Voigt 21/4 or Zeiss Zm 21/2.8?

T

Tom Conte

Guest
One is half the cost of the other (at least), and so I wonder...

Anyone have opinions on this? Which is better on the R-D1?

I probably want to get something today to fill the wide angle "hole" in my kit.

Thanks
Tom
 
Tom,
The VC 21mm is highly acclaimed and compares to the 21mm Leicas pre-asph. And it costs far less than the ZI. The ZI hood and VF cost extra. The ZI hood itself is close to $180 (US), plus the VF which is pricey. Thus the VC is about 1/3 of the ZI. Also the footprint of the ZI is much bigger than the VC.

Much of it, besides the cost, comes down to the question "will I be shooting at 2.8 or not?

Read this comparison before you buy:
http://nemeng.com/leica/029ba.shtml

good luck and let us know how you do. Paul
 
How much is the ZI VF?

Lets just say the VF is $100. Add $85 for hood. The lens, new anyway, is close to $1000 (rounded).

That totals to $1200 (rounded).

The VC is $400 w/ VF, Hood, and finder. That looks like 1/3 the cost of the ZI to me or dang close.
 
Last edited:
Note also that CameraQuest has the Voigt 21/4 for $329
Stephen will if you ask swap the 35mm VF for an R-D1-optimized version for $75 additional
And you of course need a screw mount to M adapter ($55)
for a grand total of $459
Still a heck of a deal, provided the Voigtlander has the chops to perform well enough on the R-D1.

Tom
 
I shoot f/2.8 lenses wide open all the time, and it could be worth the price for someone who does a lot of interior work ... difference between 1/4 and 1/8 or 1/8 and 1/15 is big down on the fringes of hand-holdabiliity.

On the other hand, the RD-1's ability to change ISOs on the fly makes it easier to compensate for the slower lens.
 
All things considered, I'll try a Voigtlander 21/4 and see if it fits my needs. If not, I'll go for the Zeiss.

Thanks for everyones' input.

Tom
 
I have had both lenses, and I think the ZM version is dramatically better. There is less distortion, less vignetting, better contrast and color saturation and higher resolution. The build quality is of course better as well. It also exhibits less ghosting and flare. If you are going to be using a 21mm a lot, the Zeiss is worth every penny. If you use it only occasionally, the 21mm CV gives good results, but not on the same level. That is my experience anyway. I will note that it is using film, not digital. I would imagine that the properties might be different given that you are using less of the lens's image circle and the 6mp sensor does not quite have the resolution of the finer grained films.
 
I'm not real enthusiastic about the CV 21 on the R-D1. I'll test the Zeiss as soon as I can and the Leica does beautifully on the Epson.

Cheers,

Sean
 
I just got my R-D1 a little earlier today -- it's much more usable and less toylike than I had expected. I'm actually quite impressed, the shutter doesn't rattle like is typical for Copals as used in the Bessas.

It works astoundingly well with my 35/1.4 ASPH. The camera doesn't have the resolution to pick up on the quality loss wide open at short distances, other than as a very slight softening across the frame. The 40/1.4 Nokt works well too, a nice portrait lens.

Unfortunately, the CV 21/4 isn't so great IMO. It's rather soft and muddy all over wide open and needs to be stopped down a stop even at infinity. Preferably two stops, it's pretty good at f/8. Not an available light lens. I love the small size and low price, but it doesn't do the job. It's a much better lens with film.

Same with the CV 15, except it's slightly crisper at center wide open. The image is technically usable IMO, wide open, or would be if it didn't vignette so severely. The extreme vignetting is persistent at all apertures and really not 'fixable' IMO. This is a fine lens with film, but not as suitable for the R-D1 IMO. Maybe the Digital M will work better, although I kinda doubt it.

So... I'm thinking ZM 21, at least for now. What I'd like to know is how it performs wide open and what its vignetting is like since it's a Biogon. The ZM 15 is a Distagon, so I'm sure it's well suited (except for cost and size). Maybe I'll get a ZM 21 to find out, it just can't be any worse than the CV, and CQ's $998 price is quite reasonable...
 
These are at f/4, but on film, not the RD-1.
21mm-zm-clouds2.jpg


21mm-zm-clouds3.jpg
 
Update--

I bought the Voigtlander 21/4 and tried it on my R-D1.

I should have listened to y'all.

It is soft, even in the center, on all but stopped down to f/8-f/11 (and sometimes even then).

It vignettes like a SOB.

So I returned it and will try the Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 Biogon. Stay tuned!

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom