russelljtdyer
Writer
I've decided that I have to have a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Biogon T* ZM lens. When I had a Canon 5DII slr camera, I owned a Zeiss 21mm EF lens. It was spectacular, but monstrously big and heavy. I own a Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon ZM lens, which is the main lens that I use--for some trips it's the only lens I take with me or use. But I miss the 90-degree, wide angle of that old Zeiss 21mm ZE lens, which I sold. The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZM has a 90-degree angle, too. Now that I'm going all m-mount, I'm thinking I should get one.
I know it's silly and torturing myself, but I would love to see photos that anyone here has taken with this lens, especially in combination with the Zeiss Ikon, the Leica CL, or the Leica M9 camera. So please post some of your best shots to this thread and tell me which camera and film you used, if not a digital camera, and maybe the exposure settings. I'd like to see how it handles and would appreciate hearing your impressions about the combinations of it with one of the three cameras I just mentioned. I want get myself into a frenzied lust for the lens so that I'll push myself to find the money to buy it, along with the Leica M9 I plan to buy soon.
I'd also like to know if you use an external viewfinder. I just ordered one a few days ago from Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest. I ordered the Voigtlander 21mm/25mm viewfinder II, the metal one. How does that work, switching between the camera's viewfinder and an external one? Does that flow smoothly for you? Do you sometimes miss shots by having to do that, or do you get better shots by slowing down for the external viewfinder? I'd like to see and hear your impressions of all of these elements.
Thanks in advance.
-Russell
I know it's silly and torturing myself, but I would love to see photos that anyone here has taken with this lens, especially in combination with the Zeiss Ikon, the Leica CL, or the Leica M9 camera. So please post some of your best shots to this thread and tell me which camera and film you used, if not a digital camera, and maybe the exposure settings. I'd like to see how it handles and would appreciate hearing your impressions about the combinations of it with one of the three cameras I just mentioned. I want get myself into a frenzied lust for the lens so that I'll push myself to find the money to buy it, along with the Leica M9 I plan to buy soon.
I'd also like to know if you use an external viewfinder. I just ordered one a few days ago from Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest. I ordered the Voigtlander 21mm/25mm viewfinder II, the metal one. How does that work, switching between the camera's viewfinder and an external one? Does that flow smoothly for you? Do you sometimes miss shots by having to do that, or do you get better shots by slowing down for the external viewfinder? I'd like to see and hear your impressions of all of these elements.
Thanks in advance.
-Russell
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Personally, I really like shooting with an external finder. The Zeiss ones are extraordinarily good, and the CV's are a great value.
For a 21mm lens, I've owned both the ZM 21/4.5 and the ZM 21/2.8. Both lenses are leading-edge in technical terms, but to be blunt the 4.5 lens is to my eye one of those lenses that is special. Just amazingly good. And tiny, and a good value.
That said, Zeiss specifically warns that the 4.5 is not recommended for the M9 due to vignetting and color shifts in the corners.
But for film I have no doubt that if I were to get another M-mount 21, it would be the 4.5 Biogon. For film and digital? I'd absolutely have to consider the new CV 21 Ultron.
For a 21mm lens, I've owned both the ZM 21/4.5 and the ZM 21/2.8. Both lenses are leading-edge in technical terms, but to be blunt the 4.5 lens is to my eye one of those lenses that is special. Just amazingly good. And tiny, and a good value.
That said, Zeiss specifically warns that the 4.5 is not recommended for the M9 due to vignetting and color shifts in the corners.
But for film I have no doubt that if I were to get another M-mount 21, it would be the 4.5 Biogon. For film and digital? I'd absolutely have to consider the new CV 21 Ultron.
Richard G
Mentor
Love the 21 4.5. So straight. Lovely light it transmits. Very sharp. Wonderful with black and white film. I have coped quite happily with it in colour on the M9, coding it as a pre-asph 28 2.8. Some minor fringing in some shots. I haven't bothered to learn Corner Fix. I might one day get the 2.8. It's not too big. There are some great 21 threads here on RFF.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I've owned two Zeiss 21mm f2.8 lenses - I sold the first one then missed it so much I bought another.
The f2.8 version is no bigger than my 50mm summilux pre-ASPH and, if memory serves, about the same size as the 35mm Biogon. Now, the only reason I opted for the 2.8 is for that extra speed in low light as I do shoot the occasional wedding on film still (I personally prefer it but hey, that's me, I'm weird like that
). The new CV that's all the rage (21mm f1.8) is probably about the same price but it's bigger and while I'm sure it's an awesome lens, I don't know if I want another "large" lens in my kit. I've tried to do that with the CV 50mm f1.1 and wasn't happy with it and yet I was perfectly happy with the CV 35mm f1.2 - go figure.
I currently don't have a digital full frame upon which to mount the lens but I have used it extensively on film. I'll hunt for a shot or two and post for you.
Cheers,
Dave
The f2.8 version is no bigger than my 50mm summilux pre-ASPH and, if memory serves, about the same size as the 35mm Biogon. Now, the only reason I opted for the 2.8 is for that extra speed in low light as I do shoot the occasional wedding on film still (I personally prefer it but hey, that's me, I'm weird like that
). The new CV that's all the rage (21mm f1.8) is probably about the same price but it's bigger and while I'm sure it's an awesome lens, I don't know if I want another "large" lens in my kit. I've tried to do that with the CV 50mm f1.1 and wasn't happy with it and yet I was perfectly happy with the CV 35mm f1.2 - go figure. I currently don't have a digital full frame upon which to mount the lens but I have used it extensively on film. I'll hunt for a shot or two and post for you.
Cheers,
Dave
fuwen
Well-known
My experience with ZM 21/2.8. Happy, and no complaints ........
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=80&Itemid=142
http://www.fuwen.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=80&Itemid=142
krötenblender
Well-known
Hello,
just found this old thread while searching for some input about this lens. I'm currently thinking about getting one and replacing my 28mm lenses. Did the OP finally bought the lens, and what does he think?
I was surprised, that the thread died so fast after only a few posts. Does nobody here use the lens? Or is it just perfect and there is nothing to complain about (thus, nothing to post...)
Please post, what do you think specifically about this lens? Just perfect? Any Quirks? Total crap...? What's good, what's not so good? Pictures are also welcome.
I intend to use it on the Zeiss Ikon ZM and Leica M240 with external VF, probably the Voigtländer for landscape and close street photography.
Thank you in advance.
just found this old thread while searching for some input about this lens. I'm currently thinking about getting one and replacing my 28mm lenses. Did the OP finally bought the lens, and what does he think?
I was surprised, that the thread died so fast after only a few posts. Does nobody here use the lens? Or is it just perfect and there is nothing to complain about (thus, nothing to post...
)Please post, what do you think specifically about this lens? Just perfect? Any Quirks? Total crap...? What's good, what's not so good? Pictures are also welcome.
I intend to use it on the Zeiss Ikon ZM and Leica M240 with external VF, probably the Voigtländer for landscape and close street photography.
Thank you in advance.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The ZM Biogon 21mm 2.8 is very good. Sharp with good contrast. It does have a bit of edge distortion but no more than the Leica 21f2.8 Asph - and much less than the Summilux 21f1.4. I tend to prefer the C Biogon 21f4.5 - but when the lights dim, out comes the Biogon 21mm f2.8.
Not a small lens, but not unmanageable either.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I found my copy to be overly contrasty and very saturated compared to my other lenses (two Leicas and two CVs), on the other hand it was very sharp too. I know have the CV 21 f4 and actually prefer it, both in size and performance.
krötenblender
Well-known
Thank you for the replies so far. Strong contrast and saturation are things, that I really like on lenses. I am, as opposed to the majority here, a color-only shooter, so that counts as a plus. It seems, that the 21/f4 also has many friends.
How did you like the handling of the lens? Too heavy? Good focus/aperture handling?
How did you like the handling of the lens? Too heavy? Good focus/aperture handling?
krötenblender
Well-known
I was also thinking about the Leica-options, but lately I discovered my love for the Zeiss, the rendering and colors, so much, that I started to sell my Leica lenses and replace them with Zeiss glass. Probably the 35 Summilux ASPH. FLE will be the only Leica lens, that I keep, since besides its size and weight it is IMHO the perfect lens. The 21mm Zeiss will be its wider companion, because 28mm is a little bit too close to 35mm, I think.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
It's a dash long as rangefinder lenses go, only a bit. Other than that it is as any other.
Avotius
Some guy
I have been using a 21 2.8 ZM for many years from film, M8, M9, Fuji XE1 and now Sony A7R. Its a good lens, not so great on the Fuji and Sony, but stopped down to f11 its acceptable but with color shift. Still I like the lens a lot so I will hang on to it.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I'll thread jack and tell you to skip both the M9 and the 2.8 in favor of a Monochrom and a 4.5. You won't be sorry. The 4.5 is not just special, as some people have said. For monochrome work, it is pretty much the sharpest and least distorted thing there is. And if you can shoot up to 10,000 (25K plus with the typ 246), then 1.5 stops difference won't bother you at all.
Dante
Dante
krötenblender
Well-known
Not sure, to what you are referring, but: the OP is over three years old, and the decision about the camera is probably long done (for several times...
). If you are referring to my reanimation of the thread, then the monochrom is not an option. As I said, I'm a color-only shooter, the number of BW-film I shot and BW-converted digital images are probably both single digit numbers...Currently I tend to get the 21/f2.8, even if bigger and heavier. What seems strange to me though, is that so few people here can provide pictures made with it. Maybe that focal length is not so easy to handle or not so inspiring to people? I'm curious to see, how it will change my close street shots compared to 28mm.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Not sure, to what you are referring, but: the OP is over three years old, and the decision about the camera is probably long done (for several times...
Currently I tend to get the 21/f2.8, even if bigger and heavier. What seems strange to me though, is that so few people here can provide pictures made with it. Maybe that focal length is not so easy to handle or not so inspiring to people? I'm curious to see, how it will change my close street shots compared to 28mm.
21mm is actually a very tough length to use because you really have to be on top of someone to get the shot. Like this tough character (this is the 4.5). You can use the lens with color. Instructions here.
I don't know why the 2.8 is not as popular. It was a little late to the party in terms of when it was released.
Dante
f.hayek
Well-known
21mm is a challenging FL to work with from a technical/framing standpoint in the first place, and sadly the compact ZM 4,5/21 just isn't suited to anything but a limited role for monochrome digital and film. The cost of updating the superb optical formula is not worth Zeiss' effort. The CV 4/21 is likely a better all-arounder provided you luck out on a good copy, but as good as the ZM 2,8/21 and others are, they all pale by comparison to the Leica 21 SEM--modestly priced by Leica standards.
Why isn't the ZM 2,8/21 as popular?
My guess is the weight & size, greater demands for precise focus WO, then framing on the optical VF or piss-poor 1st gen EVF of the M240/262/246. Personally, I'd rather have a lighter and better-corrected, slower optic on an M, shooting the 21 at hyperfocal ƒ-stops and framing accordingly. I leave it to the AF SLR's for precision focus at faster ƒ-stops for wides. I'm with Dante; I shifted to an MM after a realization that most of my color images were converted over to B&W--we all "see" differently, I guess. The MM v.1 is great to ISO 6400, very usable at 10,000 so a slower 21 isn't a hindrance.
Why isn't the ZM 2,8/21 as popular?
My guess is the weight & size, greater demands for precise focus WO, then framing on the optical VF or piss-poor 1st gen EVF of the M240/262/246. Personally, I'd rather have a lighter and better-corrected, slower optic on an M, shooting the 21 at hyperfocal ƒ-stops and framing accordingly. I leave it to the AF SLR's for precision focus at faster ƒ-stops for wides. I'm with Dante; I shifted to an MM after a realization that most of my color images were converted over to B&W--we all "see" differently, I guess. The MM v.1 is great to ISO 6400, very usable at 10,000 so a slower 21 isn't a hindrance.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
B&w...
B&w...
There are some apps for correction color aberrations wide angles make with the M9 that you can download from net. They're not fun but they do exist. The M9 shoots black an white too. Go for smaller, slower, and NO distortion! You won't be sorry!
B&w...
There are some apps for correction color aberrations wide angles make with the M9 that you can download from net. They're not fun but they do exist. The M9 shoots black an white too. Go for smaller, slower, and NO distortion! You won't be sorry!
krötenblender
Well-known
Nice shot, very engaging, emphasizes both, character and environment.
My use-case will be more very crowded places (think rush-hour in Tokyo), where 28mm sometimes did not provide enough context. I used the CV 12mm sometimes, but did not really like its character with people.
But with the 12mm I really learned how to correct color shift - and sometimes just live with it... So I'm not very concerned about the Zeiss 21mm.
Well, yes, probably it's just that. Sometimes one wonders, why great things are no success and the only reason may be bad timing.
krötenblender
Well-known
I. DO. NOT. HAVE. A. M9!
(not since 3 years anymore, to be precise)
Most times, anyway, the profiles in the M240 work pretty well with non-Leica-lenses. The reason, why I'm leaning towards the f2.8 is the possibility to emphasize a subject in the crowd, which is easier at 2.8 than at 4.5. Focusing, of course, is also much harder, but I guess I will just have to throw away a few more shots.... For landscape, which I also will use the lens for, 4.5 would be fine, if it is bright enough.
Scrambler
Well-known
I can't tell you about the Zeiss 21mm, I can comment on the use of a 21mm in general. I have a Voigtlander 21/4. That 1 stop doesn't make a huge difference in DOF - brings the hyperfocal forward by a meter.
To put it another way, the DOF of a 21/2.8 is about the same as the DOF of a 28/4.
So in reality separation within a crowd would be essentially impossible - unless the person was the nearest thing to the lens. And in that case you can use a slower lens by focusing even closer and using the DOF to cover your subject - i.e. focus at 1m for a 2m subject.
According to my DOF calculator, if you are focusing at 4m, everything between 2.5m and 20m will be in acceptable focus. Your only real hope would be to focus the 21/2.8 around 2.5m for your 4m subject (far limit about 5m) while with my 21/4 I'd have to focus 1/2m closer for a near focus of apx 1.3m for me and 1.6m for you - in other words basically nothing.
And in a nutshell that is why the 21/2.8 isn't that common - it doesn't add a whole lot of function for considerably increased complexity, size, weight and cost.
To put it another way, the DOF of a 21/2.8 is about the same as the DOF of a 28/4.
So in reality separation within a crowd would be essentially impossible - unless the person was the nearest thing to the lens. And in that case you can use a slower lens by focusing even closer and using the DOF to cover your subject - i.e. focus at 1m for a 2m subject.
According to my DOF calculator, if you are focusing at 4m, everything between 2.5m and 20m will be in acceptable focus. Your only real hope would be to focus the 21/2.8 around 2.5m for your 4m subject (far limit about 5m) while with my 21/4 I'd have to focus 1/2m closer for a near focus of apx 1.3m for me and 1.6m for you - in other words basically nothing.
And in a nutshell that is why the 21/2.8 isn't that common - it doesn't add a whole lot of function for considerably increased complexity, size, weight and cost.