unlikely but...

[back alley]

does anyone have a side by side shot of the zeiss 21/4.5 and the cv 21?

just curious.

joe

 

[rover]

Comparing the physical size of both lenses?

The CV is the same size as the other classic Skopars and I thought the ZM 25 and 21 were very close in size.

 

[vieri]

Not quite - the Zeiss 4.5/21 is definitely smaller than the 2.8/25. Size, from the manufacturers' specs:

Zeiss 4.5/21: diameter 53mm, length 34mm

Zeiss 2.8/25: diameter 53mm, length 49mm

CV 4/21: diameter 49.6mm, length 24mm (28.5 w/hood)

Hope this helps, even if I haven't a pic side by side for both lenses.

 

[back alley]

vieri, you did the work i was too lazy to do, many thanks.

joe

 

[CameraQuest]

Tom A has both of those lenses ..
along with just about any other lens...

Stephen

 

[noimmunity]

Not quite - the Zeiss 4.5/21 is definitely smaller than the 2.8/25. Size, from the manufacturers' specs:

Zeiss 4.5/21: diameter 53mm, length 34mm

Zeiss 2.8/25: diameter 53mm, length 49mm

CV 4/21: diameter 49.6mm, length 24mm (28.5 w/hood)

Hope this helps, even if I haven't a pic side by side for both lenses.

Isn't it true that the measurement for the CV lenses doesn't include the flange, while that for the ZM lenses does? Once the 21/4.5 is mounted on a T, it protrudes about 27mm. Leaves just the right amount of room for my stubby fingers, yet is eminently pocketable.

You'll have to get it, Joe.

 

[vieri]

Isn't it true that the measurement for the CV lenses doesn't include the flange, while that for the ZM lenses does? Once the 21/4.5 is mounted on a T, it protrudes about 27mm. Leaves just the right amount of room for my stubby fingers, yet is eminently pocketable.

You'll have to get it, Joe.

I already took off the flange still, is pocketable enough IMHO.

 

[back alley]

thought i'd bump this up in hopes that tom a. sees it.

joe