Tom, what are your thoughts on wide Leica and Zeiss lenses?

[Vickko]

Tom, what are your thoughts on wide Leica and Zeiss lenses?

I've got some money burning a hole in my wallet and I've been reading and comparing these wide lenses. What are your comments:

1. 16/18/21 WATE: great optical quality, versatility, but f/4 is "slow

2. Zeiss 18/4 Distagon for M: fantastic optcs, optics equal to the Leica 18/3.5, better mechanical design for filters, can be 6-bit coded

3. CV 15mm - nice but inferior optical performance compared to Zeiss 18/4

4. Zeiss 21mm f2.8 - good optics? Better optically than Leica 21/2.8 ASPH?

5. CV 12mm - great optics, and is in a class of its own, as a super extra wide?

...Vick

 

[Phil_F_NM]

While I'm not Tom, I can speak of the ZM 21mm f/2.8. I've had it for a year now, using it almost exclusively on digital bodies (RD1 and M8).
This lens is stellar. Incredibly sharp, little fall-off even at wide apertures and almost zero distortion. For architectural use and pixel-peeping you'd notice some distortion, but a very small amount; almost un-noticeable. For the purposes of general photography, the distortion and fall-off are not an issue. It's one of the nicest optics I've ever used and one of my favorites.

Phil Forrest

 

[Vickko]

Great, thank you Phil.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Vick,

I don't know if you've used the CV 15 Heliar... I use the M mount version.

I do architecture photography, but not with 35mm... I use my Hasselblad or my Arca Swiss for that if I need more film size (IQ) or perspective/focus control...

For its size and weight, and its very low distortion (and RF coupling and 52mm filters). I think the 15 Heliar is an amazingly good lens... It's very sharp and has a nice contrast too... I use it at f/8 and f/11 most of the time. Wide open and focused at its minimal distance is sharp too and gives a bit of blurred background.

The Zeiss 18 is great too, but bigger, and the 15 has a more innocent look to me... That's what I care for when using 35mm cameras... I guess Zeiss, CV and Leica are in a similar level, and what really makes a difference is going to other formats...

The 15 Heliar was the first RF lens I bought, (now I use 15, 28, 40 and 90 by CV and Leica) and I still think it's a marvelous design.

For sure if we compare three different printed images with lenses by the three brands, the best image won't depend IN ANY WAY on the lens/brand used, but on the content and composition...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Krosya]

While I'm not Tom, I can speak of the ZM 21mm f/2.8. I've had it for a year now, using it almost exclusively on digital bodies (RD1 and M8).
This lens is stellar. Incredibly sharp, little fall-off even at wide apertures and almost zero distortion. For architectural use and pixel-peeping you'd notice some distortion, but a very small amount; almost un-noticeable. For the purposes of general photography, the distortion and fall-off are not an issue. It's one of the nicest optics I've ever used and one of my favorites.

Phil Forrest

My thoughts exactly! ZM 21/2.8 is one superb lens. I use mine on Rd1s too, but prefer on film bodies (Hexar RF usually) - for it's true 21mm FL. Having tried CV21 (which I like and own too), Avenon 21/2.8 (Second version in silver and last version in black) - I have to say- ZM leaves them all behind. I have never used Leica 21mm, but from what pictures I have seen, the only 21mm M-mount lens that will beat ZM 21/2.8 is new Summilux 21/1.4.

 

[Turtle]

I very much doubt the new lux 21 1.4 asph will beat the 21 ZM in any regard apaprt from speed. Why would it? I own the 24 lux and a 21 2.8 ZM and base my view on that. The 21 and 24 lux asphs are incredibly fast and small for their spec, but they are not optically better at equivalent apertures than their slower cousins. I happen to subjectively love the 24 lux, but bought it for its speed. Were it not for that need, the $6K would have remained in my bank account.

 

[FrozenInTime]

For some reason, the build quality of the Zeiss ZM 18mm is way ahead of the other Zeiss lenses I've used.
The ZM 21mm f/2.8 helicoid action felt flimsy in comparison to the Zeiss 18mm or a Leica 21mm.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I very much doubt the new lux 21 1.4 asph will beat the 21 ZM in any regard apaprt from speed. .... The 21 and 24 lux asphs are incredibly fast and small for their spec, but they are not optically better at equivalent apertures than their slower cousins.

I've not used my ZM18 since getting the 21 Summilux last year, as the wide aperture is so intoxicating.
However for the very reasons you state,
I'm still hanging on to the 18mm for a time when the speed novelty wares off and ultimate resolution and low distortion are need for a subject.

 

[Tom A]

Vic, The WATE is too expensive, too slow, too big and clumsy and truly, do you need a lens with 2 mm difference between the widest settings! (16-18). Also it has one of the 'dorkiest: finders ever. Looks like it should pick up Country and Western stations!
For the same money you can get either a 12f5.6 and the new, compact finder, a 18f4 Distagon and it's finder and either a 21f2.8 Biogon or. if you are not planning to use it with a M9/M8 (slight fringing) a 21f4.5 ZM Biogon.
Yes, the 21f1.4 Summilux is stunning, but only if you spend your time in really, really dark places. Once you stop it down to 2.8 - it is no better than the ZM 21f2.8 and it has more distorsion than the 4.5 Biogon!
I like the 15f4.5 Heliar, particularly the coupled rangefinder and the fact that I can use 52 mm filters on it. As for being inferior to the 18f4 Distagon - I dont think so. The 18 is very good - but so is the 15 and I have really not seen enough difference between them- in optical quality. Both are damned good.
The 12f5.6 is in a class of its own!

 

[dof]

For some reason, the build quality of the Zeiss ZM 18mm is way ahead of the other Zeiss lenses I've used.
The ZM 21mm f/2.8 helicoid action felt flimsy in comparison to the Zeiss 18mm or a Leica 21mm.

From what I've read, the design tolerances for the 18mm and 85mm ZM lenses require more specialized assembly and strict and quality control than the rest of the line. Because of this, these are the only two that are assembled at the Zeiss plant.

My speculation is that the focus mounts are tighter by design and in practice for these two.


EDIT: In the interest of not being the source yet more internet mis-information, I was corrected below: the 15mm and 85mm Zeiss lenses are the two built at the Zeiss plant - not the 18 and 85 as I thought. I'll chalk it up to another multi-taksing mistake on my part.

 

[Krosya]

For some reason, the build quality of the Zeiss ZM 18mm is way ahead of the other Zeiss lenses I've used.
The ZM 21mm f/2.8 helicoid action felt flimsy in comparison to the Zeiss 18mm or a Leica 21mm.

Cold you, please, tell us more on 21Lux? Maybe with some photos? I really want this lens, but price tag is just a bit out of my reach at this time. Would really like more info from users on it.

 

[Mister E]

Don't forget the 21mm f/4.5 C-Biogon.

 

[umcelinho]

I can talk about the ones I have - 15 & 12 LTM Heliars and 21/2.8 Biogon. The new finders of the M versions of the 12 & 15 with brightlines must be really worth it, as framing on the older finders could be quite misleading (depending on the angle you look), it's something that nags me a bit when shooting with them.

The 12 is REALLY wide. It has very little barrel distortion but a lot of perspective distortion, so things on the corners can look really weird, especially if they are people or organic shaped. It's so wide it ends up being useful for few situations. Still, I use it a lot on my R-D1, where it becomes an 18mm, which feels much more usable. The extremely wide angle of this lens, though, is interesting if you compose with care knowing how to deal with the lens characteristics. And well, there are some moments that having a lens this wide really saved the day.

The 15mm Heliar is also pretty wide, but a bit faster. It gives an interesting field of view with not as much perspective distortion as the 12 does, which makes shooting with it more comfortable. Still, I think it is very similar in pros/cons to the 12mm. Both lenses do shine in certain situations in which there is just not enough room. I shot at a fortune cookyfactory and the space was really tight. Used the 15 and managed to capture the whole environment. With a 21mm I'd lose some of the background area, but if i took a few steps backwards it could probably be solved.

The 21/2.8 is really a great lens. it is pretty wide, but not wide enough to allow for some framing (the 12 and the 15 capture pretty much what an eye sees). it wont have the strong perspective distortions the 12 and the 15 have and being faster, if you like shallower dof and low light, is really helpful. I havent shot much with this lens but so far I really really liked it. There is still the 21/4.5 which is more compact if you don't need 2.8.

Out of the 3, I'd go for the Biogon. I think it would get more use than the others, but that comes down to shooting style and preferences.

 

[dof]

Actually, that's the 2,8/15 and 2/85. The 4/18 is made in the same factory as the rest; by Cosina in Japan.

Ah, I stand corrected.

Best,

 

[Artichoke]

another excellent option, as of yet unmentioned (pics)

another excellent option, as of yet unmentioned (pics)

the CZ 15 f2.8
this is a large lens, but as it cannot be RF coupled and requires an external view finder, I think this a minor problem
Carl Zeiss went all out with this one, but its price and lack of coupling has made it a relatively rarely seen lens
I got one used from KEH and am pleased with my good fortune to have found this grand lens at a very good price
virtually without distortion and beautifully corrected (minimal to no CA or purple fringing even at its edges) this lens is among the sharpest I have used
here are some examples from it

close subject


distant subject
perspective correction in post


both of these were taken with the M9 using the provided CZ central vignette filter
they were handheld
much larger versions of these can be found here -------> http://www.pbase.com/artichoke/m8&page=58 along with shooting information
with the M9 this lens works quite well without the filter as well, providing one uses CornerFix
I also have the CV 15 Heliar, but this lens is not in the same league as the CZ
I had to get a bigger bag to accommodate this larger lens, but now the smaller Heliar languishes in my lens closet

 

[Mister E]

Yeah I think Zeiss' biggest mistake was not coupling the 15mm f/2.8 I mean along with it being over $3000, but the coupling is number 1.

 

[FrozenInTime]

Yeah I think Zeiss' biggest mistake was not coupling the 15mm f/2.8 I mean along with it being over $3000, but the coupling is number 1.

I would be prepared to forgive not coupling the lens - but not so sure about distortion :

The 15mm f/2.8 has -3.75%
The 18mm f/4 has -1%
The 21mm f/2.8 has -1.25%
The 21mm f/4.5 has -0.25%

For Leica:

The 16-18-21 f/4 has -3.25% at 16mm; -2.35% at 18mm; -1.5% at 21mm
The 18mm f/3.8 has -1.9%
The 21mm f/1.4 has -2.25%
The 21mm f/2.8 has -2.5%

For architecture on M :
What would be really good is a 18mm lens with fixed 10mm shift built in ( that could be clicked between horizontal and vertical ).

 

[Mister E]

I would be prepared to forgive not coupling the lens - but not so sure about distortion :

The 15mm f/2.8 has -3.75%
The 18mm f/4 has -1%
The 21mm f/2.8 has -1.25%
The 21mm f/4.5 has -0.25%

For Leica:

The 16-18-21 f/4 has -3.25% at 16mm; -2.35% at 18mm; -1.5% at 21mm
The 18mm f/3.8 has -1.9%
The 21mm f/1.4 has -2.25%
The 21mm f/2.8 has -2.5%

For architecture on M :
What would be really good is a 18mm lens with fixed 10mm shift built in ( that could be clicked between horizontal and vertical ).

I think having a sharp, fast 15mm without coupling is pointless. At f/2.8 zone focus is hardly adequate for the image quality I'd expect from a $3,000+ lens.

What's the distortion on the CV 15/4.5 m-mount?

 

[terrycioni]

21mm F2.8 Biogon

21mm F2.8 Biogon

Tom,

I, as you know, have the 21mm Biogon, I have not yet shot with it on the M9 but I have extensively on the M8 and I must admit I haven't noticed any fringing - that said I will go back and have a look and certainly will pay more attention, but fringing has not stood-out at any point over the past couple of years.

What I am lacking for the M9 is a 21mm viewfinder and for that I am considering the ZM finder or the VC finder - either or.

I certainly agree the (new) 15mm VC M is a charm to use and it it is a remarkably good optic for the price and on the M8 I can put a 52mm UV/IR filter on it when needed.

As for the WATE I took a pass for the very reasons you articulate 16 - 18 - 21 - are in my humble opinion not a great deal different in focal length.

Best regards, Terry

Vic, The WATE is too expensive, too slow, too big and clumsy and truly, do you need a lens with 2 mm difference between the widest settings! (16-18). Also it has one of the 'dorkiest: finders ever. Looks like it should pick up Country and Western stations!
For the same money you can get either a 12f5.6 and the new, compact finder, a 18f4 Distagon and it's finder and either a 21f2.8 Biogon or. if you are not planning to use it with a M9/M8 (slight fringing) a 21f4.5 ZM Biogon.
Yes, the 21f1.4 Summilux is stunning, but only if you spend your time in really, really dark places. Once you stop it down to 2.8 - it is no better than the ZM 21f2.8 and it has more distorsion than the 4.5 Biogon!
I like the 15f4.5 Heliar, particularly the coupled rangefinder and the fact that I can use 52 mm filters on it. As for being inferior to the 18f4 Distagon - I dont think so. The 18 is very good - but so is the 15 and I have really not seen enough difference between them- in optical quality. Both are damned good.
The 12f5.6 is in a class of its own!

 

[Artichoke]

1 mm wider & 1 stop faster

1 mm wider & 1 stop faster

I would be prepared to forgive not coupling the lens - but not so sure about distortion :

The 15mm f/2.8 has -3.75%
The 18mm f/4 has -1%
The 21mm f/2.8 has -1.25%
The 21mm f/4.5 has -0.25%

For Leica:

The 16-18-21 f/4 has -3.25% at 16mm; -2.35% at 18mm; -1.5% at 21mm
The 18mm f/3.8 has -1.9%
The 21mm f/1.4 has -2.25%
The 21mm f/2.8 has -2.5%

For architecture on M :
What would be really good is a 18mm lens with fixed 10mm shift built in ( that could be clicked between horizontal and vertical ).

will produce greater distortion for any lens
as lenses get wider, they have more distortion
as lenses get faster, they have more distortion
the Zeiss 15 Distagon is a remarkable optical design, I think, for producing such high image quality given its width and speed
🙂