ZM 21 vs ZM 21 - what am I missing?

[Krosya]

Ok, i spent a lot of time reading, looking at the pics and yet reading more about ZM 21mm lenses. One one thing just doesnt add up for me. Many/most reports on the subject, including coments from our own Tom A. state that ZM 21/4.5 is the better lens as far as image quality goes. Yet, EVERY photo I could find from both 21mm ZMs - to me ZM 21/2.8 wins hands down. Even examples on Zeiss.com for both lenses - 21/2.8 looks way better - sharper, better contrast, etc. I understand that both are good lenses, but other than size, I really dont understand why 21/4.5 gets more praise that 2.8 version. What am I missing?

 

[ferider]

Maybe owners justifying the purchase of a newer, slower lens, spec'ed even slower than the outstanding Color Skopars ? See also comments on the 35 C ... 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

By the time it's on the internet, as far as I am concerned, all bets are off. An original tranny or print is another matter. Even so, I agree: what's the fuss about?

The answer (almost certainly) is that if you do formal tests, the f/4.5 comes out ahead, whereas in the real world, the f/2.8 is a lot more common. Personally, having tried both the f/4.5 and the f/2.8, they make next to no difference to my photography, as compared with the 21/4 Voigtländer and 21/2.8 Kobalux I already own.

If money were no object for me, it would be a toss-up between the new 21 Summilux (sheer speed) and the WATE (16-18-21 for sheer versatility) with the WATE probably getting the nod.

Cheers,

R.

 

[back alley]

i have never used the zm 21/2.8 so i can't speak to it.

i liked the cv 21 that i had and it was perfect on the r4a. image wise i liked the pics from it.
i made the decision that i wanted to go all zeiss for my lenses and so chose the 21/4.5 based on it's size and my lack of need for fast lenses.

the images from the slow zm 21 are excellent and i like the 'look' i get from them.

i also plan on getting a zm 85/4 when they are available.

 

[mfogiel]

I can only speak for the 21/4,5, however the general lens design law is, that any lens design is a compromise, and the faster the lens the more compromise might have been accepted vis a vis the other desirable characteristics. Leaving the size and weight apart, the MTF charts are telling me the 4.5 version is slightly sharper and has less distortion. As a rule of thumb it should also have less flare - in fact I made various shots straight into the sun with surprisingly good results.

 

[Turtle]

I have seen nothing online (picture wise) to suggest one is better than the other. The resolution and other issues are masked by weedy online resolution. I bet that in practical use both are as good as you are likely to need, but most reviews seem to concur on the pros & cons. The 4.5 appeals to me more based on pure size.