cv 21 vs zm 21?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
12:40 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
Location
true north strong & free
View My Gallery
have we done a comparison?

with rangefinders i currently use 2 lenses mostly, the cv 21 and the rollei 40...the 40 is permanent and likely will never be sold and will remain on the rd1 for as long as i own that body.

i'm wondering if i should be using the zm 21? using mostly the 2 focal lengths, i should have the better lens on the other rd1...no?
 
I haven't have used the CV but I love the C Biogon T* 4.5/21: zero distortion, great colors, incredible level of detail from F4.5... and it is small. I love it!

Some examples:


R4M + C Biogon T* 45/21 + KODAK PORTRA 160


R4M + C Biogon T* 45/21 + KODAK PORTRA 160


R4M + C Biogon T* 45/21 + KODAK PORTRA 160


R4M + C Biogon T* 45/21 + KODAK PORTRA 160


M9 + C BIOGON T* 4.5/21


M9 + C BIOGON T* 4.5/21


M9 + C BIOGON T* 4.5/21
 
The ZM 21/4.5 sets the bar incredibly high. When compared against it, the copies of the CV 15 I tried couldn't hold a candle to the ZM on digital or film.

I'm sure the CV is good, but trying to find one that isn't decentered will be hard.

Both are small, by most definitions.

If you like 21, as I do, and don't need the speed, the ZM has to be the best in its mount at any price. I've relied on it for landscape--in combo with the Rollei Sonnar, in fact, until recently, but that role seems to have been supplanted by the Konica Hex 50/2.4, which is more even across the frame.

I'm getting the very slight haze in my Rollei Sonnar cleaned up. It came from the vinyl lens case with which it was sold. I doubt the haze had any effect on photos, as the lens was always bitingly sharp on center, among the sharpest lenses I've ever seen (without having actually measured).

I would think the ZM 21 would be a good match for the Rollei Sonnar, as they both have a similar warm cast. Contrast seems to be a bit higher on the ZM, but the haze may have had something to do with that, we'll see.

Beautiful photos by Shab!!!
 
cv 21
5273979915_c2dd520045_b.jpg


zm21
3691921449_1c6833dd8c_b.jpg

both on rd1
 
Here are a few taken with the GXR, A12 M and Zeiss 21mm f/4.5:

Korean market
7008979369_03c243c7c9_z.jpg


Train
7008979005_8858e32a6f_z.jpg


Beer
7008978193_62ec06cc63_z.jpg


And the bad...
Magenta highlights and flare
7008979485_2b14af6028_z.jpg


The lens performs pretty well. Though not pointed into the sun. Blue skies look as if a polarizer was used, but wasn't. This can be good, but the vignetting is a bit dark. I did use a hood, and one for the 21/2.8, so that may have made a difference, but I doubt it.

The amount of detail the GXR + Zeiss records is outstanding. See more images and full-size versions here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73546415@N07/
 
the zm seems sharper than the cv, maybe better shadow detail.
is the difference in qualities worth the difference in price?

maybe down the road i will re-consider this question, for now the cv will continue as my 21 and my wallet be much happier.
 
I'll do a some shots with the GXR and the CV lens soon, but my feeling is the CV will perform well. It's smaller than Biogon C but handles really well. I quite like it. But, being crazy I had to have both.
 
Interesting comments segedi. I haven't had mine flare yet. Your comment on the polarized sky is interesting. This lens transmits light like through a vacuum - its more than just sharpness and contrast. I find it easier to assess the differences in lenses with black and white oddly enough. My CV 25 is proving disappointing because of flare even in noon summer sun. Hopefully the 21 is better.
 
I have not found flare an issue with my 25P, thankfully.

The ZM 21, whether 2.8 or 4.5, is a better lens than the CV in every technical sense. I have both and am on my second copy of the CV 21P as the first was so badly decentered.

The CV 21 is, however, smaller and much cheaper. Wide open especially the differences are clear, not that the CV is bad only the ZM is a technical marvel.
 
I have both the CV 21mm f/4 and the ZM 21mm f2.8 Biogon and I really couldn't be bothered to do a comparison, it is clear which is the better lens by far. There is no comparison, just a wide void between them.

Steve

(and yes, it is the ZM that wins)
 
Like I've posted elsewhere, I once DID a comparison between a CV21/4 and a ZM21/4.5, and sharpness- and resolution-wise, it was pretty much a draw. And I'm not talking about a sloppy comparison either, but the high-res b/w film, heavy tripod, 4000ppi scan pixel-peeping variant.

I may have owned a very nice CV 21, because from what I read, there does seem to be some sample variation on this lens...

I still ended up buying the ZM for several reasons:
1.) No distortion at all.
2.) The size. My fingers are not getting into the picture any more, and I can focus the ZM much easier.
3.) I guess I'm just a Zeiss fanboy... 😀
 
I'm with Steve. I own the CV21/4 and had the ZM21/2.8 for three weeks, before I returned it (along with some other gear) to free up the funds to get a 50 Lux. Bittersweet exchange. ZM is sharp at 2.8, super sharp at 4, and has no red edge issues on the M9! Worth the 3x price over the CV. Biggest weakness is the VF blockage.
 
magenta

magenta

Hi, a few months ago i tested (compared) both zeiss and vc 21mm lenses on my M9...

have to say wow the vc one is great!

I just couldn´t tell the difference between each one...except that the zeiss 21mm casts a large magenta stain from top to bottom in the left portion of the frame....

I´ve had several vc 21mm lenses and was going to buy the zeiss, a very kind friend of mine lend me his zeiss lens for a weekend...

I can´t say anything of the zeiss on film...but on m9 it´s not very impressive, of course that magenta stain is due to the sensor not fault of the lens...but the vc doesn´t shows that fault...

So i bought again the vc lens being almost 1/4th of the price...used of course...also it includes a viewfinder...

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom