Tell Me About The Zeiss 21mm f/4.5

[wjlapier]

Here I am asking more questions🙂 Actually, I'm looking for opinions about the Zeiss lens compared to the VC. I see Kevin Li has several of the Zeiss' from ~$1000-$1300--He says he has one for $750, but I need more info before I might purchase it. Maybe some of you remember me asking about the VC 21 and after some feedback I bought one. It's supposed to be a fine lens according to Bjorn Rorslett ( nothing developed yet ). How does the Zeiss compare to the VC? I know nothing about the Contax mount compared to the Nikon. Are there any focusing issues? Can you still focus with the finger dial? Age of the Zeiss', coating of lens, cost of a view finder ( do I really need one? ). Anything else--Oh, I remember reading about someone--Tom A?--doing a test of the 21s, but I can't find that thread.

Anyway, anything you can share would be nice.

Bill

 

[VinceC]

There are not focusing issues with Zeiss 21 on Nikon RF cameras. The depth of field is so large.

The Zeiss is a great and classic lens. It is extremely (EXTREMELY) contrasty compared to vintage Nikon lenses. It is extremely sharp. There is some light fall-off in the corners, but not too drastic. The Zeiss has no click stops. it is a very heavy leans, lots of chrome and brass, so I don't carry it too often. I bought one close to 20 years ago to fill a need for my Nikon RF system ... if I were doing it today, I'd get a CV 21/4 instead.

I don't own a CV 21/4 and so can't compare them directly. Here are a couple of examples from the Zeiss 21/4.5.

 

[kbg32]

The Biogon is a fantastic lens compared to the VC. The VC is no slouch, but the Biogon has permently attached itself to my M.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=79344

 

[Tom A]

I assume you are talking about the 50's Contax mount Biogon 21/4,5.

When it came out it became THE 21 to beat and it is still a formidable lens. The Biogon formula still ranks up there with the best. Virtually no distortion and very sharp. It is heavy and a bit of an ergonomic nightmare. The aperure ring is very narrow and has miniscule engravings on it. I still have one and use it on my Nikon Rf's. I also have the moder version of it - The Zeiss Biogon 21/4.5 in M-mount. It is a slightly improved version of the old one when it comes to distorsion (0,04% improvement!!!) and that is my M wide angle now.
Only problem, apart from weight/small engravings with the Contax Biogon is the lack of a hood. It is not partuclarly prone to flare, but the front element is right out there and a hood offers some protection against the " Oh @#$% when the front element hits the cardoor frame". Anyway, it is a great lens and a true classic at that.

 

[barbadirame]

One focal question for those who alredy experienced my doubts:
I have recently got a beatiful RF NIKON S2 to side my digital equipment, and renew the fun to take pictures the way we use to in the 60's. Side by side with the 50mm, 35mm and 135mm lens equipment I should need a wide angle lens for my architectural shots. Would some of you suggest me the best choice available on the market? Of course in terms of technical value end cost! Thanks for answer.
Fabio from Italy.

 

[wjlapier]

It's Here!

It's Here!

I ended up buying the Zeiss 21 from Kevin Li. It came yesterday and it's a beautiful piece of craftsmanship. It is heavy, but I like the old school feel of the older all metal Nikkors.

I plan on taking it out today. Just curious how some of you approach focusing this thing. Leave it at infinity focus, f/11 and point and shoot? Looks like hyperfocal is between 2"3.8"-infinity at f/11.

Bill

 

[VinceC]

I tend to actually focus it using the rangefinder in the camera -- obiously, you just need to be in the ballpark, so you can do this quickly, then forget about. Often, because the depth of field is so deep, I'll just focus it using the distance scale on the lens. Wide angles work best when you're showing the relationship between near and far, so I don't do much in the way of "infinity and f/11" shots.