casualuser
Member
Has anyone done a comparison between Zeiss's SLR lenses and their ZM? I would be interested in comments about the diffrences between their 32 f2 distagon and the 35 f2 biogon, but any general observations about the ZM vs ZF lenses related to image characteristics would be welcome. Eg. edge to edge sharpness, contrast, color rendition, etc.
kram
Well-known
It looks like I will have to answer this as I have both 35mm f2 lens. The first 35mm f2 was the ZF. Fantastic lens, love the handling, but it is big and heavy. I was getting images which I really liked so do not mind the size or weight of the lens. I then got the ZM Ikon and after a year got the ZM f2 35mm (because of the reduced size and weight+ good reports). It is of course alot smaller and les than half the weight of the ZF. Strangely enough I have not done a direct comparision of the lens (i.e. using the same film exposed to both lens). Why is this? Because at F2 the ZF is fine, maybe a little soft (what lens wide open is not) but the smooth out of focus background which the ZF and ZM seem to have I really like. I am slightly colour blind so I am not the best person to ask about colour rendition. However, with the new Kodak 160 ASA film (the NC not VC- VC too contrasty for my tastes) I really could not ask for more.
I am only really using my ZM and ZF lens now -as I find the contrast from my Nikkors to harsh (when I get the prints commerically processed). The ZM and ZF contrast is just right (I suppose it really down to
the film you use rather than the lens) say grade 2.5-3 while the Nikkor prints seem to be more 3.5-4 in comparision. That is, the ZM+ ZF are not soft, but the Nikkors too hard.
It is only really after using the ZM and ZF lens ,that the term 'out performing your film stock' struck home. Using Ilford Delta 100, I could see at f5.6 the film was the limiting factor. If the weather over here permits I try and use ATP 1.1 at 40ASA. The quality of images I get with the ZM (have not tried the ZF with this film) are, to me, stunning.
I have not noticed any sharpness loss acroos the frame. I have done it would be because that part oft he image was nerer the camera, so was not completely covered by the depth of field.
I am only really using my ZM and ZF lens now -as I find the contrast from my Nikkors to harsh (when I get the prints commerically processed). The ZM and ZF contrast is just right (I suppose it really down to
the film you use rather than the lens) say grade 2.5-3 while the Nikkor prints seem to be more 3.5-4 in comparision. That is, the ZM+ ZF are not soft, but the Nikkors too hard.
It is only really after using the ZM and ZF lens ,that the term 'out performing your film stock' struck home. Using Ilford Delta 100, I could see at f5.6 the film was the limiting factor. If the weather over here permits I try and use ATP 1.1 at 40ASA. The quality of images I get with the ZM (have not tried the ZF with this film) are, to me, stunning.
I have not noticed any sharpness loss acroos the frame. I have done it would be because that part oft he image was nerer the camera, so was not completely covered by the depth of field.
casualuser
Member
Thanks for your reply. I have to assume with the lack of respones to my qustion that there are not many ZM owners who also shoot an slr with ZF lenses.
Based on your results with the 35 F2 Biogon are you finding that you shoot more with your ZI than your slr, at least with this focal length?
Based on your results with the 35 F2 Biogon are you finding that you shoot more with your ZI than your slr, at least with this focal length?
mfogiel
Veteran
casualuser
I use the ZF range from 25 to 100mm and ZM range from 21 to 50mm. I must say, since I have started using the RF, my SLR lenses see much less use, and excluding the MP 100/2 ZF, which I prefer on a Nikon FE2 or FM3A over any rangefinder+90mm lens ( I do believe the rangefinders end their game at 50mm) I use them mainly for close up photos.
A MP 50/2:
The 25, 35 and 50mm lenses, where I have double coverage, are delivering better overall quality in the ZM line, although I must say the MP 50/2 is difficult to distinguish from the Planar 50/2, apart from the weight and size...Here you have a comparison of the 35mm Zeiss combos:
and here is a broader comparison: 25, 35 and 50mm:
You will find the sharpness of the ZM lenses is slightly better and in case of the Biogons, more even across the frame. The Distagon 35 could be slightly sharper in the center wide open, but it is a close call. The color rendition and OOF are very similar and typically Zeiss, while the ZM lenses are even slightly more flare resistant due to smaller front elements. You can find many examples of shots made with various lenses in my flickr shots - you only need to type the lens name and do a search.
I use the ZF range from 25 to 100mm and ZM range from 21 to 50mm. I must say, since I have started using the RF, my SLR lenses see much less use, and excluding the MP 100/2 ZF, which I prefer on a Nikon FE2 or FM3A over any rangefinder+90mm lens ( I do believe the rangefinders end their game at 50mm) I use them mainly for close up photos.
A MP 50/2:
The 25, 35 and 50mm lenses, where I have double coverage, are delivering better overall quality in the ZM line, although I must say the MP 50/2 is difficult to distinguish from the Planar 50/2, apart from the weight and size...Here you have a comparison of the 35mm Zeiss combos:
and here is a broader comparison: 25, 35 and 50mm:
You will find the sharpness of the ZM lenses is slightly better and in case of the Biogons, more even across the frame. The Distagon 35 could be slightly sharper in the center wide open, but it is a close call. The color rendition and OOF are very similar and typically Zeiss, while the ZM lenses are even slightly more flare resistant due to smaller front elements. You can find many examples of shots made with various lenses in my flickr shots - you only need to type the lens name and do a search.
Last edited:
kram
Well-known
At present I have colour film in my F6 and B+W in the Ikon, so it depends on if I want colour or B+W. At present (that is the last 4 months, I have been shooting mainly B+W.
I seem to shot more with the 35mm focal length at the moment. However, I seem to want to use a 28mm on the Ikon sometimes, but with the ZF 35mm on the F6 I find it wide enough - strange. So much so I sold my Nikkor 24mm and got the ZM 25mm.
I seem to shot more with the 35mm focal length at the moment. However, I seem to want to use a 28mm on the Ikon sometimes, but with the ZF 35mm on the F6 I find it wide enough - strange. So much so I sold my Nikkor 24mm and got the ZM 25mm.
italy74
Well-known
Marek,
each time I see those lenses, the little (!) lustful demon inside starts whispering... "Dino, there IS space in your bag for another lens, there IS space in your bag for a ZEISS lens..." LOL
each time I see those lenses, the little (!) lustful demon inside starts whispering... "Dino, there IS space in your bag for another lens, there IS space in your bag for a ZEISS lens..." LOL
planar
Newbie
The main difference between the ZF and the ZM line is the philosophy of lens design; ZM goes for symmertrical designs for 35, 28, 25, and 21mm, where as ZF designs are all retrofocus based.
The symmertrical design will give you a more flatter apperance, but retrofocus designs will appear more telephoto-like, hence the fine bokeh mentioned earlier.
The symmertrical design will give you a more flatter apperance, but retrofocus designs will appear more telephoto-like, hence the fine bokeh mentioned earlier.
axiom
Non-Registered User
Bringing up old thread
Bringing up old thread
When I look at the block diagrams of those ZM lenses, it seems as if the only symmetric design ZM are the 28/2.8 and 35/2.8
Every other one doesn't seem symmetric at all
and the diagram for 21/4.5 looks identical to Voigtlander's 21/4 Skopar, which is said to be a retrofocus lens.
Are those lenses of symmetric design?
or only the 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 are?
Looks like I got fooled by Zeiss' Biogon tag, and ended up buying the Biogon brandnew rather than a symmetric Biogon design.
Bringing up old thread
When I look at the block diagrams of those ZM lenses, it seems as if the only symmetric design ZM are the 28/2.8 and 35/2.8
Every other one doesn't seem symmetric at all
and the diagram for 21/4.5 looks identical to Voigtlander's 21/4 Skopar, which is said to be a retrofocus lens.
Are those lenses of symmetric design?
or only the 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 are?
Looks like I got fooled by Zeiss' Biogon tag, and ended up buying the Biogon brandnew rather than a symmetric Biogon design.
Last edited:
axiom
Non-Registered User
and btw
some Biogon's wear a "C" letter
Zeiss says it stands for "compact" and "classic", while I know what "compact" means, I am not sure what "classic" means.
Is that refering to the element arrangement?
Then the C Biogon 21 certainly looks nowhere like the original 21 Biogon G for Contax, a true symmetric lens
some Biogon's wear a "C" letter
Zeiss says it stands for "compact" and "classic", while I know what "compact" means, I am not sure what "classic" means.
Is that refering to the element arrangement?
Then the C Biogon 21 certainly looks nowhere like the original 21 Biogon G for Contax, a true symmetric lens
fuwen
Well-known
I am using ZM lenses. I do not own any ZF/ZE/ZK lenses but has been using Zeiss SLR lenses for Rolleiflex and Contax.
To me, although based on MTFs the ZM lenses should be better, but in practical terms when used properly both the RF and the SLR will give good results (to my standard).
To me, although based on MTFs the ZM lenses should be better, but in practical terms when used properly both the RF and the SLR will give good results (to my standard).