nightstreet
Newbie
Hi All,
I'm new here and this is my first post. I searched the forums but didn't find much info so I thought I'd ask. What do you do for a wide, 20mm or 21mm, on the Z7? and specifically does anyone use the CV 21mm/4?
I moved away from the f/2.8 zooms and traded in my D810 for a Z7. I like to shoot 21mm/40mm/85mm, 85mm for portraits, 40mm for general travel, and looking to get a 21mm for the narrow alleys in Japan and Europe. I still have my Nikkor 85mm/1.4 and use it with the FTZ. I replaced my Nikkor 35mm-D with a relatively inexpensive Hexanon 40mm/1.8 and use that with an adapter. In both cases, the adapters make them not that compact.
I'm keeping watch for a Hexanon 21mm/4, but I was thinking of getting a CV21mm/4, the M-to-Z adapter is half the thickness compared to the FTZ, and the old rangefinder lenses themselves are pretty compact. Then I read that the wide M lenses don't do that well on the Z7. So I'm still not sure what to do. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
PS. I'm not planning on getting any of the Z lenses, zooms or otherwise, they are way too long and too pricey.
I'm new here and this is my first post. I searched the forums but didn't find much info so I thought I'd ask. What do you do for a wide, 20mm or 21mm, on the Z7? and specifically does anyone use the CV 21mm/4?
I moved away from the f/2.8 zooms and traded in my D810 for a Z7. I like to shoot 21mm/40mm/85mm, 85mm for portraits, 40mm for general travel, and looking to get a 21mm for the narrow alleys in Japan and Europe. I still have my Nikkor 85mm/1.4 and use it with the FTZ. I replaced my Nikkor 35mm-D with a relatively inexpensive Hexanon 40mm/1.8 and use that with an adapter. In both cases, the adapters make them not that compact.
I'm keeping watch for a Hexanon 21mm/4, but I was thinking of getting a CV21mm/4, the M-to-Z adapter is half the thickness compared to the FTZ, and the old rangefinder lenses themselves are pretty compact. Then I read that the wide M lenses don't do that well on the Z7. So I'm still not sure what to do. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
PS. I'm not planning on getting any of the Z lenses, zooms or otherwise, they are way too long and too pricey.
oldwino
Well-known
I have both a CV 21/4 and a Nikkor AI-S 20/2.8. I find the Nikkor, with a cheap F to Z adaptor, to be better on the Z6.
nickthetasmaniac
Mentor
Can you please elaborate on this? I'm also interested in ultra-wide options for a Z6.
Vince Lupo
Untitled
If you look on B&H’s site, and just search for Nikon Z lenses, you’ll see a host of options for ultra wide lenses for Nikon Z. Venus Optics has a few very interesting and tempting lenses specifically for Nikon Z.
I’m using the 17-35/2.8 Nikon lens with the FTZ adapter, as well as the 24/3.5 PC-E lens. The 17-35 works okay, though I suspect that somewhere down the line I’ll move to the 14-30 Nikon Z lens.
I’m using the 17-35/2.8 Nikon lens with the FTZ adapter, as well as the 24/3.5 PC-E lens. The 17-35 works okay, though I suspect that somewhere down the line I’ll move to the 14-30 Nikon Z lens.
albertospa
Established
I have a Nikon Z6 and use the Voigtlander 21 / 1.8. The rendering is very beautiful and there are no defects in chromatic shifts. I am really satisfied.
Archlich
Well-known
Non-symmetrical Biogon design like the CV 21/4 and the almost identical ZM 21/4.5 usually don't do well on digital.
If you'd like to use rangefinder lenses, get the bigger ones.
If you'd like to use rangefinder lenses, get the bigger ones.
nightstreet
Newbie
Thanks all for the comments. I'll take a look at the Nikkor 20mm ais. I forgot to mention that I have a Nikkor 10-20mm DX that I use for the odd real estate interior shoots, it serves the purpose at 20mp on the Z7, and inexpensive compare to the Z 14-30mm. I'd still like a 21mm prime to travel.
chris55m
Newbie
While I rarely go that wide, I keep the CV 3.5/20 SL for when the need should come up. It's a bit weak in the edges - better than then Nikon 20mm f/4 and f/3.5 pancakes, but certainly no match for modern lenses. I never used the 2.8/20 so I can't compare to that.
On the plus side: small (29mm long, 60mm with FTZ), 52mm filter thread, EXIF data with FTZ.
For travel, I might also be a consideration to get lenses in the same mount. That way you can share one adapter to save space and weight. E.g. if you get the 3.5/20 SL, you could later choose to replace your Konica 1.8/40 by the CV 2/40 or the Nikkor 2.8/45. One adapter less (and both lenses are sharper than the Konica to boot). You carry the FTZ anyway because of your 1.4/85.
On the plus side: small (29mm long, 60mm with FTZ), 52mm filter thread, EXIF data with FTZ.
For travel, I might also be a consideration to get lenses in the same mount. That way you can share one adapter to save space and weight. E.g. if you get the 3.5/20 SL, you could later choose to replace your Konica 1.8/40 by the CV 2/40 or the Nikkor 2.8/45. One adapter less (and both lenses are sharper than the Konica to boot). You carry the FTZ anyway because of your 1.4/85.
nightstreet
Newbie
@chris55m: Thanks for your comment, yes definitely I do try to simplify by ruling out too many different adapters, that's why I considered the Hexanon 21mm.
Off topic a bit, I'll mention that I picked up a Hexanon 135mm/3.2 for $40 but have only used it once and don't carry it when I travel overseas. I like the rendering of my 85mm for portrait work, but my brother has a Canon 85mm/1.2 and it's very nice too, one of these days I might talk him into getting the super expensive fringer adapter so I can borrow his lens. I do use the 85mm for travel, shooting over the crowds at popular touristy sites.
I forgot about the CV 20mm/3.5 SLii, and the 40mm/2 SL. I have them on my list with a note as not sharp at f/3.5, will read up on them again. I think that's when I started to wonder about at the M-mount versions as the LM-NZ adapter is half the size. With the M-mount, I was going to get the m-rokkor 40mm to replace my Hexanon 40mm.
There is a possibility that Nikon will come out with a Z-mount 40mm, compact and not a pancake, f-stop unknown at present, so I've been holding off on doing anything for now.
PS. It looks like the CV 20mm SL is discontinued, and I didn't see any used copies for sale. Quite a few used 40mm.
Off topic a bit, I'll mention that I picked up a Hexanon 135mm/3.2 for $40 but have only used it once and don't carry it when I travel overseas. I like the rendering of my 85mm for portrait work, but my brother has a Canon 85mm/1.2 and it's very nice too, one of these days I might talk him into getting the super expensive fringer adapter so I can borrow his lens. I do use the 85mm for travel, shooting over the crowds at popular touristy sites.
I forgot about the CV 20mm/3.5 SLii, and the 40mm/2 SL. I have them on my list with a note as not sharp at f/3.5, will read up on them again. I think that's when I started to wonder about at the M-mount versions as the LM-NZ adapter is half the size. With the M-mount, I was going to get the m-rokkor 40mm to replace my Hexanon 40mm.
There is a possibility that Nikon will come out with a Z-mount 40mm, compact and not a pancake, f-stop unknown at present, so I've been holding off on doing anything for now.
PS. It looks like the CV 20mm SL is discontinued, and I didn't see any used copies for sale. Quite a few used 40mm.
Last edited:
chris55m
Newbie
Interesting - I started with Konica lenses because they were affordable and among the smallest SLR lenses when taking the adapter size (i.e. flange distance) into account. And the lenses I got were the 1.8/40 and the 3.2/135 
The latter because of the short (for older 135mm lenses) minimum focus distance and the integrated lens hood. Performance-wise I was happy with the 40, but not with the 135. Very bad purple fringing on my sample and the lowly Nikkor 3.5/135 turned out to be sharper, too.
The latter because of the short (for older 135mm lenses) minimum focus distance and the integrated lens hood. Performance-wise I was happy with the 40, but not with the 135. Very bad purple fringing on my sample and the lowly Nikkor 3.5/135 turned out to be sharper, too.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I just got my adapter yesterday and took out the CV15 III, makes the camera a point and shoot. According to the peaking everything was in focus. With a little experience I think it will be fine. I have a 25/4 that I will try later today.
The Voigtlander 21/4 was designed for film, not digital. Not the best digital choice.
The much newer Voigtlander 21/1.4 and 21/3.5 M lenses are modern sharp contrasty lenses, easily adaptable to M friendly sensors like the Sony, Nikon Z, Sigma FP and Fuji FX.
Stephen
The much newer Voigtlander 21/1.4 and 21/3.5 M lenses are modern sharp contrasty lenses, easily adaptable to M friendly sensors like the Sony, Nikon Z, Sigma FP and Fuji FX.
Stephen
das
Well-known
My two cents: I found that the Voigtlander 21/4 performed well on my Z6. Other than some color shifting wide open (much cooler at f/4), I did not see any color fringing or any other patent problems. It was pretty sharp in the center at all apertures as well.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I've use my 25/4 M on my X E3 with great results, I'll be trying it today on the Z7.
nightstreet
Newbie
Interesting - I started with Konica lenses because they were affordable and among the smallest SLR lenses when taking the adapter size (i.e. flange distance) into account. And the lenses I got were the 1.8/40 and the 3.2/135
Haha...we have exactly the same lenses.
A few shots with the 40/1.8, first time with the lens a few days after getting it and the adapter. I'm showing the out-of-camera jpg's. Contrast was so-so but I'm sure it was the photographer's lack of skill, with a little post-processing it's very nice, overall I like the rendering of this lens a lot.
Attachments
nightstreet
Newbie
Yes, I looked at the 21/3.5 vintage-line M-mount, but can't quite justify spending $700 for it. The 21/1.8 M-mount is $800 new/ $600 used, and pretty long, with the adapter it'll be the same size as the Z 20/1.8, and about the same money.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
One thing I can tell from the little I've used the M mount lenses, they are a bitch to focus on the Z7. I turned down peaking one notch and it helped a little but my eyes aren't good enough anymore to take up the slack.
nightstreet
Newbie
Dumb question: Why is the M-mount lenses more difficult to focus (on the Z7) than other manual lenses? Is it the focusing turn too short? I can zoom and peak to focus my Hexanon OK for now , but I'm getting older and wear glasses. I don't doubt what you're saying, maybe I should forget the M-mount lenses.
Actually, as mentioned, I'm sort of waiting for the future Z 40mm, so really it's only the 20mm/21mm wide that I need to worry about. Well, my 85mm is the D version and it's manual focus also.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Not a function of the manual lenses, but of the poor focus peaking and my old eyes. My eyes aren't so bad that I can't focus the Leica with any of the lenses I tried so it's a matter of the camera. There's a button that will magnify the view finder, I need to try that.
f.hayek
Well-known
Acute ray angles on WA, M-mount lenses make them generally unsuitable for adaptation (exceptions do exiat). Corners are soft and demonstrate crazy color shifts. Stay away from anything wider than 50mm.
If you’re looking for small SLR lenses, look at Olympus OM glass. 21/2 and 21/3.5. Compact, outstanding and none of the issues of M lenses.
If you’re looking for small SLR lenses, look at Olympus OM glass. 21/2 and 21/3.5. Compact, outstanding and none of the issues of M lenses.