Why Zeiss biogon 21mm f4.5? (over skopar)

J

jett

Well-known
Local time
3:20 PM
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
223
Why did you guys get this lens over the skopar?

I haven't read too many lens reviews but I decided to try the skopar because it is usually very favorable. I don't need the speed so it's small size and 39mm filter threads is a huge plus. Well the ZM is much more expensive..

Is the ZM sharper at f5.6?
Is the ZM better built?

The ZM seems to be reknown for incredibly low distortion but I don't consider this too be a big deal...never noticed it on my SLR 21mm's...
 
I got it because it is extremely sharp/high res and no real distortion worth mentioning. it is tiny too.
I'd say it's probably the sharpest 21 in native m mount. (Maybe the super-elmar is sharper but I haven't used that)
build quality is quite good too.

Tom's used all the 21s (i think) so he probably has the most intimate knowledge of them
 
Optically speaking, the ZM C Biogon has no rival except the Super Elmar. But if you dont use the 21mm focal length that often, the Skopar is fantastic considering the pice.
 
Thank you, i would be interested in hearing other opinions. I guess this question can be asked about any CV vs. Leica/Zeiss lens of comparable focal lengths / speed. The CV value seems to kick in when you want something fast and/or wider than 35mm.
 
If you take a picture of interiors of buildings, then you will quickly see the barrel distortion of your SLR 21mm lenses. Take a picture of a door frame up close, and it becomes obvious.

I have the CV 21 4.5 and the Zeiss Biogon 21 2.8. The Zeiss seems to have higher central sharpness wide open. Stopped down, they should all be pretty much the same.
 
Quality control is highest for Leica, next for Zeiss, then for CV. You can get a 'bad copy' of a CV, for example with unequally sharp corners.
 
From the reviews and talk I've heard thus far, it seems the new Voigtlander 21 f/1.8 is probably the best fast 21mm for the money...and it might even be "better" all around than the $7k Summilux 21mm.

But there are also some Voigtlander lenses which have very poor (re: cheaper) designs, that aren't close to their respective Leica counterparts
 
Thanks. Which lenses are good/not good is something that I have trouble figuring out. There are people who advocate that the VC lenses are as good/better than their Leica counterparts and others say they are clearly inferior. I guess the important question is if it is good enough. This is my first VC lens so I will see if it is good-enough or else I have the Leica/Zeiss lenses to look into since I don't need the speed/bulk.
 
The 21 F4 Skopar must be plenty good enough. The pictures online here are great. I bought the C Biogon for architecture. I think it gives a different look, the crispness and the light in my shots, especially on film - black and white. My 25 Skopar flares easily. None of my Zeiss lenses do.
 
I had the Skopar 21mm and have now changed it for the Zeiss C Biogon 21mm. My reason for changing is that I dislike vignetting and it's often apparent in landscapes with the Skopar, however if that doesn't bother you then the Skopar's wonderful value. It's also very small and light. I never had a problem with flare but do be aware, as others have warned, that Voigtlanders can vary quite a lot -- I had two 35mm Ultrons, one flared and the other didn't.
 
Zeiss is for the in-betweeners. Can't/won't pay Leica prices but still want something that won't keep them up at night worrying if it's good enough. Voigtlander is for the rest of us!:angel:
 
I posted this somewhere else here on the forum, but what the heck:

I once did a careful side-by-side comparison of the CV 21/4 and the ZM 21/4.5 once, and I ended up sending the ZM 21/4.5 back.

Now, I don't know if I happened to have a bad copy of the ZM or a good copy of the CV, but sharpness-wise there was no difference whatsoever. And I am talking Spur Orthopan, Tripod, and 4000 ppi scans from the negatives.

What the ZM has going for it, in my view, is the zero distortion and the slightly bigger size (the CV was just a tad too small for my hands). This is why I did go back and buy the ZM months later... PS: Oh and flare-resistance. The CV 21/4 flares like a female dog...

I never compared color, so maybe the ZM also has nicer color rendition... but that's a matter of taste anyway...
 
Last edited:
Never used the zeiss 21, but with regards to kossi's comments about flare -- I've never had a shot that's struck me as so flare-ridden as to think "gee, this CV 21 is flare-happy," although I do have a few shots with flare in them. My experience with my CV21 is that, if it does flare, it usually adds a pleasant character to the photo.
 
I've the ZM lens and have not tried the Voigtlander (but do have and like the 15mm, 25mm and 28mm Voigtlander lenses).

I went for the Zeiss in preference to the Voigtlander for two simple but trivial reasons:

a) I already have the 50mm and 35mm c-Biogons and like the house look

b) I like chrome lenses and the Voigtlander is only available in black.
 
Spicy said:
My experience with my CV21 is that, if it does flare, it usually adds a pleasant character to the photo.
Click to expand...

Well, I had some pretty nasty counter-examples. Would have to dig them up, but then you'd probably disagree, it being a matter of taste.

What I should probably make clear is that the CV 21/4 is just plain unbeatable in the Bang per Buck category...
 
jett said:
Thanks. Which lenses are good/not good is something that I have trouble figuring out. There are people who advocate that the VC lenses are as good/better than their Leica counterparts and others say they are clearly inferior. I guess the important question is if it is good enough. This is my first VC lens so I will see if it is good-enough or else I have the Leica/Zeiss lenses to look into since I don't need the speed/bulk.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a voigtlander lens that is better than a currently produced, roughly equivalent leica lens from solely an image quality standpoint.

Zeiss can be situationally better. For example the 35/2 biogon is worse near max aperture than the 35 cron ASPH but it's f4-f5.6 performance at infinity is better. Even the cream of Zeiss' non-German ZM lineup, the 25mm Biogon, is only better than the 24mm SE ASPH situationally in that it's better before f3.8 and probably at f3.8/f4 but is slightly (probably imperceptibly) worse once you get to f5.6. Granted the difference is probably as qualifiable as the amount of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

don't think I'm down on CV or Zeiss. It's just that it turns out that the design is only part of the story and you have to pay a lot to keep the machines and skilled personal required going to make lenses perform so well near max aperture.
 
I have the 21f3.4 Super Elmar and it is a very good lens - but considerably higher distorsion than the C Biogon 21f4.5 - and though I haven't tested it against the Color Skopar 21f4 I suspect that the CV is better in that respect than the 21f3.4 too. Where the 21f3.4 shine is in eveneess of illumination at f3.4.
From the point of lack of distorsion - there is nothing in 35mm that can touch the C Biogon 21/4.5.
I like the 21f4 because of the size - it can be thrown into a pocket for those "just in case" moments.
As for build quality - my Super Elmar fell apart, literally, after three months. The entire lens "package" come loose and landed on a tiled floor! No damage, except a small ding on the rear part of the barrel. I have had to tighten the Zeiss lenses (mainly the 21f2.8 and the 25f2.8) a couple of times - but never had them unscrew completely.
 
I have had the ZM 21/2.8 and the ZM 21/4.5. The 4.5 is a considerably better lens, smaller, less expensive, almost zero distortion, and in color it renders better than the 2.8. This I would attribute to an almost total lack of veiling flare and almost nonexistent CA. On paper the performance of the two lenses is not so different. But on film, particularly color film, the output from the 4.5 is genuinely special.

That surprised me.

There is a lot more to lens performance than sharpness, particularly if you shoot color. If I were to buy another ZM 21 there's no doubt whatsoever: I'd go for the 4.5. In the end the answer will probably be none of the above. I'll probably get the 25/2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom