R-D1 + 21mm Zm Biogon (samples)

J

J. Borger

Well-known
Local time
10:10 PM
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
951
Hello,

Because i am a 50mm guy i could not justify the 21 Elmarit and decided in favour of the Zeiss 21mm Biogon ... which arrived this week.

Impressions:
- Very solid build but not near Leica quality
- Chrome version is not pretty .. the "chrome" looks a bit cheap
- Operations (focussing, apperture ring) ... nothing to complain about all works smooth & accurate .. works really nice .. a pleasure to use
- Size: bulky .... about the size of a 50 summilux with hood extended;


For framing i decided on the CV 28/35 minifinder (anticipating the digital M).
THis is a real nice small metal finder ... what you get on the sensor is very close to the 28mm framelines .....

Now what really counts are the images of course.
I put a small gallery together of some snaps on my first outing.
This lens certainly draws different compared to any of my Leicas.
The files look very "bright" i would say.


All samples in the gallery below are shot at iso 800 and pushed at least a full stop because i underexposed accidently.
No noise reduction of any kind ... even sharpened the grain .. because i like some grain;)


sample gallery 21MM Biogon: http://www.shutterfreaks.com/gallery/album143
 
Last edited:
Nifty!

I have been thinking a lot about that lens (not that I have the money). A smart price point for Zeiss to aim at though.

How is the fit/finish compared to the C/V lenses?
 
JB, I'm afraid a little bulk is the price you have to pay for f/2.8 in a lens this wide. At 50.7 mm, it is a little longer than the Elmarit (46 mm) or the Kobalux (48 mm), but its diameter (46 mm filter) is not as wide as either of them either - Leica (56), Kobalux (58).

BTW, I like the pictures. :)
 
I do not have a CV lens myself so i can't comment from my own experience.
Nobody knows if and how fast the Zeiss lenses wear out over time. I have read reports the CV lenses do.
The lensmount of my lens is very tight and the rings feel very solid. Pleasantly stiff but smooth handling.
The cheaper feel compared to the Leicas is perhaps partly subjective because the Zeiss lenses are longer than their Leica counterparts and at the same time feel significant lighter.

The "Chrome" On the Zeiss lenses is a bit too "shiney" for my taste. But perhaps that's just me.
 
Huck Finn said:
JB, I'm afraid a little bulk is the price you have to pay for f/2.8 in a lens this wide. At 50.7 mm, it is a little longer than the Elmarit (46 mm) or the Kobalux (48 mm), but its diameter (46 mm filter) is not as wide as either of them either - Leica (56), Kobalux (58).

[\QUOTE]

I guess you are right ... i am not complaining.
But you have to get uncomfortable close and then another step forward with a lens this wide. For the subject it's almost if you stick a tele in their face :D
Click to expand...
 
J. Borger said:
Huck Finn said:
JB, I'm afraid a little bulk is the price you have to pay for f/2.8 in a lens this wide. At 50.7 mm, it is a little longer than the Elmarit (46 mm) or the Kobalux (48 mm), but its diameter (46 mm filter) is not as wide as either of them either - Leica (56), Kobalux (58).

[\QUOTE]

you have to get uncomfortable close and then another step forward with a lens this wide. For the subject it's almost if you stick a tele in their face :D
Click to expand...

I could see that in your pictures. You did a great job with some impressive results! :)

Huck
Click to expand...
 
J. Borger said:
The cheaper feel compared to the Leicas is perhaps partly subjective because the Zeiss lenses are longer than their Leica counterparts and at the same time feel significant lighter.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation, JB. Puts addresses this point in his review. He agreed that build quality is not up to Leica, but he also found that the ZM is mechanically accurate, & he found no decentring - something which he has found in the CV lenses. So, build quality seems to be what one might expect for the price point: better than CV but less than Leica. For my money, it's a question of how anyone might use the lens. If it's going to be banged around a lot - as was the case in the days when Leicas were in heavy use with photojournalists - then it's worth the extra money for the improved build quality. If it is going to get less rigorous use, a Leica lens with no discernible optical advantage is probably an indulgence. As Puts points out, there are advantages to offering products that are priced competitively.

Huck
 
Huck

I am not a wide angle guy so i decided on the Zeiss in favour of the Leica for thart reason alone. I do not think there is anything wrong with the Zeiss with respect to build quality.
The price difference with Leica is about a factor 2-2,5 in Europe if we include the hood and the finder. For that price difference we get for the Leica:
- a (slightley) better build quality
- a smaller lens (at least in apearance amd feel)
- a leather pouch
- better resell value (?)

Is that worth the price difference? Can't answer that question. It depends on usage of the lens and above all your intentions with it like you state yourself.

What does not show from my samples is that the performance of the Zeiss wide open is awesome (as sharp and contrasty in low light as my 35 cron asph).

What amazes me most however is the different fingerprint from my other Lenses (Leica 35 & 50 summicrons and 35, 50 and 75 summilux). Beautifull in it's own right but very different.

So the choice between a 21 Elmarit ans a Zeiss 21mm Biogon goes a bit further than money. It simply is not so that you get the Leica for half the price by buying the Biogon.
You buy a different lens ...... but a very good one in every aspect!
 
Hi Han,

Thanks very much for the samples. I'm testing the 25, 28, 35 and 50 now but have not yet gotten a review sample of the 21. With the samples on your site, did you need to correct for vignetting in RAW conversion or is it just not very strong?

Thanks,

Sean
 
Sean,

Vignetting is not very strong .... .. there may be a few samples where i had the correction set to 21mm/ 0 .. just to brighten the image because of underexposure. From other test-shots indoor (at f2,8) which were properly exposed, but not posted here, i know i did not feel any need to correct for vignetting and did not. But i must admit i never closely looked at the samples with vignetting in mind .... on the other hand if i did not notice or feel the need to correct for it it must have been a minor issue at the most. But again i did not test/ look with that in mind nor can i compare with other lenses.

Hope this helps in any way,

Han
 
Hi Han,

Thanks. Based on your comments above and the samples you showed, this seems to be a very impressive little lens. I'd like to test one as soon as I can. A lens that wide that shows little vignetting on the R-D1 is likely to be a good lens for various DRFs as they are released.

Cheers,

Sean
 
J. Borger said:
What does not show from my samples is that the performance of the Zeiss wide open is awesome (as sharp and contrasty in low light as my 35 cron asph).

What amazes me most however is the different fingerprint from my other Lenses (Leica 35 & 50 summicrons and 35, 50 and 75 summilux). Beautifull in it's own right but very different.

So the choice between a 21 Elmarit ans a Zeiss 21mm Biogon goes a bit further than money. It simply is not so that you get the Leica for half the price by buying the Biogon.
You buy a different lens ...... but a very good one in every aspect!
Click to expand...

Very interesting, Han. Have you seen samples of pictures taken with the Elmarit? I wonder how its fingerprint compares with the other focal lengths you mention. Thanks for sharing all of this information.

Huck
 
Huck,

"Fingerprint" is Sean Reidt territory;) I really do not feel qualified to explain.
But it has to do with brigtness/ clarity of the files. Just compare the files in my sample gallery to those in my gallery here ar RF forum and you'll see what i mean.
On one extreme there is the Leica 35 lux pre-asph which always seems to give dark/mood y pictures ............. the Biogon is the exact opposite ... the files look very "clean and christal clear". I do not know if this description makes any sense ... it is easier to see than describe.
 
ddimaria said:
J. do you have any samples of the 35lux pre-asph on the RD-1?????
Click to expand...

Here you go ....... this is a much better lens than it's reputation .....
I have one of the later Titanium versions i might add.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom