18/4 Distagon vs. 21/4.5 C Biogon

[noimmunity]

Here are two photos taken consecutively before sunset. Both shots are wide open on Superia 100, taken with Bessa T without finders.

Cosina ZM C Biogon 21/4.5 on Fuji Superia

Cosina ZM Distagon 18/4 on Fuji Superia

With the samples of these two lenses that I have, the Distagon clearly produces images that have higher contrast and look sharper. Although neither lens could be called ordinary, the images produced by the 18/4 have a pop to them that is, I feel, extraordinary. But the C Biogon is real pleasure to handle and use. I hope I can get more chance to learn about using both.

 

[Tom A]

I have both of these lenses and the 18f4 is quite a lens. Very good sharpness and contrast, but it has a bit more distorsion than the 21f4.5 Biogon.
The Biogon 21f4.5 ZM is in my opinion the best 21 ever made!! Rectiliniar to within 0,014% (according to factory spec's), small and compact, very sharp and with remarkable lack of edge fall off!
The Distagon 18/4 ZM is a special case lens. I use it when I need absolute focus confirmation (the 15f4.5 does not couple). It is a great lens for cityshots as it takes in a lot of acreage. It is also wide enough to require careful positioning to avoid "falling" buildings.
The 21f4.5 is almost always along in my bag (on a R4M) and the 18f4 is something that I take out for specific shots.

 

[Nachkebia]

yammie! I want both of this marvels 🙂

 

[maddoc]

I would like to see how the Super-Angulon 21/3.4 (m-mount) holds up against the 21/4.5 C(lassic) Biogon. The Biogon is tempting because it allows TTL metering. On the other hand, the SA has a special signature (not only the strong vignetting at large apertures) ... 🙂

 

[Tom A]

I have had Super Angulons since they came out. The 21/4 was OK but not great- the 21f3.4 is one of my favourite wide angles. Performance is probably mediocre by the new 21 standards (Asph 21/2.8, ZM 21/2,8, ZM 21/4.5 and even the petite 21/3,5 Ricoh is optically better). But they are not S-A's. There is something about this lens that makes it special for me. It is a "fountain of youth" in a sense. Yes. it vignetts and the aperture ring is a hassle to work with the hood on. But no wide angle has that center edge and drop off to the edges. I suspect it can hold its own with center sharpness even amomg the modern upstarts. So it is a bit of a sentimental favourite, but it is also a very good lens.
It was quite common in the 60's (and late 50's) to see shooters with a bunch of M's and then carry a Contax II/III or a Nikon S2 with the Biogon 21mm f4.5. Performance wise it is a better lens than the S-A across the board, but ergonomically it is a nightmare. I still have one of them and occasionally I put it on a Nikon Rf and "go shooti'n" - always a surprise when you pull the film. IF the exposure is on, it is fantastic - BUT if you have managed to just brush the aperture ring against your hand or jacket - it is either 2-3 stops over or under!! I feel that a strong breeze will turn it!
I like 21's (I better, I have about 8 of them!) and today, if I know I want the sharpest, the most straight rendition and the least pain from carrying anything, its the ZM 21f4.5 that comes along. Nostalgia can be painful and neither the 21 S-A and the original Biogon are by any means lightweight.
For the last couple of weeks I have been shooting with a Nikon 21mm f4 F series lens. I have the F-SC adapter so I have been using it on a Nikon S3. This gives a new meaning to the term vignetting. Great fun though and very sharp.

 

[maddoc]

Tom, thank you a lot for this detailed information ! I learned something new 🙂

 

[ljsegil]

Tom,
Have you abandoned the Zeiss 2.8/21 Biogon altogether? I got mine before the 4.5 came out and have been extremely happy with it; I do not feel compelled by any aspect of its image qualities, or deficiencies of which I am aware, to switch to the 4.5. Am I missing some magic in the 4.5, or is it perhaps mostly the size difference that drives your preference? And will we end up in a similar bind when the newly announced 2.8/35 becomes available to compete with the existing 2.0/35 Biogon?
Best,
Larry

 

[Roger Hicks]

We're back into the realms of 'magic'.

They're all very good lenses. I have had two old 21/4.5 Biogons and one new one; I currently have on loan an 18/4; and I have also had the 21/2.8.

Performance for most applications can be taken for granted, unless you are shooting ultra-critical subjects -- in which case I'd probably go for the 38/4.5 in 44x66mm on my Alpa, which is definitely (for me) a 'magic' lens.

But what is 'magic'? A focal length that suits you: my wife much prefers 18mm to 21mm, but I significantly prefer 21mm. Micro-contrast, resolution, vignetting? What? Sometimes it all comes together FOR YOU. Those are the important words: FOR YOU. Do you shoot monochrome or colour? What format? Film or digital? How big do you print? How do you print? How important are ergonomics?

Tom's point about the 'fountain of youth' comes back to 'magic'. When you fall in love with a lens, it repays you by doing all you want; or maybe you fall in love because it does all you want. It's great to hear these 'love stories' but only comparatively rarely are they of universal applicability.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ljsegil]

Roger, as always your wisdom is of the utmost value, most appreciated, and helps keep perspective in our photographic lives.
But when will you ever get to review the 2/85 Sonnar?
LJS

 

[back alley]

sean reid has a review of the 85 sonnar in his review of the 90/2.5 summarit and it sounds like a fabulous lens.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Can anyone compare these 21's to the CV Color Skopar 21/4?

And has anyone ever used the Russar 20/5.6, like this one?

 

[noimmunity]

sean reid has a review of the 85 sonnar in his review of the 90/2.5 summarit and it sounds like a fabulous lens.

don't say that!

the size though reminds me of the nokton 35/1.2 . those two together would make quite a duo, but i'm not sure i'd wanna carry it.

i'm still telling myself i'm holding out for a ZM 85/2.8 .

 

[back alley]

don't say that!

the size though reminds me of the nokton 35/1.2 . those two together would make quite a duo, but i'm not sure i'd wanna carry it.

i'm still telling myself i'm holding out for a ZM 85/2.8 .

an 85/2.8 would be nice and i wonder if it's a possibility seeing what zeiss has just done with their new 35.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, as always your wisdom is of the utmost value, most appreciated, and helps keep perspective in our photographic lives.
But when will you ever get to review the 2/85 Sonnar?
LJS

Thanks for the kind words. I have taken precisely two pictures with the 85/2, despite being promised it for review for over a year: I have stopped holding my breath, as I was beginning to go a funny colour.

Of the two pictures, one (a portrait at full aperture) shows some signs of 'magic'. Or that may be luck, or seeing what I want to see; I'd want to use it a lot more before I deliver an opinion.

When I do, there'll be a free review in: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/reviews.html

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

And has anyone ever used the Russar 20/5.6 . . .

I had one, and it was far and away the worst lens of around that focal length that I have ever used.

This may have been down to iffy Soviet quality control, or a bad repair, but I doubt it. Most people who have had one are somewhere between indifferent and underwhelmed, though I have heard one or two speak well of it.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[kbg32]

I have both of these lenses and find them to produce absolutely stellar files on the M8. I wanted something wider then 28mm and I was not happy with the 15/4.5 CV - 21mm on the M8. I wanted focus confirmation as well. The ZM 18/4 fit the bill. I highly recommend either of these lenses.

 

[Palaeoboy]

It's great to hear these 'love stories' but only comparatively rarely are they of universal applicability.

Not at all, Tom has both made it clear how this lens has a special something and how its performance relates to others currently available. I think someone who has all of them and uses them currently side by side as opposed to having had them once in the past is the most valuable comparison we could hope for.

 

[awilder]

I've owned and tested both the 21/3.4 SA and the current ZM 21/4.5. The ZM captures the magic quality in terms of imaging albeit w/o the falloff and with better center and edge sharpness to boot. There is a small problem with the ZM and I doubt it's from a sample variation. To get the maximum sharpness, I had to remove the flange and carefully sand down it's front surface several hundreths of a mm to get the lens to be as sharp as it could be now. It was a PIA but well worth it as resolution went from about 50 lp/mm at f/4.5 to well over 100 lp/mm . My guess is that this calculus by Zeiss is based on the film bowing forward slightly after several seconds when advanced in the camera.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not at all, Tom has both made it clear how this lens has a special something and how its performance relates to others currently available. I think someone who has all of them and uses them currently side by side as opposed to having had them once in the past is the most valuable comparison we could hope for.

Sure: don't get me wrong. All I mean is that what Tom loves, you (or I) may (or may not).

Of all the 20/21s I've had or tried (Nikon, Leica x 2, Russar, Zeiss x 4, Voigtländer, Pasinon, Kobalux -- I think that's it), two of my favourites have been the 21/4 Nikkor and -- believe it or not -- the 21/2.8 Kobalux/Pasinon.

The best lenses? No. But I liked them. Much as Tom said (and he's tried more than I).

Cheers,

R.

 

[noimmunity]

I've owned and tested both the 21/3.4 SA and the current ZM 21/4.5. The ZM captures the magic quality in terms of imaging albeit w/o the falloff and with better center and edge sharpness to boot. There is a small problem with the ZM and I doubt it's from a sample variation. To get the maximum sharpness, I had to remove the flange and carefully sand down it's front surface several hundreths of a mm to get the lens to be as sharp as it could be now. It was a PIA but well worth it as resolution went from about 50 lp/mm at f/4.5 to well over 100 lp/mm . My guess is that this calculus by Zeiss is based on the film bowing forward slightly after several seconds when advanced in the camera.

Interesting...because I have definitely felt the Distagon has an edge in sharpness over the C Biogon, although I had been wondering if it wasn't just a result of higher contrast. Too bad I don't know how to sand a flange 🙄