoiding this, but resistance is weakening!
Also, Roger's set up with the ALPA is a very tempting one. I have seen and played with the ALPA and it is stunning.
The 35 Grandagon is pretty unique too. It will cover 4x5! No movement and substantial fall off, but it is actually wider than the 12 Ultra Wide VC!
Some years ago I was tempted to make a 120 camera. either 6x9 or 6x12 with the 35 Grandagon. It went as far so that I had the basic drawings made for it and it would have a coupled rangefinder, using fiber optics instead of prisms/mirrors. A severly damaged back stopped me from pursuing this project (it would have been a heavy camera) and some of the new glass from VC and Zeiss made 35mm film competitive with 120 (as well as the lack of enlarger for 6x12!).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tom and Tony,
Zeiss found that the Biogon on the Alpa delivered significantly better resolution than on the SWC or SWC/M or whatever it is called now because the Alpa is easier to hold steady and the release is smoother.
I keep wondering about a new mask for the Alpa: instead of 44x66mm (1:1.5), having it made in the A-series shape (1:1.414) with the same 80mm diagonal (I'd need a new finder mask too). I use a 12WA with the Biogon while Frances uses a 12S/WA with the Grandagon: the S/WA has shift, hence the name, while the WA doesn't, but there's no room on the Biogon anyway.
They are extremely idiosyncratic cameras with absolutely no idiot-proofing but I do not believe that any camera on earth is better made or capable of delivering better results.
As for the WATE, it has the advantage that at 16 on the M8 it is effectively identical to 21 on the MP. If I didn't have both cameras I'm not sure I'd be s keen but as Frances loves it and uses only film, that's a powerful shove in the direction of buying one.
Cheers,
Roger
Zeiss found that the Biogon on the Alpa delivered significantly better resolution than on the SWC or SWC/M or whatever it is called now because the Alpa is easier to hold steady and the release is smoother.
I keep wondering about a new mask for the Alpa: instead of 44x66mm (1:1.5), having it made in the A-series shape (1:1.414) with the same 80mm diagonal (I'd need a new finder mask too). I use a 12WA with the Biogon while Frances uses a 12S/WA with the Grandagon: the S/WA has shift, hence the name, while the WA doesn't, but there's no room on the Biogon anyway.
They are extremely idiosyncratic cameras with absolutely no idiot-proofing but I do not believe that any camera on earth is better made or capable of delivering better results.
As for the WATE, it has the advantage that at 16 on the M8 it is effectively identical to 21 on the MP. If I didn't have both cameras I'm not sure I'd be s keen but as Frances loves it and uses only film, that's a powerful shove in the direction of buying one.
Cheers,
Roger
larmarv916
Well-known
A question to "Tom A".....I was interested to know. As you chose the 21mm 4.5 for ( I guessing) based on the lower distortion chart. I wondered if you had any suggestions or feed back on the Zeiss 18mm that has also just hit the streets.
As the 18mm and the 21mm F2.8 seem to have almost exact distortion percentages in the zeiss charts found at the Zeiss website. As this is a big issue for me anyway. Iam having a hard time trying to decide between the 21mm and the 18 mm lenses. What is your take on this ??? Thanks...Laurance
As the 18mm and the 21mm F2.8 seem to have almost exact distortion percentages in the zeiss charts found at the Zeiss website. As this is a big issue for me anyway. Iam having a hard time trying to decide between the 21mm and the 18 mm lenses. What is your take on this ??? Thanks...Laurance
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
There is more than 3mm setting them apart. The 18 is really wide and looks it and I regard it as a speciality lens. Performance is very good, very little distorsion and virtually no vignetting! It is a big lens compared to the 21/4,5 ZM and I tend to take it out when I know I need extreme angles rather than a "walkabout" 21. The Distagon formula is marginally less rectilinear than the Biogon (which still is the bechmark for them all).
The 18 is interesting as it couples to the rangefinder and thus, under some circumstances makes it more useful than the 15/4,5 VC.
If you are going for an all around wide, I would suggest a 21/4,5 ZM, but if you do a lot of buildings in tight spaces or interiors, go for the 18mm.
The 18 is interesting as it couples to the rangefinder and thus, under some circumstances makes it more useful than the 15/4,5 VC.
If you are going for an all around wide, I would suggest a 21/4,5 ZM, but if you do a lot of buildings in tight spaces or interiors, go for the 18mm.
larmarv916
Well-known
Thankyou Tom....your advice is much apperciated. I have a Zeiss 25mm and it is a real gem. But as always there are times when I get trapped in really tight situations. Yet I do not want a "look" is artifically....gives a "overwide" feel. Also Iam putting my Zeiss lenses, a 35, 25 and 50mm / F1.5 on my M-Leica bodies and they perform as great no matter what model M. I will give this issue serious consideration and If I go 18mm I will post some test photos. what I would really love is if these Zeiss lenses would also come in a Nikon RF mount...Wow would that be fun.
Thanks Again......Laurance
Thanks Again......Laurance
awilder
Alan Wilder
I just picked up the ZM C Biogon 21/4.5 and ZM 21 finder from Tony Rose and ran some test shots on Velvia 100. I'll post them in a few days. First impressions are quite nice. The finder is awesome with an image that's huge, bright and free of geometric distortion. The only downside (besides price) is that with glasses I have to shift my eye slightly to the left or right to see the frame lines.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Laurance, if you already have the 25 Biogon I would recommend the 18 as wider version. The step between the 21-25 is not as great as one thinks. In most cases it is another step backward! The 18 will complement the 25 very well.
This is the kit that I use for wide stuff when I feel that the 21 might be too "narrow" - but this is also a kit that I take out when I know I have to shoot that type of things. For normal day to day wanderings, the 21/35 combo works well.
Wide angles are more specialized lenses anyway and you really have to think what they are going to be used for.
This is the kit that I use for wide stuff when I feel that the 21 might be too "narrow" - but this is also a kit that I take out when I know I have to shoot that type of things. For normal day to day wanderings, the 21/35 combo works well.
Wide angles are more specialized lenses anyway and you really have to think what they are going to be used for.
ERV
Well-known
awilder
Alan Wilder
I just got my slides back and they are incredible! These are without question the best images I've ever seen in a 21 (or any other lens for that matter) and I've owned a 21/3.4 SA, 21/2.8 Elmarit-M, 21/4 CV. It's got that SA "magic" to the image quality but rather than having a central sweet spot like the SA going only to mid-field, the ZM extends the the super sharp imaging almost all the way to the very edge. Central resolution exceeds 112 lp/mm and corners are better than 56 lp/mm at f/4.5 on Fuji Super HQ 100. Light falloff at f/4.5 isn't bad at all and I'd have no qualms in shooting wide open all the time. I'll post a sample image and crops later today.
Last edited:
Captain
Well-known
AWilder, How would you rank these lenses in preference? I haven't tried a SA but did dabble with a pre-asph elmarit but found the CV better than this lens but a bit slower (but far more usable size), I have considered getting the new Zeiss, the main hesitance has been I would loose an all 39mm filter thread set of lenses in my kit, but if its as good as you say maybe worth giving up that convenience?
awilder
Alan Wilder
I'll limit my comments to the CV 21/4 as you've already tried the 21/2.8 and prefer the CV. The ZI has two advantages, optical performance I'd rate a solid 10 compared to the CV which I'd rate a 9. The ZI has a little more punch to the image, better flare suppression and a little less distortion. Both focus normally with the rf but they scale focus down to 0.5 m. The CV of course is less expensive, a 1/3 stop faster, just a little smaller and takes 39 mm filters. Interestingly, the optical design of the two lenses is very similar in the layout and grouping but the ZM's front three elements are much larger than the CV Skopar despite being a tad slower. For the money I'd say the CV is a best buy and the ZI the best 21 performer. You can't go wrong with either one.
Last edited:
awilder
Alan Wilder
ZM 21/4.5 C Biogon sample image
ZM 21/4.5 C Biogon sample image
As promised, here is a sample image and it's crops taken on Velvia 100 film. Shot wide open on a Hexar RF. Focus was on the brick wall in the foreground.
ZM 21/4.5 C Biogon sample image
As promised, here is a sample image and it's crops taken on Velvia 100 film. Shot wide open on a Hexar RF. Focus was on the brick wall in the foreground.
Attachments
Last edited:
rivercrew
Member
21mm f4.5 Zeiss ZM image sample
21mm f4.5 Zeiss ZM image sample
I purchased this lens a month ago and it delivers. Images are sharp, lens is light and compact, find I use it as much as my 28mm Zeiss.
I use a B+W 486 UV/IR filter and process using a profile I created in Cornerfix, works great.
21mm f4.5 Zeiss ZM image sample
I purchased this lens a month ago and it delivers. Images are sharp, lens is light and compact, find I use it as much as my 28mm Zeiss.
I use a B+W 486 UV/IR filter and process using a profile I created in Cornerfix, works great.
Attachments
Captain
Well-known
Thats ok I would like to hear your perspective on the others as well. As individuals we only get to generally try only one sample which could influence you if its a bad example. I tried an ASPH Elmarit once too but I just didn't think it was very good at 2.8 at all and the jump in performance to f4 was incredibly great suggesting something was wrong with the lens at 2.8 in that particular lens.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I've never owned the 21/2.8 ASPH., but I've owned a 24/2.8 ASPH (which reportedly betters the 21/2.8 by a small margin) and have observed it to be quite good wide open but at f/4 performance is phenominal. Therefore, I don't think you had a bad lens, it's just normal performance. I've also read reviews by other users that say wide open, the regular 21/2.8 Elmarit is about as good or possibly better than the ASPH version in the central zone but the ASPH. version performs better at the periphery. When I owned the 21 Elmarit, I had no complaints as it was quite competant but never ran detailed tests comparisons. Prior to that I owned the 21/3.4 SA and realy loved it's unique rendition of distortion free sharpness but as a slide shooter, the best image sharpness and color saturaion occurs with slight underexposure. Unfortunately, this tends to worsen the already high degree of light falloff in it's optical design and one had to stop down to about f/5.6 or f/6.8 to really reduce some of the high light falloff. That and the lack of TTL metering makes it my last choice based on my type of shooting.
Last edited: