ZM 21/4.5 versus VC21/4

[loneranger]

Just wondering if the price difference (about $600) is worth getting the more expensive, and slighly slower, lens?

 

[back alley]

depends...

will it be a much used lens or an infrequently used lens?

the zm lens is as good as it gets, the cv lens is very good.

does size matter to you?

lots more questions than answers...

 

[degruyl]

The CV 21/4 is a really nice lens. A bit of falloff, but not in a bad way. It is really small, also.

The zeiss is made to zeiss standards. I would not buy it, but that is because I don't even use my CV 21/4 that much.

 

[Timo]

I have both and think the zeiss handels flare a bit better and it might be a bit sharper in the corners and with an open F. But the CV is still a very good lens, and smaller, i don't think you will be dissapointent with either one of them.

Cheers

 

[awilder]

I've owned both, the 21/4 is a great value but the 21/4.5 is an outstanding optic well worth the money if you have the extra cash. The sharpest lens I've ever tested...period!

 

[Turtle]

If you can afford it and will use it a fair bit, definitely get the ZM. I own a very good, even copy of the CV (first was decentered) and a ZM 2.8 and the ZM is evidently the better optic. Better edge performance at everything up to F11. At f4 and 5.6 the difference on FF (film for me) is quite obvious in the corners/edges. Flare control with the ZM is second to none. In time I may replace my little CV for the 4.5 ZM when I am doing walkabout shooting and also sell the 21 2.8 because I have a 24 lux on the way, but at 500g is is not going to be the available light walkabout the little ZM could be.

 

[sper]

That CV is a sharp little snapper. I used it on a Bessa-L and got wonderfully sharp and full Tri-X negatives. It really sparkles when well handled. Color was contrasty, always a little punchy for my taste. However, 160NC was a good remedy for that. You really can't beat the price, too.

Is the Zeiss better? Sure. Will it make your pictures better? No.

Purchase whatever keeps you shooting.

 

[VinceC]

I have an original 1950s Zeiss 21/4.5 and a CV 21/4. CV is a better carry around lens because of much lower weight. It doesn't handle flare or shooting directly into the sun nearly as well as the vintage Zeiss. But 21 is not my common focal length. 28mm is my daily lens, with the 21mm being an ocassional lens for special situations.

 

[mervynyan]

http://www.drifterphoto.com/p242706047

All taken with ZM21/4.5. It is second frequent used lens after 35/1.4. Sharp, no flare even under direct sun.

 

[sper]

By the way have you looked at some of the flickr examples from the CV 21mm? I don't know how you could ask much more out of a lens. So many beautifully rendered images.

I stumbled on this one while just browsing:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenlibra/4402753427/

 

[Turtle]

Flickr images dont tell you much due to their size and resolution.

On full FF/Film and on decent sized prints the differences in lenses can become quite obvious. The same can be said for when looking at negs with a decent loupe. The 21 CV is pretty decent in the corners when stopped down but the Zeiss is noticeably better. I still use both so clearly it is not a deal breaker, but I do enjoy the sharper corners of the ZM.

The ZM also has noticeably higher contrast which you may see as a good or bad thing.

By the way have you looked at some of the flickr examples from the CV 21mm? I don't know how you could ask much more out of a lens. So many beautifully rendered images.

I stumbled on this one while just browsing:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zenlibra/4402753427/

 

[Palaeoboy]

The Zeiss 21mm f4.5 is certainly the best of the 21mm lenses out there but its not that far ahead to make me switch to the Zeiss as my main 21. The compact size and 39mm filter size make the Voigtlander my 21mm of choice. I disagree with it flaring worse than the older Zeiss version especially into the sun where the Voigtlander is pretty good by ultra wide standards. I originally bought a Voiglander in Nikon S mount and was so impressed I sold off an non ASPH Elmarit and replaced it with an Scew Mount Voigtlander and then to the M Mount version when it came out. True the 39mm filter size was more usable than the E60 Elmarit but it did everything better, flared less, less fall off, less distortion. Its just an all round great 21mm lens.

 

[raid]

What others have already said above; it depends on your usage of the lens and on the willingness to pay much more money to get the Zeiss.


I love the CV 25mm/4.


I go "cheap" by using two vintage SLR lenses with adapters on my RF cameras when it comes to a lens that is wider than 25mm. I use the Canon 19mm/3.5 FL, which is an awesome lens, and also the Rokkor-W 21mm/4.0. When I go "wide", this is what I use. Would I get better images with a Zeiss or Leica 21mm lens? I doubt it.

 

[wilonstott]

I have never used the Zeiss, so I cannot comment on its performance, but I've found the the sharpness and resolution of the CV to outstanding. These two examples were made with BW400cn and Reala 100--both a are scans from Walgreens, and although the scans could be better, I think they both serve as good examples of what the lens is capable of doing. At more than twice the price of the CV, from what I've seen on flickr, I'm not sure it's worth it--but that is simply my meager-salaried opinion.

 

[VinceC]

I haven't done a side-by-side, but took the below picture a couple weeks ago with the CV21/4. I don't recall ever getting flare anything that dramatic in my longtime use of the Zeiss 21/4.5 (1950s version). But as I said, the weight is most important to me now, and the images other than directly into the sun are extremely good.
Anyway, sun around here is rare enough that it's not an issue.

Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof CV 21/4, no filter.

 

[kossi008]

I went ahead and bought the C-Biogon (to replace the Skopar and to go with my 35 mm C-Biogon). I shot them side by side for a weekend, and guess what?

I could not find a difference in sharpness, neither center nor edge, at any f-stop. And I am talking Orthopan, tripod, and some serious 4000 ppi pixel-peeping here...

Sure, the Zeiss has zero distortion, even at close focus. And it surely handles flare better than the Skopar (I couldn't test that, it was rather cloudy here).

But I just could or would not justify the expense (and I did have the extra money), so I sent it back... Now bring on the wrath of the Zeiss adherents... 😀

 

[ampguy]

The CV 21/4 (ltm) is a great value. It's sometimes OK directly at the sun:

but other times gives some color droplets of flare, which at times can be interesting:

I'd start with the CV first, then try others if it doesn't work for you.

 

[Turtle]

The CV 21 can be amazing, but the problem is many samples just aren't. If you get a sample that is outstanding from corner for corner at all apertures then hang onto it. My first sample was a dog and the second is very good indeed, just not as good as my Zeiss. Thats not to say there are no amazing CV 21s out there - evidently there are - only some people go through 3 or 4 and still find soft corners etc. That said my last leica lens wont remotely focus properly, so .....

 

[35mmdelux]

I asked myself the following two questions:

1) How much would I realistically use the 21mm Skopar? Answer: Occasionally.

2) Did I want to carry around a $900 (USD) Zeiss that I didn't use alot? Answer: No.

Thus, I got the 21mm Skopar-M and never looked back.

 

[kossi008]

The CV 21 can be amazing, but the problem is many samples just aren't. If you get a sample that is outstanding from corner for corner at all apertures then hang onto it. My first sample was a dog and the second is very good indeed, just not as good as my Zeiss. Thats not to say there are no amazing CV 21s out there - evidently there are - only some people go through 3 or 4 and still find soft corners etc. That said my last leica lens wont remotely focus properly, so .....

I've thought of that. Maybe I just got lucky with my sample. But
then, why not take advantage of that?