Zeiss ZM 21mm f4.5 or f2.8

[Meatboy]

I am a big fan of the 21mm. I had in the past Zuiko 21mm in both f3.5 and f2.0 versions. I am about to drop some cash on a Zeiss 21mm and cant quite deceide between the f4.5 and f2.8 versions.

The f4.5 appeals because of its size and weight but also because of its low distortion. I feel the images from the f4.5 may be that bit better because of its optics? Is this a fair call?

The f2.8 appeals because of the low light ability but its somewhat larger to tote.

Price wise they are on a par.

What would you go with and why?

Tim

 

[peter_n]

Having used a Kobalux 21/2.8 for a couple of years I would go for the smaller f4.5. I bought the f2.8 because I thought you would see DOF effects wide open but I was wrong. It doesn't work that well.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I would opt for the 2.8 version.

It's more than a full stop faster and it is still very good performer. There becomes a point where you have to ask yourself, "how much better do I need to get and still practically know the difference?" Both lenses are fare competitors with Leica glass! Erwin Puts says (of the 2.8 model), "This Biogon lens is second to none in the current rangefinder field and is a most interesting design in the 21mm class. It delivers at least the same overall performance as the Leica Elmarit-M 21mm, but without the employment of aspherical surfaces and at a lower price."

And the 2.8 is still compact enough and lighter than its Asph. Leica competitor.

 

[dseelig]

21 2.8 zeiss

21 2.8 zeiss

It is truly a wonderful lens . i got mine 6 bit coded and it is wnderful on the M8 . I am being forced to sell it because I bought a wate. I ahve offered it without a hood jsut becase I intend to won it again when funds permit. Great lens def. better then the old 21 elmarit I never used the aspherical model. David

 

[back alley]

i have the cv 21, slow and small. if i were a heavier user of the 21 i might be tempted to go for the zm version.
if i were tempted by the zm's i think i'd still go for the smaller, slow version as it would be used outdoors nearly 99.9% of the time.
would you be using it more outside or inside?
joe

 

[Tom A]

I have both of these lenses and although the 21/2.8 is a very good lens, I seem to shoot more and more with the 21/4,5. It is smaller and more compact and I have the feeling that it is a slightly better lens when it comes to lack of distorsion. I have been alternating between the two on my R4M (the 2.8 blocks a bit more of the viewfinder than the 4.5) but I cant say that one is better (apart from rectilinearity) than the other. It is more a sense of comfort and ease of use that has me going for the 4,5.

 

[Meatboy]

Thanks all for your thoughts, I am thinking much the same way as Tom, that if the lens is compact and quick to use I am more likely to carry it and use it. I must add that in my case it will be used on a MP which is a heavyish body so I am hoping the f4.5 version will suit well.

Joe, it could get some occasional indoor use but I may be able to opt for a tripod. Mostly going to be outdoors in varying light.

As a guide, would you say the f2.8 is similar in size and physical handling to the current 50mm Summicron?

Tim

 

[drewbarb]

I shot three frames through the 4.5 a while back at a trade show; I remember it handled really well, and the negatives from it were very sharp and distortion free.

One of the things I like about RF's is their small size. I have a couple of big, fast lenses, but more often I choose small lenses. For a 21mm (a length I use a lot), I have the CV 21 f4; I just love it. As far as speed goes, I have found that I can hand-hold this lens down to 1/15th of second easily; braced carefully, I can shoot anything down to one second and usually get negatives sharp enough to print to 11x14. So to me, the extra size, weight and money of an f2.8 lens is not worth it.

Not to hi-jack this thread, but I bought the CV 21mm partly on the strength of your early review of it, Tom, and I am curious to know how you feel this lens compares to the Zeiss offerings. Obviously, it's not a fair comparison, but knowing you are familiar with all of these lenses, I'd like to know what you think. It might help Tim, too.

 

[Meatboy]

drew, I'd also like to hear of any comparisons with the CV. Is the Zeiss lens a better build quality?, even a little better?

The Zeiss is about 2 times the price of the CV so it must be better somewhere?

Tim

 

[victoriapio]

You probably can't go wrong with either one.

I have never handled the 4.5 but I really like the image quality of the 2.8 - sharp and very contrasty. Yes it is rather large even on the R-1Ds but built like a tank. For someone like me that also uses a big Canon DSLR, it is very easily managed. I know the image quality on the Web makes it hard to evaluate image quality, but if you want to see some shots with the 2,8/21mm Biogon on the R-1ds, clickon the "R-1Ds" gallery here. The lens couples very accurately to the R-1ds rangefinder.

O.C.

 

[fuwen]

Some of my shots with the 21/2.8.

http://www.fuwen.net/photos_gallerybylens/index.php?album=ZM_21_f28_Biogon_T

Have not used the 21/4.5 though. I am used to the size and weight of SLR so that of the 21/2.8 is not a problem to me.

 

[Tom A]

I did anticipate the question of 21/4,5 versus the 21/4 VC. If very much depends on what you are shooting. The 21/4,5 would be my choice is you are shooting buildings, interiors etc, where absolute straight line rendition is important. The 21/4 VC is no slouch here (it is better than the 21/2,8 Asph Elmarit!), but the 21/4,5 has something in the order of 0,14% distorsion, which is neglible! The 21/4 VC has a bit more vignetting, but I dont find it objectionable - particularly in black/white as it will "centre" the image a bit. The 21/4,5 has less.
I did some testing of the various 21's for an article in the LHSA Viewfinder magazine in September. If you go to our Flickr site you will see some of these, with a variety of 21's, including a series done with the 21/2,8 ZM also.
If you use the 21 occasionally, get the 21/4 P mount as it is small, compact and can easily be carried in your pocket. If you shoot buildings, interiors or is generally an anally retentive tripod user, go for the 21/4,5 and if your life involves lots of dark and dingy places, go for the 21/2,8.
The advantage with a wide like the 21 is that you can usually get away with hand held shooting at really slow speeds. If you can brace yourself, you can as said, nail a shot at 1 sec. and straight handholding is possible at 1/8 and 1/15 with some training.

 

[drewbarb]

Thanks Tom. When I shoot buildings and interiors to get good perspective and low distortion, I'm not using a Leica (I'll set up a tripod and use a view camera) so that doesn't seem like enough of an argument to me to go with the Zeiss over the CV, although I don't doubt the slight advantage optically is with the Zeiss lens.

Tim- you should look at the CV lenses, and decide. The optics of the new 21P are identical to the old LTM version of the lens, and the build of the new lens is said to be better- but I really like the LTM lens- it's tiny, sharp, and will fit on any M or LTM body. Nice. My old CV 21 still looks and feels great after a few years of abuse. True, t's not THE BEST made or THE BEST performing lens out there, but performance-wise, it's too close for comfort to the top dollar glass; and for $329 it's one of the best bargains going- and, it still includes the very nice finder.

I use this lens for about 10-20% of my RF shooting, and have been happy enough not to have 21mm GAS.

 

[Tom A]

Hi!
I just added a couple more 21/f4.5 shots to our Flickr site.

http://flickr.com/photos/rapidwinder/

I had my R4M loaded in anticipation of the arrival of the 18/f4 Distagon, but it is currently stuck in Canada Customs.

If I am lucky I will get it by Tuesday - otherwise it will be another week as Tuulikki and I are heading to Rochester, NY on Wednesday for the LHSA annual meeting.

Well, if the 18 isn't here by Tuesday, I will take the 21/4.5 along - as well as some Acros 100 for that body.

The rest will be Tri X and a MP and M2 (40/1,4 and 75f2).

 

[Bob Michaels]

Ever consider the 21mm 2.8 Biogon in the Contax G mount? Optically excellent, pretty small, fast, and around $600. Add a G-1 body to mount it on and it's still cheap.

 

[Ronald M]

I prefer a tripod to a fast lens.

I have fast and slow lenses and the slow gets more work every time.

 

[Captain]

Tom, you seem to use virtually all the 21's out there. If you opted for the Voigtlander 21 when the rest of the lenses in your kit were all Leica lenses would you notice any real character difference given that 21's have a great depth of field and as such aren't as "Bokeh obvious" or would you opt for the larger pre-ASPH 21mm Leica lens? Some say that the Voigtlander lens has less distortion and fall off compared with the older Leica 21?

 

[semilog]

Just to confirm what Tom A. said: Zeiss's published data confirm that the 2.8 [PDF datasheet] has moderate (slightly more than 1%) wave distortion -- hard to correct in post -- while the 4.5 [PDF datasheet] has almost no distortion at all (less than 0.2%). Both of the current Leica lenses have more distortion than either of the Zeiss lenses. But, of course, Zeiss doesn't make a Summilux...

The slower ZM lens is also a lot smaller and 110 g lighter than the 2.8. MTFs indicate that both have superb resolution & contrast, and vignetting is similar.

You all can probably tell which way I'm leaning.

 

[Luna]

Just make sure yours doesn't leak light.

 

[sepiareverb]

If you are thinking of doing any close-up work with the 21 the 2.8 was too big for my taste. The hood blocked the RF patch when focussing close, and obscured a lot of the FOV from the finder.