Zeiss ZM 21mm f4.5 or f2.8

Bokeh and close up with ZM 21/2.8 - Possible!

Bokeh and close up with ZM 21/2.8 - Possible!

peter_n said:
Having used a Kobalux 21/2.8 for a couple of years I would go for the smaller f4.5. I bought the f2.8 because I thought you would see DOF effects wide open but I was wrong. It doesn't work that well.
Click to expand...

I used to have a Kobalux. Actually - 2 of them - a silver/chrome and a latest black one. Both were very good. I also had a CV 21mm - great lens but a bit slow. I have a ZM 21/2.8 now and its the best 21 I have ever used. I believe the only one that is better is Leica 21/1.4 lux.
ZM 21/2.8 is great for lower light and you CAN even get some bokeh shots with it:

EPSN3913.jpg


img005.jpg


I have never had ZM 21/4.5 but shots I have seen from it to me look about the same as you can get with a CV 21/4 at a much lower price. I think ZM 21/2.8 is in a league of it's own. YMMV.
 
The 21/4.5 is spectacular. I had two of them (bought , sold, re-bought) and only parted with it due to it being difficult to use on the M9. On film M's it just sings. I look now at some photos taken with my M3 and the 21/4.5 in Rome last year, and they are simply spectacular!

Just my opinion.
 
And *my* Skopar 21/4 could not be beat by *my* 21/4.5 in the sharpness department, which is why the latter was mine for only a couple of days. In distortion and flare the C-Biogon has the edge, yes. But the sharpness was identical! Too little advantage to justify the switch...

Having said that, I would sttill choose the 21/4.5 over the 21/2.8 for compactness and low distortion.
 
meven said:
What is this light leak issue? I have the Biogon 25/2.8 (from you Mister E), Biogon 35/2, C Sonnar 50/1.5 and had the Biogon 21/2.8 and Planar 50/2. I never had a problem with any of them.
Click to expand...
It's not with every lens and I've only had the problem with 1 of my MANY ZM lenses, my 21/4.5 ZM. Here is the thread about the issue: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88966

I've had the ZM 18/4, 21/4.5, 25/2.8, 28/2.8, and 50/2 and only the 21/4.5 has caused me any issues, so if you've not had a problem then I wouldn't worry about your current lenses, but it is something that would make me think twice about buying a new ZM lens unless I could check to make sure it was light tight before I bought it or unless Zeiss/Cosina comes back with a response.
 
You don't have to tape it. Simply un-screw the offending one for one mm. I had many ZM lenses and I never noticed them to be untight, compared to my Leica ones. I presume it can be seen only on long exposures (please see the GetDPI link)
 
Why should we have to do anything to make this lens usable?
Its like buying a car and the dealer telling you...
"Its a good car, but the wheel will wobble when you high high speeds. But if you simply tighten the nuts on it, everything will be good."
 
Luna said:
Why should we have to do anything to make this lens usable?
Its like buying a car and the dealer telling you...
"Its a good car, but the wheel will wobble when you high high speeds. But if you simply tighten the nuts on it, everything will be good."
Click to expand...

You shouldn't have to do anything to the lens, but for most people, most of the time, this is a non-issue, and they won't have to do anything to their lens. For the remaining minority of people and applications, it is easily resolvable with a $5 tube of black silicone, which is a whole heck of a lot less than the price difference between most ZM's and equivalently-performing Leica lenses.

Yes, Zeiss should fix this. I hope and trust that they will, and I'm willing to wait if there's some engineering to do. Better a real fix done right than a quick fix that they can only hope will work.

No, it's not *that* big a deal. The oil spill in the Gulf is a big deal. Starvation is a big deal. Deforestation is a big deal. Having to (maybe, and probably not even this, for most people) put a dab of silicone on a screw hole is an extremely mild hassle.
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
...oil spill in the Gulf is a big deal. Starvation is a big deal. Deforestation is a big deal. Having to (maybe, and probably not even this, for most people) put a dab of silicone on a screw hole is an extremely mild hassle.
Click to expand...
Actually, to me, none of those really affect me so they are totally not a big deal. I usually change my oil in the street and throw the old oil into the sewer. I constantly waste food and I burn and cut down trees in my off time just for giggles.
But when I grab my camera and shoot something and then have light leak, it is a big issue. I just shoot my other lenses now so I don't have to worry about it. It was just frustrating at that moment.

Double Negative said:
I've been using my ZMs for over two years now on both film and digital and haven't had to "fix" anything. Yes, if I push the envelope I can get varying degrees of leakage - but in normal use, it has been a total non-issue.
Click to expand...
I can push the envelope on all my other lenses, just not my Zeiss. Zeiss should release a statement saying that pusing the envelope with their lenses will cause leaks.
I've been using other lenses for over two years now and never had issues with other lenses.
 
I recently got myself a ZM Biogon 21/2.8. I tend to prefer faster lenses because I love shooting in low light situations, so it did influenciate the decision. Didn't play around with the 21/4.5, but the size of the 21/2.8 doesn't bother me, I think it's an OK size if you consider what it delivers.

I took some photos with it right after I got it and wow, it's really nice to be able to shoot that wide handheld and with a somewhat good speed. Also, it's interesting to have some bokeh for close up shots.

As a plus, it will work as a 32mm lens on my R-D1, so being faster was also a plus. For those who have an R-D1 I think it's worth it, I missed having something in the 35mm range with good speed.

Now I just need a 21mm and a 35mm viewfinder :/

with portra VC 160 @ 400:

4766777984_38b3bb29c1_z_d.jpg


4766797928_2e3fff82ce_z_d.jpg


4766167997_8b2190e959_z_d.jpg
 
Makes me wonder if my 28/2.8 with flare, had a light leak instead ??

In any case, glad to be free of light leaking lenses. One less hassle to worry about.
 
Double Negative said:
I'm not saying that the light leaks don't exist. I'm just saying I don't normally shoot long exposures with a bright light 2" above the lens mount. And until I did, never noticed them. That's not to say there are both better and worse cases out there... Just in my own experience.
Click to expand...
If the light leak ONLY occurred when I shot long exposures with a bright light 2" above the lens mount I would be happy. But it happens when I shoot the lens in almost any light, anytime, anywhere.
Basiclly I want Zeiss to sell their lenses for an extra $5 and include a tube of black silicone and a little card that says:

"Thank you for purchasing a Zeiss lens. What is the tube of silicone for? Well if you think you can just take our lenses out and shoot anything you want without light leaks, you are an idiot! The silicone is for you to apply to the lens to make it 100% usable, and unless you do, your lens might leak light onto your exposure. You dummy! Did you think we would do this for you? Thanks again and please enjoy all our Zeiss lenses!"
 
Luna said:
...
Click to expand...

Obviously, Zeiss did not know about this, initially.

Moreover, it is quite clear that most users of ZM lenses - many of whom are superb and technically proficient photographers - have not encountered any issues at all. This fact strongly suggests that most ZM lenses do not leak light on most M mount bodies.

To name three especially critical users of ZM gear:
Steve Huff has not reported problems.
Sean Reid has not reported problems.
Lloyd Chambers has not reported problems (with light leaks; he has documented angle-of-incidence issues with the M9 sensor and the 21/4.5)

This is not to say there is not a problem. There clearly is, with some subset of ZM lenses. But it is evident that the problems you're describing are not universal, and they may not even be especially prevalent.

It's reasonably apparent that Zeiss are now investigating the issue. It remains to be seen what they will do to fix the problem. I hope that they will deal with it in an honorable manner.

You act as though something like this has never happened before. But Zeiss is not the first manufacturer to have shipped a product with technical issues. Leica has done it. Nikon has done it. Canon has done it. (How many cameras have they shipped that are susceptible to E18 disease, over how many years? My G9 was one, and Canon's tech support people have been about as responsive as a brick wall, to me and many others. They clearly don't care that they have shipped thousands of cameras with a known design issue present over several years.)

It's not as though Zeiss's engineers had a design meeting and added to the list of items on the technical specification: "some lenses shall leak light when coupled to certain camera bodies."
 
Last edited:
semilog said:
...
Click to expand...
You guys are getting me all wrong. This all started when you said it wasn't a big deal. All I'm saying is that to me, this is a big deal and we've been going back and forth trying to convince each other otherwise.

I don't care about the majority, or "superb and technically proficient photographers." They don't know me, and I don't know them. All I know is that I purchased a lens and it leaks light and I am NOT the only one.

So don't worry about anything else I say just agree to disagree about the following:
(1) Some ZM lenses leak light.
(2) To some people, this will ruin a shot
(3) A lens that ruins a shot has issues
(4) We are waiting for Zeiss to correct the issue

That is all I want to get across.

I'm not acting like this isn't the first time this has happened. I know all about Leicas dumbasses and the great people at Nikon and Canon. Everyone makes mistakes. Its how they handle it that really matters. So like everyone else with a light leaking ZM lens, I'll wait for Zeiss to move.

Double Negative said:
...
Click to expand...
I know all about the Gods of camera and their issues. I'm a Canon dSLR shooter so I know about the issues. You should go to FM's Canon section and read about other "issues" people are reporting.
 
Last edited:
umcelinho said:
I recently got myself a ZM Biogon 21/2.8. I tend to prefer faster lenses because I love shooting in low light situations, so it did influenciate the decision. Didn't play around with the 21/4.5, but the size of the 21/2.8 doesn't bother me, I think it's an OK size if you consider what it delivers.

I took some photos with it right after I got it and wow, it's really nice to be able to shoot that wide handheld and with a somewhat good speed. Also, it's interesting to have some bokeh for close up shots.

As a plus, it will work as a 32mm lens on my R-D1, so being faster was also a plus. For those who have an R-D1 I think it's worth it, I missed having something in the 35mm range with good speed.

Now I just need a 21mm and a 35mm viewfinder :/

with portra VC 160 @ 400:

4766777984_38b3bb29c1_z_d.jpg


4766797928_2e3fff82ce_z_d.jpg


4766167997_8b2190e959_z_d.jpg
Click to expand...

Great shots that show off ZM 21/2.8 - reason I have this lens too. Simply superb lens!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom