So those new Zeiss ZM lenses...

[leicaAngst]

...were touted at launch as being 'digital ready' with anti-reflective coatings on the rear surfaces of the barrel, and other things I forget.

So, do they work better than other non-digital lenses (like the Leica and Voigtlander equivalents), particularly at full aperture (which I understand is most 'legacy' lenses achilles heel)?

Cheers,
lA.

 

[howfly]

And are they near telecentric? I understand this is a requirement for edge sharpness in m4/3.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And are they near telecentric? I understand this is a requirement for edge sharpness in m4/3.

No.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrozenInTime]

The Zeiss 18mm ZM is the only wide I have that can be used with confidence my E-P1.
While it's far better than my wide Leica lenses, it's not perfect - there is a little smear in the far corners. A 3:2 crop is enough to cure it.

However it seems to be by accident rather than design that it works reasonably - so it cannot be inferred the 21mm or 25mm will do the same.

some 100% crops from raw.

 

[scho]

I had the Zeiss 25, but it it did not perform well at all on the G1. See 100% corner crops in this comparison between the Zeiss 25, Canon FD 24, and PanaLeica 25D.

http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/109397414

 

[scho]

I had four ZM lenses (18, 25, 35, 50) and all performed very well on my M8, but only the 50 was really perfect on the m43 platform. Here is another corner comparison for the 18 on both the M8 and G1.
http://www.pbase.com/scho/image/109223522