21mm/4.5 ZM Practitioners

35mmdelux

35mmdelux

Veni, vidi, vici
Local time
2:00 AM
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
4,211
Location
Los Angeles, CA
View My Gallery
ALL:

If this has been discussed to death sorry...

My question is where does the 21mm/4.5 ZM lens fall in line with regards to actual practice, given the slow speed? I have read that it is pretty sharp, perhaps sharper and more corrected than the 21mm/2.8?

I would ultimately like to add a 21mm to my travel bullpen of 35mm S-Lux ASPH and 90mm Elmarit-M. 80% of my shooting is done with a 35mm FL and the 21mm at this point would not be expectd to get tons of use; however, I would like a good lens to match my others.

I do not portend to know all the answers so I will leave my question open ended.

What say you? Thanks.
 
I don't have one, have contemplated getting it though and done some research. Tom A likes the 21 focal length, and he for one feels it's the best 21 ever made (not sure the exact words, but that's the gist of it if I recall). Of course assuming you don't need the extra 1.5 stops of the 2.8. That seemed like high enough regard for me.

What do you plan to do for a finder?
 
35mmdelux

I see you are a Hasselblad shooter too... the 21/4.5 Biogon is like the SWC in small format, but it is much sharper and extremely more flare resistant. It will be the best lens you will own.
 
"what do I plan to do for a finder?"

good question. as I see it my options are the VC, zeiss, and the Leica adjustable finder. I am leaning towards the Leica adjustable. The VC and Zeiss are supposed to be brighter but they have breakable plastic footing.
 
As far as the finder is concerned, the Zeiss one is fantastic, but in reality the most versatile and cost effective finder for the C Biogon 21/4.5 is the ... Bessa R4A. BTW buy the 25/28 round shade for it, it works great and is more compact than the rectangular one.
 
FWIW, I purchased the 21/2.8 Biogon ZM before the 4.5 was released, and I have been extremely happy with its performance. Essentially zero distortion, extremely sharp across the entire field with no vignetting at all, and very pleasing color rendition. True, it is not often that I use the extra 1.5 stop advantage, but there are times when it is the only way I can get the shot I want. The size is comparable to the other ZM lenses and I do not find it burdensome, but I have never had the opportunity to handle the 4.5 for comparison. Anyway, I find it a great lens, and I think worth considering. It has made my Leica 24/2.8 Elmarit APSH superfluous (listening to offers!).
LJS
 
mfogiel said:
35mmdelux

I see you are a Hasselblad shooter too... the 21/4.5 Biogon is like the SWC in small format, but it is much sharper and extremely more flare resistant. It will be the best lens you will own.
Click to expand...

Is it worthwhile using a shade with these wides? Thanks for the FYI.
 
Last edited:
If you shoot like this, without any filter, then no, it is not
2176510036_5a8c0314de_b.jpg


However, if the sun is just outside the frame, or you use a fliter, then it is always better to eliminate the chance of unwanted reflections.
 
I have both the 21f2.8 ZM and the 21f4.5 ZM. The 2,8 is a good lens indeed and replaced my 21f2.8 Asph, mainly because of size and performance.
The 21f4.5 is a different animal - it is just so damned good! I have not done resolution test or anything, as most modern lenses today will outperform the film or sensor in your camera anyway. The 4.5 is for all practical purposes distorsion free (think Hasselblad SWC!) and it has the extremely smooth tonality that the ZM lenses have in common (at least the Japanese made ones). It is also very compact and thus comes along when I go somewhere. A big lens is a chore to drag along, particularly if you are not sure you will need it. The slower speed is a price you pay for performance - and it will outperform any other 21 that I have used (and that is virtually every 21 ever made for M-mount!). I like 21's and I have alwys been looking for the perfect balance between size and performance and the ZM 21f4,5 comes pretty close to the ideal lens.
As for finder, before you buy a Leica 21/24/28 - look through one first. I have had a couple and it works fine with 24, but I found both the 21 and 28 setting too "distorted" for practical use.
The VC 21 finder is a decent finder for a good price and the Zeiss 21 is a spectacular finder for an indecent price! A R4M or A is a better deal - a dedictated 21 body and a good meter system for not that much more $ than a Leica 21-24-28 finder or a Zeiss 21 finder.
 
Small, light, compact, virtually distortion fee (significantly less distortion than anything else on the market in that focal length) and with very good illumination -- but SLOW.

Only you can decide which matters more: speed or image quality. Personally I find speed more useful in 35mm. I've had two original 21 Biogons (one stolen, one sold because I used faster lenses more) and one of the current variety (on loan for test). I also have a 38/4.5 in Alpa mount which is my standard lens on that camera. But with 35mm I want more speed.

Cheers,

R.
 
C-Biogon 21/4,5 just stay on my MP for most of the time. I do agree with TOM A.
You will throw the leica 21mm view finder right away once you put it together with Zeiss 21mm viewfinder, even it is 2/3 price of a ZM planar 50mm lens.
that is what I can add to this thread.
 
I have used a few 21s - the zeiss 21/2.8 M, Contax 21/2.8 G, and the Kobalux 21/2.8 ltm (which I no longer need, offers?). I don't find the G system ideal, although the lens was small and wonderful. The Kobalux is quite large and not as sharp as the zeiss made lenses but an excellent performer (and conveniently screw mount!). As for the 21/ 2.8 M mount, I never owned it but used it a bit before making my decision in buying the 21/4.5 and found the size a bit much. I really enjoy the size of the 21/4.5, it is much more practical for my small bag I like to carry around. Being a bit slower at f4.5 doesn't bother me at all, since I tend to shoot a lot of landscape subjects with the 21mm fl. If I am shooting at night I will most likely have a tripod. I don't miss the 2.8 on a 21mm. Tom is right about the look and sharpness of the lens, I used to covet the Hassy SWC but don't like the square so much. Well here it is and in Leica M mount!
 
back alley said:
the zeiss finder foot is metal, iirc.
Click to expand...

I have the ZM 15mm finder and its finder foot is metal. The rest of the Zeiss finders should be the same.

I have also a few Voigtlander finders. They are very bright indeed, the brightest probably is the 12mm one.

R4A/M is really interesting. Never seen one but I believe the finder is bright, and of course as mentioned the price is not a lot more than the ZM finders.
 
I own the 21/4.5 C Biogon and it's the sharpest 21 I've ever used and that includes the legendary 21/3.4 SA. Unlike Tom, in addition to taking pictures with the lens as he does, I've also ran some resolution tests on the lens and can honestly say it's the sharpest lens I've ever come across. That said, I was out shooting one evening just after sunset, and without a tripod, there wasn't enough light for hand held shooting at f/4.5 but at f/2.8 it might have worked. I got the lens mainly beause of it's compact size and super low distortion but if you do a fair amount of indoor or low light shooting, go for the f/2.8 version. If low light is not a major issue and you want the sharpest possible 21, consider the f/4.5 version.
 
Roger, your ALPA/38 Biogon combo has a very high "drool" factor in my mind! Until recently it was a hypothetical camera as I got rid of my Focomat IIc 6 years ago - just to stop temptations like that. Unfortunately - I did pick up another IIc a month ago and 120 film Lust is rearing its ugly head!
My rational was that there are several 100 rolls of 120 film filed away in binders and my Ic wont work with it. I was also influenced by Raymond Depardon's book "Errance". He shot it with an ALPA and the 72mm XL S-A in 6x9 format.

As for the ZM Biogon 21f4.5 - the low speed can be a problem if you are shooting either slow film or low light stuff. However, if I am doing something like that, I would take a f2.8 along, or simply go "tripod" with it. Each time I look at the negs or prints from it, I am amazed at the quality it produces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom