Zeiss 21mm ZM - opinions ?

I

il_granduca

Claudio Di Menno
Local time
1:18 AM
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
10
Hello all,

I am getting a new Zeiss 21mm ZM for my M with external viewfinder. I can't reach an Elmarit or a Super Angulon :bang:.

Anyone has tryed this lens or could provide his experience ?

thanks to all,
Claudio
 
Which one? there is a zm21/2.8 and there is a zm 21/4.5.
I have zm21 2.8 and its one superb lens - IMO better than any other 21s for RF other than new Summilux 21. But its a bit longish. So, if you need a compact size one - I'd look at CV21/4 - very good one for what it is.
 
C Biogon 21mm/4.5 is the cat's meow, the matching finder is marvelously bright...i have no reason to want it faster
 
The 21 2.8 is incredible. I now have a CV 21P that performs well and equally in all corners (the first one had major issues), but the Zeiss still vignettes a fair bit less and is stronger in the corners. The CV is in my bag all the time in case I need a 21 but if I know I will need a 21, I take the ZM.

I would say the ZM provides the same performance at F4 that one gets from the CV at f8 in terms of corners. At f5.6-8 the ZM i incredible, esp as vignetting is a bit better than at f4.

If you dont need the speed, the f4.5 version sounds great. FWIW, I dont think you are missing out anything by not having the 21 asph apart from 6 bit coding and better build.
 
I vote (and actually use) for ZM 21/4.5 - pretty small and do not really need to be stopped, unless you need greater DOF - it is sharp straight from f/4.5
 
cant go wrong with the 2.8 unless small size is your thing. Mine goes with me everywhere I take my film rangefinders. Great flare control, great distortion control, excellent colors.

Sample:
3662836502_0579be7369_o.jpg
 
Both are great. The f/4.5 delivers less distortion, and has an extra 'look' that the f/2.8 doesn't, but I prefer the extra speed. I'd rather have either than a Super Angulon.

(Besides, I have a 38/4.5 Biogon on 44x66mm, an exact 21mm equivalent but with several times the negative area.)

Cheers,

R.
 
Two things:

Firstly, I should have mentioned that the 21 2.8 is probably the highest contrast lens I own. i find it a touch higher than the 28, 50 planar and 35 f2. This may or may not suit your needs. Certainly it is a lot higher than older lenses and many CVs, but only a little higher than the 21 CV or 35 skopar. Lots higher than a 35 summaron for example...

Secondly, Roger, what do you mean by that extra 'look' of the 4.5. I have not seen many side by side images so have no idea how it differs from the 2.8. Ideally having both would be handy as the 4.5 is much smaller. I will stick with the 2.8 and my 21P (now a good copy) for fast and compact options, though the 2.8 is a stronger performer. soem say the 35 2.8 C looks different to the f2 biogon too, but Tom A says it has hgher contrast whereas Reid reviews suggest the 4.5 has lower contrast than the 2.8 i.e the other way round.
 
Turtle said:
Secondly, Roger, what do you mean by that extra 'look' of the 4.5. .
Click to expand...
Aaaargh. Bokeh. Plasticity. Three-dimensionality. Any of those not-very-meaningful buzz-words that people try to use when they say 'it looks different but I'm not sure how.'

The differences are minor, and grow more minor as grain becomes more obtrusive. I suspect it's something to do with the MTF of the lens/film conbination: according to both Zeiss and Ilford research, 'sparkle' is very high MTF at relatively low frequences. If the differences were greater, I might have kept my last 21/4.5 Biogon. But they aren't great enough for me to bother.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Cheers,

R.
 
It is hard to explain differences even when they are glaring. I am not sure the words have been invented.

I used to show prints to my wife that were close to identical, but one had a very minor dodge or burn variation, and ask her which she preferred. She could normally tell me immediately which she preferred but was completely unable to tell me why even in the most subjective terms. Mind you, these differences tend to me minor when the image is a good one! My favourite image of all time was shot on a severely decentered CV lens. Thank goodness it was shot stopped down!
 
The 2.8 is too big with the hood for any meaningful close-up work. It is RF coupled, but the hood blocks the RF window once focus gets closer than 3' or so, where more precise focus starts to matter.

Never tried the 4.5, I sold the 2.8 and went back to the Contax G21 on a G2. With the Frankenfinder it is a magnificent combination.
 
sepiareverb said:
The 2.8 is too big with the hood for any meaningful close-up work. It is RF coupled, but the hood blocks the RF window once focus gets closer than 3' or so, where more precise focus starts to matter.

Never tried the 4.5, I sold the 2.8 and went back to the Contax G21 on a G2. With the Frankenfinder it is a magnificent combination.
Click to expand...

I found it workable up close as long as I could use the hot shoe finder and move between them. Not elegant or fast.. or accurate I admit!

On the whole the 4.5 makes more sense for 90% of what I do, but for the other 10% the speed deficit is an issue. The 90% has so far represented the entirety of my time with the lens, but soon a project will comprise 100% of the 10% if you follow :D Horses for courses!
 
There is only 1 lens i would rather have then the ZM 21/2.8, and that's the 21 summilux. No matter how much more the super angulon is "worth", i would go with the ZM 21 any day. I shot it once in Paris in a store and was so sold on that lens that i went back the next day and bought an m6 and that same 21. I did have to sell it soon after, but i love that lens, it's typical Zeiss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom