Leica M's (Digital) with Zeiss ZM's

[roscoetuff]

Curious whether experience with Zeiss ZM lenses on the digital Leica M's - especially the 18 and 24MB M's... are high on the satisfaction meter. My impression (please correct me) is that the ZM lenses were designed for film, but I'm not sure whether Zeiss is still actively building and developing the line (if you know otherwise, please tell me). Thanks! New Leicas look to me like Leica's really beginning to take digital seriously and "getting it". Good!

 

[SaveKodak]

Whether they're still developing the line, I'm not sure. I can tell you that the ZM wides are some of the best ZMs you can get! The wides I used had none of the problems that you see on sensors that are not optimized for M lenses. The 18/4 is very very good, but a little big. The 21/2.8 is basically legendary. The 21/4.5 is fabulous but the least friendly to digital sensors. The two 21s, and 25 are Biogons, and the 18 and 15 are Distagons. Distagons are by nature more friendly to digital sensors. Among the Biogons on digital the 21/2,8 and 25/2.8 are the stand outs IMO. The 25 is probably ignored more, but it's among the sharpest lenses I've ever used.

The Leica lenses are of course great too. But when you make a value proposition that's where you have to ask the tougher questions. Frankly I wouldn't discount the CV lenses either. The new 15 is pretty great, same with the 21/1,8.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Currently I have 18MP digital M and three different 50mm primes.
First of all, Leica did very good job (comparing to others) for how film era lenses performs on digital. I have old, earlier (possibly still German glass) FSU copy of Biogon 35 2.8 (a.k.a. J-12.) and I was very surprised with its performance on digital M. Very sharp and no issues with color. To be honest, it seems to give better results comparing to what I'm getting from this lens on film M.
Three 50 mm primes I have used on digital M so far are Cron Rigid, Nokton 50 1.5 VM and Planar 50 2 ZM. Plus, Jupiter-3. Here is my report on Zeiss. Despite, what I'm not overwhelmed with ZM performance, it is nice 50mm M-mount lens I might consider to keep on digital M as much more cost effective and modern alternative to modern Leica and old Leitz lenses.
You have to look at each focal length. For me 50 is less important than 35, where I have modern Leica lens. 28mm and wider are even less important to me and if I ever get something in this range I have trust (and experience) in CV VM lenses. Nice build, great price and acceptable performance.

 

[rscheffler]

I have extensive experience with the ZM 21/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/2 and have also used the 18, 21/4.5, 25, 28, 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.5 and both 85s. I shot the first three as my primary lenses on the M9 for a few years until gradually expanding my collection with Leica equivalents.

On the M9, you benefit from the later firmware updates which better handle the edge color shift problem. The 21/2.8 will exhibit some red shading along the edge unless coded either by hand on the lens mount or by setting the appropriate code in the camera. I found the 11134 Leica 21/2.8 non-ASPH code worked best. The 35/2.8 also exhibited some slight color shift without setting a lens code, but IIRC, it wasn't as noticeable as the 21. The 50 is fine, as is the 50/1.5 and the two 85s. The 21/4.5 has very strong vignetting and edge color shift, to the extent that software correction will not be optimum, or you just convert all of those images to B&W. IIRC, the 18 also benefits from software correction.

Compared to the M9, the M240 has further sensor topping optimizations to reduce or eliminate edge color shift and as a result works better with the more problematic ZM lenses (though I have not done much, if anything with the 18 and 21/4.5 on the M240). The 35/1.4 is the latest ZM and is world-class. Possibly one of the best 35s available. You can shoot it uncoded on the M240 without concern about color shift.

Bottom line from my experience is that most ZM lenses will be fine and a few may require software correction for color shift. One of the reasons I migrated to Leica lenses (other than curiosity) was the reliability of the engraved 6-bit coding on the mount meant I didn't need to think about that technical aspect while shooting. With 'hand coded' (using a black permanent marker) ZM lens mounts, eventually the ink would degrade through time and handling to the point the 6-bit reader on the camera's lens mount wouldn't always read the code. This resulted in increasingly frequent instances of uncorrected images that then would later require additional attention in post. The intensity and angle of direct sunlight shining on the lens mount interface would sometime also cause the 6-bit reader to not read the hand coded ZM lenses. There was a span of time during which I had to jamb a finger up against the 21/2.8's lens mount whenever shooting in direct sunlight. I believe others resorted to using 'hair scrunchies' around the lens at the mount to block light shining on the lens mount area. IIRC, there may be someone out there offering 6-bit ZM lens mount engraving which likely would reduce the read errors.

That said, you could just shoot them all uncoded and not worry much about it, particularly with the M240. If a specific image is problematic, you can fix it in post manually or with specific software tools such as Corner Fix or the Adobe Flat Field plug-in for Lightroom.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I've had no major problems with the zeiss distagon 4/18 on the leica m9. Also have a look at: http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/18mm.htm

 

[roscoetuff]

All good to hear. Thank you! I'm a Zeiss fan.

 

[uhoh7]

Ron is pretty much right on. Pick the right code and you are fine, except:

ZM21/4.5 that one is not correctable. Which is a shame.

You can see a bunch of ZM18 shots and recent discussion of UWA use on M9 with various samples

Here

ZM 18:

L1048629 by unoh7, on Flickr


L1048074 by unoh7, on Flickr

Now, the ZM18 is really nice, but the SEM18 will probably kill it, as the SEM 21 certainly does, in far edge and deep corners, at all apertures but even more at faster speeds. Even the charts show it fall off abruptly at the extreme edge, so I am not sure if this is the M9's fault.


ZM 18/4 by unoh7, on Flickr


into sharp light by unoh7, on Flickr
Every ZM lens will flare, but they resist more than usual 🙂


L1055213 by unoh7, on Flickr

All above are 18/4 no crops coded as Ron says.

The ZM 35/2 is superb on the M9, though it is a tough lens on stock Sony A7 as are may of these. You don't even need to code it on the M9.


Whitebarks near Sunset by unoh7, on Flickr

In fact this may be the strongest landscape 35 for M digital. Digilloyd found it sharper than the ZM 35/1.4 which is fantastic. But this would be at about f/4 and on down. F/2 it's not as strong as the 1.4 or the two great Leica lenses, current cron and FLE.

But those lenses have waves, and the biogon is very even. Great at F/11, which is not a given.

Here it is WO:

L1033110 by unoh7, on Flickr

and here at full power:

Lost River Mountains by unoh7, F/11

Least distortion of any 35 I think. All these shots on my M9 🙂

ZM 21/2.8 very good. ZM 25/2.8 excellent. ZM 28/2.8 good for reportage, weak in landscape. ZM 35/2.8 Superb in street. Some feel it's the best of all for this. ZM35/1.4 is benchmark. Downside is size and it does weird things with bright lights toward the edge. ZM 50/1.5 nice with some focus shift. 50/2 excellent, cron v4/5 is stronger but not as good with flare, and maybe planar has better bokeh. These are all Cosina built. Good but you always want to check centering if you care. The modern Leica lenses are better built, or feel that way to me, but the ZM are fine. "Zeiss wobble" is something Leicas also do (both my SEM21 and 28 cron), it's just internal screws, you send them to DAG or whoever, and it's easy, cheap fix.

Of course the 15 and the 85/2 are exotic, german, and probably great, though few own them. That little 85/4 is real good but so many options 75/85/90 it's a tough crowd.

Leica lenses have dropped alot in price though. SEM 18, 21 and 24, and 28 cron are unsurpassed and all can be found now under 2k if you really look for a bit. These four are completely off the hook in a class by themselves for performance and color, and at this point are good values, within reach for normal people who want the very best. 🙂

 

[hellomikmik]

Curious whether experience with Zeiss ZM lenses on the digital Leica M's - especially the 18 and 24MB M's... are high on the satisfaction meter. My impression (please correct me) is that the ZM lenses were designed for film, but I'm not sure whether Zeiss is still actively building and developing the line (if you know otherwise, please tell me). Thanks! New Leica's look to me like Leica's really beginning to take digital seriously and "getting it". Good!

They started indeed mostly as film lenses but the last addition (35/1,4) is clearly designed to work very well with sensors.

Just checked today (21/1/2017):
- ZI cameras: discontinued
- 18/4: discontinued
- 21/4,5: discontinued
- 85/2: discontinued, not even mentioned on the site

They might be developing something, who knows, current line up is already nice and covering lot of terrain.

 

[music_healing]

my ME used extensively with ZM 35 1.4 and Lux 50 ASPH

Those two lenses are my most reliable and predictable lens for serious documentary assignments..

plus: ZM 35 1.4 and film also great combo


Also own 25 2.8 and 50 1.5 , mostly used on film for me, glued on R4M and Zeiss Ikon


Sincerely
William Jusuf

 

[roscoetuff]

These are great shots, thanks for sharing. Which camera?

Will have to try to find more info on "coding". On my Sony, I haven't paid as close attention (yet) to the differences between new Loxia's and old Contax CY's - though I have 2 or 3 dupes. Tend to prefer the new for the EXIF and integration, but the old Contax lenses are still doggone sharp and in some cases, faster.

I've put Leica on my long-term "to do" list and am trying to learn and gather info, and will probably rent a rig from Lensrentals as a pilot project. New M10 may begin to gather a little moss before I gather one. 🙂

 

[roscoetuff]

Let me add that the Zeiss Loxia line is fabulous, attests to Zeiss's intent to be a long-term player and maybe if this new M10 succeeds in sales the way I think they will, Zeiss will begin to make some ZM lenses for Leica. To this point in my mind, Leica has built a number of digital cameras without having to really get it. Brand loyalty has been enough. But this version's specs... suggest that they're really here for the long-term and it's time to take them seriously. Maybe the M10's a little light here or there, but it's much more of a shooter's camera - at last.

 

[user237428934]

Let me add that the Zeiss Loxia line is fabulous, attests to Zeiss's intent to be a long-term player and maybe if this new M10 succeeds in sales the way I think they will, Zeiss will begin to make some ZM lenses for Leica.

I assume that the amount of M8, M9, M240 (and variation) and SL cameras in total today is more than the M10 will ever sell. On all these cameras the Zeiss lenses can be used and suddenly with an M10 Zeiss will produce new M-lenses? As if the M10 is the first digital M.......

 

[user237428934]

I have a Planar 50 and a Biogon 35. Both lenses worked great on M8, M9 and work great on M240. What I don't like is the absence of a useful lens hood, no coding, the bigger size compared to the Leica lenses.

My other lenses (18, 28, 75) are Leica lenses and I'm not planning to buy a Zeiss lens again.

 

[uhoh7]

These are great shots, thanks for sharing. Which camera?

Will have to try to find more info on "coding". On my Sony, I haven't paid as close attention (yet) to the differences between new Loxia's and old Contax CY's - though I have 2 or 3 dupes. Tend to prefer the new for the EXIF and integration, but the old Contax lenses are still doggone sharp and in some cases, faster.

I've put Leica on my long-term "to do" list and am trying to learn and gather info, and will probably rent a rig from Lensrentals as a pilot project. New M10 may begin to gather a little moss before I gather one. 🙂

Those are with the M9. The Sony A7 can also shoot M decently with a thin filter mod, however that does degrade native performance a bit. The Sony system is plagued by poor QC in lenses, and large lens size, relative to Leica. The "new" Loxias...well the 50 may actually be new, and looks pretty good. The 35 is a biogon-t (zm35/2) with slightly degraded performance.

It's all because Sony decided to place a extra thick filter stack over the cover glass, probably to encourage native sales in the long run. They have made a killing with very high priced lenses, many with terrible QC documented by Lensrentals.

The new 2470/2.8 is an exception. It's good and good QC also. The 21 and 25 are nice with average QC. The 1635 is good with iffy QC. 35/1.4, 90 macro, 35/2.8 terrible QC.

Instead I shoot the A7 with filter stack reduced from 1.9mm to .8mm

ZM 35/2 on Sony A7.mod (Kolari v1):

Foothills of Smoky Dome by unoh7, on Flickr


elle by unoh7, on Flickr

Makes a great second camera to M9. Kolari vision mod cost is 400USD, a clean A7 is 600USD. This really improves the A7 and A7ii alot, because the AA filter goes as well. Performance with wides is huge improvement over stock, but not quite as good as M240, depending on the lens. This is because there is still a .7mm clear coverglass glued to the sensor. In Leica that coverglass IS the IR cut. So SEM18, 21, 28 cron shoot VERY well on the Kolari, but SEM24 ZM35/2 and quite a few others are not as nice as M240. Some catch it stopped down. Others never do.


Upheaval in Canyonlands by unoh7, 28 cron A7.mod

50mm and above are now wonderful on the Sony, much stronger to my eye. I had almost stopped using the camera.


Packin up by unoh7, 50 cron A7.mod


Walk from the Edge by unoh7, 75 Summarit A7.mod


Invisible by unoh7, TE 90 thin A7.mod

There are some newer, more radical mods, which I will try pretty soon with a A7rii. I have seen it in action. I believe that camera is equal to M240 in terms of being true to RF lens design.

This guy has one

That's where my M10 money will likely go 🙁

But M9 will stay, knock on wood it keeps on ticking 🙂 I love it.

 

[AlejandroI]

Many images, m + Zeiss 21mm

Many images, m + Zeiss 21mm

Curious whether experience with Zeiss ZM lenses on the digital Leica M's - especially the 18 and 24MB M's... are high on the satisfaction meter. My impression (please correct me) is that the ZM lenses were designed for film, but I'm not sure whether Zeiss is still actively building and developing the line (if you know otherwise, please tell me). Thanks! New Leicas look to me like Leica's really beginning to take digital seriously and "getting it". Good!

I have a Zeiss 21mm 2.8, which i used extensively with my M240, and I can only tell you that i loved the results to death. Sharpness corner to corner, controlled distortion for a 21mm. The lens can handle the m files easily 🙂 On the sony a7ii its horrible, but on the m it shines 🙂

Untitled by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

L1001908 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

Untitled by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

L1001789 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

Untitled by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

L1008590 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

L1000324 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

L1008494 by Alejandro Ilukewitsch, on Flickr

 

[nobbylon]

forum has a great search engine for well discussed topics

 

[:: Mark]

I have a Planar 50 and a Biogon 35. Both lenses worked great on M8, M9 and work great on M240. What I don't like is the absence of a useful lens hood, no coding, the bigger size compared to the Leica lenses.

Curious as to what you mean by the absence of a useful lens hood? I have the ZM 2/35, and the Zeiss hood works just about as well as lens hoods can on M series lenses.

My only issue with the ZM 2/35 and 2/50 is the awkward filter size...

 

[uhoh7]

Hood for cv 35/1.4 works great on zm35/2 🙂

As does lens cap

It's like they were made in the same factory......😉

 

[user237428934]

Curious as to what you mean by the absence of a useful lens hood? I have the ZM 2/35, and the Zeiss hood works just about as well as lens hoods can on M series lenses.

My only issue with the ZM 2/35 and 2/50 is the awkward filter size...

I like the plastic lens hoods of the Elmarit-M 28 or Summicron 35. They really do the job. Compared to that the metal hood for 35 or 50 is not very effective.

I use a 49mm 10 stop ND filter with a 49 to 43 step up ring.

 

[roscoetuff]

Let me follow up if I may with a query on Zeiss ZM vs. Leica lenses. One of the things that took into Zeiss lenses (Contax CY) was that in manual focusing, I found having the aperture ring close to the camera body and the wide (or long) barrell allocation to focus not only made focusing easy, but was easy to do without looking. First foray had gone to Olympus and the order on the barrel was the opposite with the aperture ring closest to the business end of the lens. For me, this meant that my fingers would fumble over the end and inevitably screw up the focus. So I'm wondering if I'm the only weirdo who finds this sort of ergonomics a thing, or not. And what's the order on Leica's lenses?