Zeiss 21mm f4.5 zm on Xpro1

[nandemofoto]

I'm really curious about this set up.

Has anyone tried this lens on Xpro1?

Since its design is different to 21mm f2.8 zm and its corner performance is excellent I wonder if it performs better than other m-mount wides...

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Kind of curious myself . . .

 

[BobYIL]

See the test of the Biogon 21/2.8 here. The 21/4.5 will show more smearing and color shift toward corners (closer rear element to the sensor):

http://picabroad.com/2012/03/24/fuji-x-pro-1-grand-test-with-leica-m-mount-lenses/

 

[nandemofoto]

I thought the 21/2.8 had the rear element extended further than the 21/4.5...

 

[semilog]

As others say the 4.5 should be less good than the 2.8 since its rear nodal point is closer to the sensor. It definitely is worse on the M9 as documented several places on the web, and Zeiss specifically recommends that the 4.5 not be used on the M9.

The performance of existing 21's (including the 21 Elmarit ASPH) on digital sensors is unquestionably why Leica designed the more highly telecentric 21/3.4 SE. The existing f/2.8 lenses were not bad -- perfectly usable for real-world photography -- but Leica obviously saw room for improvement.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I followed the link above and found the results very interesting. All four corners of the images seem to have similar degrees of "smearing," which makes me think that the issue relates to sensor-site/lens placement rather than a problem with the adapter. Will this be the Fuji's weakness? Results with the native lenses do not appear to have the problem, so (to speculate) maybe Fuji has engineered around the issue with its own glass.

FWIW, I don't know that the "smearing" on the example with the 15mm lens would keep me from using it. After all, the lens does pretty wild things in the corners even when used with film.

Edit: thought that the 28 was OK too. . .although I agree not ideal with a gigabux lens, handmade by gnomes and elves!

 

[aleksanderpolo]

nandemofoto, saw your listing, you have given up already?

 

[Adanac]

FWIW, I don't know that the "smearing" on the example with the 15mm lens would keep me from using it. After all, the lens does pretty wild things in the corners even when used with film.

Edit: thought that the 28 was OK too. . .although I agree not ideal with a gigabux lens, handmade by gnomes and elves!

Those sample wall images are shot relatively close in; the smearing issue seems worse as the lens is focused farther and farther out. Perhaps that's due to the rear element getting that much closer. Even though the difference change involves very small distances, the angle change may be enough to strengthen the astigmatism effect.

 

[nandemofoto]

nandemofoto, saw your listing, you have given up already?

Yeah, I decided to sell it and put the money towards d800...

 

[BobYIL]

I followed the link above and found the results very interesting. All four corners of the images seem to have similar degrees of "smearing," which makes me think that the issue relates to sensor-site/lens placement rather than a problem with the adapter. Will this be the Fuji's weakness? Results with the native lenses do not appear to have the problem, so (to speculate) maybe Fuji has engineered around the issue with its own glass.

FWIW, I don't know that the "smearing" on the example with the 15mm lens would keep me from using it. After all, the lens does pretty wild things in the corners even when used with film.

Edit: thought that the 28 was OK too. . .although I agree not ideal with a gigabux lens, handmade by gnomes and elves!

Regarding to your inquiries, some of my comments here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1840582&postcount=54