kshapero
South Florida Man
Besides the faster aperture, what can expect to gain, if I move up to the ZM 21/2.8 from my CV 21/4? 
Avotius
Some guy
I have one, favorite M mount lens by far. Its got character and is impressively sharp and easy to use. Sure its large but that extra speed really comes in handy. I love it. I think the best part of going from CV to ZM's is the color rendering, but that's a personal thing.
sparrow6224
Well-known
I'm a long time owner and lover of my CV 21/4 but I suspect with the bigger and more expensive lens you'll get less vignetting. My CV's vignetting never bothers me but I do notice it in certain circumstances.
ljsegil
Well-known
Great images, it's a fabulous lens, but if you're shooting with a Bessa R4A or M you'll get a lot of intrusion of the lens into the 21mm framelines. Don't know how the CV compares as far as that goes, never got my hands on one.
LJ
LJ
kshapero
South Florida Man
Actually lately I have been shooting my CV21 with my NEX 3 and loving the results and the hyperfocaling.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
You will also get a bit more distorsion with the 21f2.8. The VC 21/4 is very good and has less "bent edges" than the ZM 28f2.8. The extra stop can be a bonus sometimes, but I find that I can handhold 21's at quite low speeds and get away with it. Another bonus is that the 21f4 uses 39 mm filters!
In your 'shoes" I would seriously look at the 25f2.8 ZM as an alternative wide, keep the 21f4 and when you need a bit tighter frame, use the 25f2.8 - which is about as good as it gets for that focal length. Both the 21f2.8 and the 25f2.8 are rather large lenses - at least compared to the VC f4's in those focal lengths. On the R4 they do protrude a bit - but not enough to be a problem - at least not for me.
In your 'shoes" I would seriously look at the 25f2.8 ZM as an alternative wide, keep the 21f4 and when you need a bit tighter frame, use the 25f2.8 - which is about as good as it gets for that focal length. Both the 21f2.8 and the 25f2.8 are rather large lenses - at least compared to the VC f4's in those focal lengths. On the R4 they do protrude a bit - but not enough to be a problem - at least not for me.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Good rant and duly noted.
myM8yogi
Well-known
The 21mm Biogon is a great lens.
Copmared to the CV, you get more flare resistance, colour saturation, sharpness and one stop extra speed. Better ergonomics too, though I must admit I got some Araldite and stuck a summicron focussing tab onto my ZM21 because I prefer that to the "speedbump".
Copmared to the CV, you get more flare resistance, colour saturation, sharpness and one stop extra speed. Better ergonomics too, though I must admit I got some Araldite and stuck a summicron focussing tab onto my ZM21 because I prefer that to the "speedbump".
kxl
Social Documentary
If you like using hyperfocal techniques with your 21mm on your NEX, you will LOVE using the ZM 18mm on that same body, especially when you switch from 3:2 to 16:9.
I used to have the ZM 21/2.8, but decided to trade it for the ZM 25/2.8 and got the ZM 18/4.
I used to have the ZM 21/2.8, but decided to trade it for the ZM 25/2.8 and got the ZM 18/4.
sanmich
Veteran
myM8yogi; stuck a summicron focussing tab onto my ZM21 because I prefer that to the "speedbump".[/QUOTE said:
Besides the faster aperture, what can expect to gain, if I move up to the ZM 21/2.8 from my CV 21/4?
A Hernia? ...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
The 21/2.8 is about the same size as a 50 Summicron, 50 Sonnar etc. It is just a lens. Nowhere near as large as the CV 35/1.2. It is heavier than the CV 21, though, if that is a concern. I find the images from the 21 to be superb. Here is one from last weekend.
On the M9, ISO 640. Handheld @ 1/60 at f:2.8. Processed in CS5 to correct a little distortion (although I think I could have done a better job of this) and vignetting. Processed in Silver EFEX 2 to convert to b&w. Needless to say, there is a lot more information in the original file -- this is down-res'd considerably for showing on the web.
On the M9, ISO 640. Handheld @ 1/60 at f:2.8. Processed in CS5 to correct a little distortion (although I think I could have done a better job of this) and vignetting. Processed in Silver EFEX 2 to convert to b&w. Needless to say, there is a lot more information in the original file -- this is down-res'd considerably for showing on the web.
Last edited:
kshapero
South Florida Man
wow nice job!!The 21/2.8 is about the same size as a 50 Summicron, 50 Sonnar etc. It is just a lens. Nowhere near as large as the CV 35/1.2. It is heavier than the CV 21, though, if that is a concern. I find the images from the 21 to be superb. Here is one from last weekend.
On the M9, ISO 640. Handheld @ 1/60 at f:2.8. Processed in CS5 to correct a little distortion (although I think I could have done a better job of this) and vignetting. Processed in Silver EFEX 2 to convert to b&w. Needless to say, there is a lot more information in the original file -- this is down-res'd considerably for showing on the web.
segedi
RFicianado
The Zeiss is a big lens - I ended up selling mine and contemplated the CV21 or 25, which are tiny and light by comparison. But as luck would have it, found a ZM 25mm f2.8 at a great price. The size/weight is still an issue, but I like the angle of view and it's a wonderfull lens.
If I could rewind time, I would buy the CV 25mm though. Slower lens, but I really prefer its size and weight (and price). Especially on the R4A, the ZM is a bit top heavy.
If I could rewind time, I would buy the CV 25mm though. Slower lens, but I really prefer its size and weight (and price). Especially on the R4A, the ZM is a bit top heavy.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Thanks, Akiva. The 21 and the 25 are both great lenses. I found myself using both in NYC. The crowds and interior spaces lend themselves well to a lens that "sees" a lot. Interestingly I find that I use them less in Vermont, gravitating more to 35/28 for wides.
On the weight question, I'm from the "My other camera is a D3" camp, so all RF lenses seem pretty light and compact by comparison. Even the much-maligned 35/1.2 and 50/1.1 (as far as weight goes anyway) really don't seem that large to me. Obviously, if weight is the only concern, the light, mostly-aluminum CV wides are a great deal. I am lucky, for me weight is almost never the deciding factor in lens choices.
On the weight question, I'm from the "My other camera is a D3" camp, so all RF lenses seem pretty light and compact by comparison. Even the much-maligned 35/1.2 and 50/1.1 (as far as weight goes anyway) really don't seem that large to me. Obviously, if weight is the only concern, the light, mostly-aluminum CV wides are a great deal. I am lucky, for me weight is almost never the deciding factor in lens choices.
Krosya
Konicaze
ZM 21/2.8 is probably the lens that I miss most after selling it. It gave me some superb photos. I did keep the CV 21/4M at the end though. Mostly, because after trying several I found one that was clearly better than others I had (Cosina's sample variations) and cost and size won me over compared to ZM. I still think that ZM 21/2.8 is one of the best lenses - not just in ZM line, but in all lenses I tried in ANY mount and brand. But after doing some math - considering how much I use one vs cost, etc - I found that a GOOD CV21 was a way to go for me. However, if 21mm is a FL you use a lot - I'd say get ZM and never look back. I do miss ZM's faster apperture and drawing.
You can even pull off some bokeh shots with the ZM 2.8. Great , great lens!
You can even pull off some bokeh shots with the ZM 2.8. Great , great lens!
jgeenen
Established
On an M9 the ZM Biogon 2.8/21mm gives you less "Italian Flag" color shifts as you can easily see in this B&W picture ....
Find more of this image - including the original color one - at my blog (currently German only but you should ignore my stupid comments anyhow).
Find more of this image - including the original color one - at my blog (currently German only but you should ignore my stupid comments anyhow).