Biogons vs Ultron/Color Skopars

[SaveKodak]

I am thinking about getting a 21mm for Leica M, mostly for use on film. How are the Biogons holding up against the newer Color-Skopar or Ultron 21mm? It used to be that the 21/2.8 Biogon was thought to be the ultimate but the new CV offerings are made with higher res sensors in mind.

Generally it seems like Zeiss has left the field. I thought we'd see more updates after the 35/1.4 was released but CV is now making glass that is as good or better than Leica, what a world! I like the Zeiss brand, it would have been great to see updated Biogons over time. Even the fabulous 50/2 has been supplanted by the 50/2 APO which is similar in price.

Should I still look for a 21mm Biogon or just get the Ultron or Color Skopar?

 

[das]

The 21mm f/4.5 Biogon ZM is fantastic, probably better than the 2.8 but just not as fast. I had a chance to borrow one for a time. It is definitely better than the Skopar. If I didn't already have a 21, I would go for that one over the alternatives. Not sure about its performance on various digital sensors, though.

 

[Out to Lunch]

The Zeiss 4.5/21 is an excellent lens. Not sure if I'd buy it today for use with film, only. Cheers, OtL

 

[WJJ3]

The CV 21s are excellent. Even the 21/4 Color-Skopar is a wonderful performer. I own the 21/4 and 21/3.5 Color-Skopars and the 21/1.8 Ultron. They’re all fantastic 21mm lenses. I haven’t used either of the modern Biogon 21s, but I would bet you’d have a hard time seeing much difference from the CV 21s.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

On film and Leica M? Elmarit-M 21 2.8 by Mandler.

 

[SaveKodak]

Leica stuff is too expensive, and the CV + ZM lenses equal or out perform them anyway. Not wasting my money on a brand identity.

 

[santino]

Leica stuff is too expensive, and the CV + ZM lenses equal or out perform them anyway. Not wasting my money on a brand identity.

I like your reply! Take that, Leica boutique AG 😉

 

[SaveKodak]

I like your reply! Take that, Leica boutique AG 😉

Yeah I mean it's funny. I remember 15 years or so ago you'd hear a lot of people say stuff like "shooting a non-leica lens on an M body is like driving a Porsche with a Volkswagen engine" or whatever. Back then it did seem like Leica had an edge on lenses. Even the ZM lenses had weak spots. The 35/2 Biogon was not as good as a Summicron mostly...the older CV designs really suffered on digital bodies on the wide end.

Maaaaan do things seem different now. You absolutely have to pixel peep to claim that the 50/1.4 ASPH is better than the 50/1.5 II. The 50/1 Nokton clearly outperforms to the .95 Noctilux...stunning to see at $1799 for the lens vs a like 10 grand plus for the Leica? The Zeiss 35/1.4 is a better lens than the Leica FLE but at a significant size penalty, I'm very eager to try this new 35/1.5. For me, it's why I just am getting back into the M system. I bought what looks like (hasn't arrived yet) a very clean chrome M4-P. The 'vintage line' CV lenses are just about perfect from the perspective of optical quality and cost, it's hard to ignore at this point.

My OP was mostly because I"d like a 21 and I used to so lust after the 21/2.8 Biogon...but it's hard to shell out the still high cost toward one when CV has released 3 very attractive 21mm lenses over the last few years. I have an Ultron in my cart on Camera Quest and I'm probably going to pull the trigger...but idk what to do yet! It's a hard choice. I know from experience that at least the 21 Distagon 2.8 is truly stunning, same with the 28/2.8 Biogon. Ho hummmm just can't make my mind up!

 

[Darthfeeble]

21 CV color skopal 3.5-22 is awesome, two grab shots with the M10 at f16. Of course the detail is reduced in the process of making them small but you should get the idea.