ZM vs Zx?

[mervynyan]

I am seeking some opinions on ZM vs any SLR Z mount. I want to get a wider angel <25mm but hate to use viewfinder. Maybe it is a good idea to collect Zeiss in SLR mount if they are same built and IQ as ZM? ANy thoughts?

Cheers,

 

[mfogiel]

I have many ZM and ZF lenses, and in wide angle, the Distagon 25 and Biogon 25 for comparison. The Biogon is a clear winner in sharpness, especially in the corners due to a less retrofocus design. It would be interesting to compare the 21 and 18mm, but I doubt the much acclaimed new Distagon 21 can be better than the 21/4.5 Biogon. On top of that, the distortion for the RF lenses is much smaller, and they are much lighter. The only valid reason I see for getting a wide angle Zeiss SLR lens, is that you want to shoot it on a full frame digital. Actually, there could be another one - a particular capacity of these lenses to focus close - the edges get soft but the images get interesting, here's an example with the Distagon 25 ZF:

 

[casualuser]

Biogon vs Distagon

Biogon vs Distagon

Do you feel the same way about the 35 and 28 mm ZM and ZF lens?

 

[Oliver H]

Hi, I also have the 25mm Distragon and use it on a Nikon FM2/T. The macro abilities are really good: http://www.photographias.org/Beings/slides/dark_star_2.html Regards, Oliver

 

[Dan States]

Do you feel the same way about the 35 and 28 mm ZM and ZF lens?

I have both the Biogon and Distagon 28's and while they are both outstanding they are also very different.

The Biogon is distortion free but has much more vignetting than the Distagon. At comparable apertures I would give the edge to the Distagon in total image quality. Of course it's jumbo compared to the tiny M mount lens.

Most notable to me is the difference in field curvature. Each has a curved field, but in opposite directions. The corners of the Biogon field are sharper CLOSER to you while the corners on the Distagon bend away.

The advantage of SLR viewing is that you can clearly see the effects on your image before shooting.

In the end both lenses are amazingly good. I think the Distagon is the first lens to compete with my Summicron 28 at full aperture. Compared to that lens it has a bit of softness at the corners but is far superior in flare control and vignetting. Resolution is amazing on either of the Zeiss lenses.

Best wishes
Dan

 

[casualuser]

Thanks Dan. How do feel about the color rendition between the Biogon and the Distagon? I have been assuming that Zeiss uses the same coatings on both. I have been trying to decide if I want to add a ZM Biogon 35 F2 to my R2M or go the ZF 35 Distagon to my Nikon FM3A. The size difference is fairly compelling for the ZM.

 

[Dan States]

Well I've never compared them directly on slide film but having owned Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad, Contax G, Contax SLR and now Nikon and Leica mount I have to say they have always been pretty consistent. More so than my Leica or Nikon lenses. Typical Zeiss rich saturated colors and total flare control.

Have not tried the ZF 35 but I owned the 35 Biogon F2 and it was outstanding. I've just finished printing a black and white shot from the ZF 28 made at F2.4 and it is astoundingly sharp and clear. Only a touch of field curvature at the farthest corners of the frame would indicate the aperture used.

I'll also say that the construction quality of the ZF lenses seems a bit better than the ZM's. I've had loose focus mounts or issues with focus action on all my ZM's, but this ZF is total butter even with the floating element construction. A far leap ahead of my Leica 28 Elmarit R which always changed resistance as you went from near to far, even after Leica had their way with it. The lens hoods on the ZF's are on another plane of quality compared to the crappy Leica plastic hoods also.