Zeiss 21mm ZM - opinions ?

jonmanjiro said:
How is the flare resistance of both the Zeiss 21mm lenses (2.8 & 4.5)?
Click to expand...

Astonishingly good. I just dont get flare from my 21 2.8 or 35 biogon and i dont even use a hood on the 35. The 28 can flare even with a hood if the lighting is really nasty, but it is still 99% well behaved.

The 21 2.8 will not let you down in any department if you are content to buy a lens with high contrast, a modern signature and that is somewhat long.

Now that I have a good copy of the CV 21P, its the tiny CV that lurks in my camera bag whenever I take it out, but if I know I will be using a 21, there is no question that the 21 2.8 ZM is a stronger performer. On a M8 it might be less obvious, but on FF, the Zeiss is clearly better in the outer field. Not so obvious with TriX, but with slower films its not easy to miss. Not that the CV is awful - I would say it it decent enough - but the ZM is remarkable.
 
Thanks for the info. Sounds like the ZM 21/2.8 is a winner. I would have bought one but instead found a ZM 21/4.5 today for good price so grabbed it. Does the ZM 21/4.5 need a hood?
 
Last edited:
Of all lenses, the ZMs are very good without a hood, but I personally would use such a wide lens without one. I have never suffered flare with the 21 2.8 but then again I have always used the hood. It also offers a degree of physical protection.
 
Here is an example how ZM 21/2.8 handles flare - taken with Hexar RF , cant remember which film :
img007.jpg
 
For those using a 21mm without a hood, are you using a front filter for protection and if so which one are you using and how does it contribute to flare?
 
I use B&W MRC filters exclusively and find them superb. They do not degrade contrast and do not introduce flare in my experience (and thats shooting straight into strong sunlight, or with it at an angle. I am sure that under certain conditions they add another air-glass surface and that can make things worse, but I have not seen it myself. If shooting into artificial lights indoors, I would prob remove them but then again BW coloured filters have no real application.

Can't speak highly enough about the B&W filters. They are not cheap but they are superb. They also clean well and appear to have tough coatings.
 
Ciao Claudio
of course everyone would like one more stop "for free" (well, kind of, although in Italy I saw prices not THAT different from F/4.5 to F/2.8 and the same Zeiss proposes them with 200€ purchased online). Actually, I'd go for the compact (excellent performance and great compactness which I found to prefer over the bulkier lenses), but I've already realized you talked about the 2.8. From your nick, I guess you live in Tuscany... where did you find your samples? Aside ebay it's difficult to spot any store selling such items here!
p.s. just for the files I live near Parma
 
Your suggestion as to the value of the B&W filters mirrors my experience. They sit on all my lenses. Finally broke down and picked up another Ikon kit with the 21mm f/4.5. I've never shot with a lens this wide, but was wanting one on my last hike through a Jurassic Park environment... minus the big animals.

I should add that reading posts on this forum has been very costly. So many wonderful images.
 
Last edited:
When I got the birthday present, a flight with the JU52, I had to buy a 21mm VC for my Bessa R4A. First thinking was for the shots inside the cabin of the plane but at the end the early morning light from the side was so attractive that this came out:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3841510135/in/set-72157621975498333/

So the experiment with this length was ok, but do I need a Zeiss?

Bernd
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom