21mm zeiss ZM f/4.5

Hey Tom, thanks for the shots but give us your opinion of the new Zeiss 21, how does it compare to the others, is it worth the price, etc. thanks
 
I did a quick "test" if you can call it that. I used my stash of 21's and shot a couple of rolls with each one. Mainly 100 asa films as those tend to give you a bit more information.
Here it goes:
21/3,4 Super Angulon (very late # 2.9xx xxx). Still one of my favourites, but mainly for sentimental reasons. I have had a 21 SA since they came out in 1964. Then it was a stellar lens. Very sharp centre performance, but distinct fall off in the edges. Today it is a decent lens with a 'signature" to it. center sharpness is still among the best available, but it is not up there with the rest anymore.

21/4 VC LTM: This lens was sensational when it came out. A $400 package with the finder and it was and is still a formidable lens. Yes, it is a stop slower than Leica and Zeiss's newest, but unless you are planning to do "mega" blow up's, it will serve you well. The flexibility of being able to use it on LTM and M bodies is attractive too.

21/4 P VC: This is the 21VC in a dedicated M mount. If you are strictly a M user it is a good deal, though you dont get a finder with it anymore. The aperture ring is easier to get a grip on than on the LTM mount version. Performance is the same as the LTM version which means excellent. It is a remarkably distorsion free lens - actually better than the 21/2,8 Asph from Leica in this aspect.

21/2,8 Asph Elmarit: I had one of these for many years and though I cant complain about the performance, it is BIG and rather clunky to use. Nice, even rendition, but with typical Leica Aspherical harshness to the image and rather high contrast. More distorsion than the VC 21 or the Biogon 21/4,5

Biogon ZM 21/2,8: I like the Zeiss line of lenses for several reasons. One is that, although not small, they are smaller than the Leica equvivalents and that the contrast and "tone" of the lenses is the same from the 21 up to the 50mm lenses. When you look at negatives the tonal rendition is the same across the board, only the angle of view is changing. This is quite a remarkable feat in consistency. Resolution and distortion is similar to the 21/2,8 Asph from Leica although the slightly lower contrast makes it look "softer" but I think that is deceptive and i would use either one without any hesitation.

Biogon 21/4,5 ZM: Very nice lens. It has the same tonality as the rest of the ZM lenses and based on the 20-25 rolls so far, it is up there with the best of them when it cames to resolution. Where it really shines is in the almost total lack of distortion, it is something in the order of 0,14% which is negligble for all practical purposes. Considerably smaller than the 21/2.8 ZM. Same diameter barrel, but shorter. The 46mm filter size and bayonet is the same as the 2.8 and you can use the 21/2,8 hood with it. On the Bessa R4M I prefer to use it with the 25 ZM hood instead as it prtrudes less in the R4 finder.

Biogon 21/4.5 (1957) Contax/Nikon mount: It was a classic lens in the 50 and 60's and the Biogon formula has always been the top formulation for distorsion free images (Think Hassselblad SW/SWC with its 38mm Biogon!). I remember shooters carrying a Contax or Nikon just for this lens, while everything else was Leica M! It is an ergonomic disaster, minute engravings on chrome and HEAVY and finding a hood that both worked and stayed on was a challenge.

Ricoh 21/3,5 LTM: I have one of these rather scarce lenses and mine is even in black! Good lens, but not even close to the 21/4VC. Quite a bit of fall off and a weird arrangement for setting aperture and focus. A small protruding lever for the aperture ring which keep fouling up your finger when you try to focus and usually end up either shooting stuff 1 stop over or under by mistake.

Which to pick? It depends what you want to do with it. The 21mm focal length tends to be a bit of a special event lens. Unless you are in crammed asian or european cities, it is usually too wide for street shots and it is not flattering for people , particularly if they are close to the edge of the image. It is great landscape focal length and also for "city scapes". If you do commercial work and need straight lines for architectural, either the VC 21 or the Biogon 21/4,5 would work well (i assume that if you shoot this kind of stuff, you use a tripod and most likely would be stopping down to f11 or 16 anyway). If you do interiors and you are mainly hand holding, the 2.8's would do well though I have always felt that on a 21 or wider, speed is less of a problem than even illumination and overall image quality.
If you already have the 21/4 VC in LTM mount, be happy and keep shooting. If you are looking for a 21 and are willing to spend a little look for the 21/4 P, if your budget allows a bit more look at the 21/4,5 ZM or the 21/2,8 ZM (the latter if you are a slow color film shooter where 1 stop can make a difference) and if you just won the lottery or inherited chunks of money and like to carry large. bulky objects, look at the 21/2,8 Asph Elmarit.
All of these lenses will do you well. There is not that much distinction between them for my style of shooting (mostly handheld, asa 100 to 400 bl/w processed for printing rather than scanning) so my choice comes down to ergonomics and weight as well as performance. I rarely print larger than 11x14 and with wide angles tend to shoot around f8-11 when I can.
At the moment, I have been using the 21/4,5 ZM more than any of the other, but that is also because it is new to me. I suspect that it will remain more or less welded to my R4M, but that does not mean that I will not take any of the others out for a spin. Particularly the 21/3,4 Super Angulon as it is my "flash back" lens. Tri X/M2/21f3.4 - how 60's can you get!
 
Thanks Tom for the test! I have a 1957 Biogon 21F4.5 mounted with Contax or Nikon and liked its performance but hated its weight. Do you think the new ZM has any progress in resolution and light fall off on the corners after 50 years?
 
I think it has marginally better resolution and slightly less fall off, but one should consider that the original 21/4.5 was the benchmark which everyone was trying to beat! I haven't done any resolution tests per se because a/ i dont have the set up with charts and all that stuff and b/because it is very boring work!
The new ZM 21/4,5 obviously has been bettered when it comes to glass and coatings (less prone to flare for one thing and lesser weight as well as more usable aperture ring!). Mr Kobayashi always wanted to do a modern and improved version of the 21/4.5 Biogon and this is somewhat of a pet project for him.
There were some Biogon's from the 50's that were converted to screw-mount, but most of these are less than well made, i.e severly messed up! This new one allows you to do use straight on your Bessa's/M's and Zeiss cameras.
Great lens anyway!
 
If you are going to be shooting a lot with a 21/25/35 combo. I would go the R4M or R4A route. The ZI is a very nice package, with a stupendously good finder! BUT, with a 21/4,5 you would have to splurge for a finder and the best there is is the ZI 21mm which cost almost as much as the Voigtlander 21/4!
I find that I usually dedicate 1 body to a 21 or 25 and carry a second body for the 35/40 and longer lenses. Often the wide angle body is an unmetered body as 21's tend to pick up a lot of "light" from the sky or windows at the edge of the view and this screws up exposures. The R4M has this nifty EV read out that improves the succes rate, but nothing really beats a hand held meter in this situation.
 
I've read a lot of people using the entire viewfinder of the ZI to represent the 21mm framelines (approximately).

How well does this work?
 
Haven't tried that yet, will do soon and let you know. I found a couple of 100ft cans of PanF in the freezer (not even Pan F+) and just did a test with it. Seems to hold its 50asa in Beutler ao that would be a good test film for the ZI. There are 38 rolls of this stuff now spooled into 35 cassettes, so I hope that the weather holds out for the next couple of weeks.
 
We use the entire viewfinder of the Zeiss Ikon for the 25mm lens. With 21, it's a bit of a guessing game.

If you're going to spend that much on a lens, I would budget for the viewfinder too.
 
I would love to test the Lambo against the McLaren, but nobody is willing to let me drive them! Buying them is not an option! The Lambo represents about 70 000 rolls of TriX and that would be more useful. I also have a busted back and vant get down into these modern cars. I would have to have a hoist, like the all knights in shining armor, lowering me into the car and lifting me out. OK, the "new" F 40 from ford would work as the doors are cut out at the roof.
 
Thanks Tom!

Great wrap up on these lenses!

I wish the 21mm Biogon f/4.5 ZM came in Leica screw mount. I'd like to use one on my IIIf RD body. Can the mount be changed to LTM in your opinion?
 
Tony, I dont think it would be feasible to change the mount on the 21/4.5 to screw-mount. If done it probably would not be able to focus properly. Of course, anything can be done, but at what cost!
For a screw-mount camera I would recommend the 21f4 VC old style. Performance wise you would not suffer as it is a very,very good 21. It also has the advantage of using 39mm filters, whilst the Biogon uses 46mm. For some reason decades of shooting with M lenses has made me accumulate a LOT of 39mm filters.
I do have a large stash of 21's and at the moment I am seem to go between the 21f4 VC (either LTM or M) and the 21/4,5 ZM, depending on which camera I use. The 21/4,5 ZM is perfect on the R4M and the 21 VC's tend to go on IIIf's or the Bessa R (or my favourite combo for that lens - the Bessa T and the 21/4 LTM - great "hip shooter" camera as you can see the meter readout from the top}.
 
Thanks Tom!

I have the 21mm VC, it was the second LTM lens I bought for my IIIf (the first was the 15mm). I just like Zeiss glass - I bought the 50mm Planar ZM and I think it's a great lens.

Like you I seem to aquire 21mm lenses. That Biogon 4.5 does need to go on a LTM body IMHO!
 
The Kobalux/Pasinon f/2.8 is a remarkably good lens too. I've tried quite a lot of 21s including both new and old f/4.5 Biogons (and f/2.8 Biogon) and although the new Biogon is a lovely lens (very low distortion, good flare resistance) it's no SO MUCH better than my Kobalux or 21/4 Voigtländer that I desperately want it.

The 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar is another matter. Horribly expensive, yes, but what a lens!

Cheers,

Roger
 
I had the 21f2.8 Kobalux for many years. It is very good, but I found it a bit flare sensitive and for some reson, the front element kept falling off! In the end I loc-Tite'd the front ring in place and that solved the problem. My only beef was the physical size of it. It is big! The finder looks like a miniature garbage can but it is quite good. A friend of mine got mine in the end as I was tired of dragging it around.The example I had was a very early one 1995 so I suspect they fixed the front fall-out in the end.
The Kobalux 28f3.5 is a nice little lens too, I love the fake infinity look on it! Still have one, though I cant remember were it is at the moment. Probably lent it to someone.
The WATE (16/18/21) is impressive, but both the price and the size of it turned me off. For that kind of money I can buy a 15/4.5 VC, a 21/4,5 ZM and a 18f4 ZM and still have enough money to get at least one R4M and another M-body.
The performance is good on the WATE, though I could not see much difference between the 21/4P VC, the 18f4 and the 15/4,5 and the WATE - even wide open. If anything the 18f4 is better than the WATE at 18 and the 21/4P is similar to the WATE across the board. The 16mm setting on the WATE is better than the 15f4.5 VC but not by much. I wished they had made it as a Double Elmar instead. A 15-21 and smaller size instead -a WADE and priced it around $2500 - that would have been attractive.
 
Dear Tom,

Yeah, the finder was awful -- huge with barrel distortion, so I always use other 21 finders-- and I take your point about its size, which is why I also have the 21/4! Odd about the front element: mine's always stayed in. Luck? A later one? A specially fettled one (it was a review lens)? Who knows?

It's the convenience of the WATE I like, especially on the M8. Although I fully agree about a WADE, I suspect that the marginal cost of the 18 setting was negligible and the size saving would have been non-existent.

Actually my wife likes the WATE even more than I do, which is why we'd consider one. But I've just been developing some Alpa films, my 38/4.5 Biogon on 44x66mm and her 35/5.6 Apo-Grandagon on 56x84mm, both of which make any 35 superwide look a bit ill, so maybe we'll use those more.

We have an 18/4 at the moment but although it's very nice, I can't get excited about it the way I could about the WATE. I'm waiting for the 85/2 so I can do a dual 18-85 ZI test for Shutterbug.

Cheers,

R.
 
Dear Roger, heavy drooling on my part for your ALPA set up. I suspect one of the reasons I miss my Focomat IIC is that the Ic does limit me to 35mm. Some years ago I decided to stop temptations like Rollieflexes with 75f3.5 Planars and, in particular the ALPA by getting rid of any enlarger that does negs bigger than 35mm/ It has worked, but each time I see stuff done with the ALPA (either Biogon 38 or Grandagon 35) I covet them. OH, hell - I would settle for a SWC again.
I agree that the WATE makes sense with the M8, but as a confirmed M2/MP user I cant see the use for it. I never liked zooms on my SLR's - too many variables added to the process and though I had the Tri-Elmar 28/35/50 for years I never warmed to it and sold it. My personal way of shooting usually involves 2-3 bodies with primes on them. It is probably based on the fact that this is how I always have been shooting - there is nothing more conservative than 60+ year old M-users I think.
I do check Depardon's book "Errance" on a regular basis - just to get an ALPA kick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom