Olsen
Well-known
^ The ZM line, I find, is very consistent in terms of field flatness, (lack of) distortion, sharpness, etc. and they definitely have that "Zeiss look" to them. I started with the 2/35 and 2/50 and later went on to add the others (2,8/25 and 4/18). I like the consistency in ergonomics across my lenses as well, but that's more of a personal thing I guess.
It's funny, I was flipping through a magazine in the dentist's office the other day (I forgot which one) and came across one article of a series, this one about Germany - and it started with "Germany, the land of BMW Roadsters and Carl Zeiss lenses..." I had to chuckle at this and nearly ripped the page out, because I'm guilty on both counts.
I'm excited that my new (to me) 'Blad currently enroute has CZ glass, and I'm already planning to pick up some for my Canon gear... Namely the 2/100 Makro-Planar ZE when it comes out.
Egads! I'm a Zeiss slut!
Have you bought a Hasselblad? Tell us...
rphenning
Established
I have the 50 f/2 and it is nice but it is too good. There are hardly any corner softness or vignetting when shooting wide open, and I like those things.
notturtle
Well-known
I would agree that mechanically, compared to the modern leica lenses I have owned, the Leica lenses feel more solid and have smoother focus. some of my Zms have varied in focus over time, or with temperature, or developed the wobble. The Leicas glide no matter what. still, the ZMs are more than fine in this regard.
Optically I would have to disagree. The ZM lenses are designed to slightly different ends but 'not as good' would seem a somewhat unfair term. erwin Putz, the most loyal of leicaphiles would not agree either I suspect .
The Zms are in many respects somewhere between the asphs and pre pash leicas but with better corner performance than either at the expense of central wide open sharpness. sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. However, in some cases it might even be a case of the ZM being optically 'superior' such a the 21 2.8 and the 50 planar. Still, this is all hair splitting because the planar/summicron and 21 asph/ZM are all dynamite and frankly if you can't cut it with any of these lenses it is time to give up.
Last edited:
notturtle
Well-known
I think there should be a category between the top two. I do not regard the ZMs as mechanically very good, but they are not average either. Good would be my vote.
Last edited:
notraces
Bob Smith
Could someone tell me what framelines pop up when using the 25ZM on a MP or M7?
28mm frame?
Wiyum
Established
No idea what the older, original-issue lenses bring up, but the newer ones are tabbed to bring up the 35/135 frames, as they correspond to the 24/35 frames on the m8.
lawrence
Veteran
Surely the 21/4.5 has similar contrast to the 25/2.8?
Turtle
Veteran
They are going to be darned close judging my experience with the ZMs and also from reading reviews (one of which put the 21 4.5 marginally lower in contrast than the 2.8 version, but still higher than the Leica 21 asph). I have the 21 2.8 which most regard as the closest in look/performance to the 25, which I do not own.
back alley
IMAGES
it's a great lens.
lawrence
Veteran
Is it significantly better than the Skoper 21? I have one of those but I'm a bit of a sucker for upgrades...
Turtle
Veteran
I have the CV 21 P and 21 2.8 ZM and the ZM is significantly better in the technical sense. Higher resolution off centre (smack in the middle they are similar) with reduced vignetting. Higher contrast over off centre gives the images a much higher resolution appearance with the ZM that holds right to the corners (although the contrast may not be to your liking, it works for me). The 21 4.5 tests about the same as the 21 2.8 but with slightly more vignetting than the 2.8 version (but less than the CV).
With negs next to each other on the light box, there is a pretty obvious difference between the ZM negs and CV negs under 10X. Whether it matters to you is not what I am commenting on here, but IMO the ZM 21 2.8 offers markedly superior performance. The ZM 21 2.8 at f4.5 is easily as good as the CV at f8 in general terms and by 5.6 clearly resolving plenty more in the extreme corners with letter illumination.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
I have owned 3 Zeiss ZM lenses : 50 f/2 , 21 f/2.8 and 18 f/4 .
Of these the 50 f/2 and 21 f/2.8 did not live up to my expectations.
However I'm still using the 18mm and love it : the focus barrel and mechanical build are every bit as good as anything Leica could do.
This is perhaps the newest non compact lens :
I wonder if Zeiss have been refining their mechanical skills and the 18mm is the result.
It's certainly streets ahead of the 21 f/2.8 which lacks that feeling of solidity the 18mm gives.
Of these the 50 f/2 and 21 f/2.8 did not live up to my expectations.
However I'm still using the 18mm and love it : the focus barrel and mechanical build are every bit as good as anything Leica could do.
This is perhaps the newest non compact lens :
I wonder if Zeiss have been refining their mechanical skills and the 18mm is the result.
It's certainly streets ahead of the 21 f/2.8 which lacks that feeling of solidity the 18mm gives.
lawrence
Veteran
I just picked up one of these too, Akira. And have been shooting with it this weekend
I remember reading a comment by TomA somewhere that the ZM 21/4.5 is slightly lower contrast than the ZM 21/2.8. Not sure which thread the comment was in though...
Roger Warren
AddlepatedWight
I use Zeiss 50 and 28 on my MP. I love the focusing rings.
italy74
Well-known
I've had the possibility to handle and shoot with some of them and was really surprised about their look and feel... For sure the best I had ever seen.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Very happy with my Biogon 25mm.
fuwen
Well-known
I am very happy with my ZMs 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 85/2.