NJH Posted December 14, 2014 Share #1 Posted December 14, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know if this has been discussed before but Zeiss have chopped these two lenses. Distagon T* 4/18 ZM | ZEISS United Kingdom C Biogon T* 4,5/21 ZM | ZEISS United Kingdom I have been seriously contemplating picking up the 21/4.5 for use with my M6. Sorry if this is old news but I can't be the only one who didn't notice it. Neil Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 14, 2014 Posted December 14, 2014 Hi NJH, Take a look here ZM 18/4 and 21/4.5 discontinued. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
terrycym Posted December 14, 2014 Share #2 Posted December 14, 2014 Will they be replacing the 18mm then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 14, 2014 Share #3 Posted December 14, 2014 Well the 21 is understandable since it basically only works with film but the 18 is a great performer. I wonder why they would discontinue it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted December 14, 2014 Share #4 Posted December 14, 2014 Well the 21 is understandable since it basically only works with film but the 18 is a great performer. I wonder why they would discontinue it. Perhaps the Leica Super Elmars have changed the wide angle market. The 21 has color shift issues that probably don't affect the Monichrom, I would imagine. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted December 14, 2014 Share #5 Posted December 14, 2014 (edited) I use both SEM 21 and ZM 18 Perhaps the 21 is better at f/4 but I can't tell, the ZM is fantastic, if a tad heavy. All downhill form here by unoh7, on Flickr L1021261 by unoh7, on Flickr below WO: Close Sentiment by unoh7, on Flickr The lens is not so good on the Sonys unfortunately. Who knows what makes "Zeiss" do anything LOL Why they don't get their act together and give us a compact digital M body is totally beyond me. Edited December 14, 2014 by uhoh7 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted December 15, 2014 Share #6 Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) ...but the 18 is a great performer. I wonder why they would discontinue it. I subscribe to Lloyd Chambers' site and he carefully documents how the 15, 18 and 4,5/21 have similar severe color shift issues with the M240 (some too with the M9) and are consequently not recommended (by him, at least). One would have thought the 15 would be the first victim as it is suffers from the same acute ray angle issues perhaps to a greater degree, but is also both the most expensive ZM while lacking RF coupling. Wishful (? magical) thinking, in light of the surprise 1,4/35, is that these will all be redesigned for digital M. Same quiet corner of my mind that hoped for a digital Ikon. Edited December 15, 2014 by james.liam Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 15, 2014 Share #7 Posted December 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I subscribe to Lloyd Chambers' site and he carefully documents how the 15, 18 and 4,5/21 have similar severe color shift issues with the M240 (some too with the M9) and are consequently not recommended (by him, at least). One would have thought the 15 would be the first victim as it is suffers from the same acute ray angle issues perhaps to a greater degree, but is also both the most expensive ZM while lacking RF coupling. Wishful (? magical) thinking, in light of the surprise 1,4/35, is that these will all be redesigned for digital M. Same quiet corner of my mind that hoped for a digital Ikon. I used to have the ZM 18 but I used it only on the M9. The color shift wasn't severe and curable with the 24/2.8 profile. The M240 seems more sensitive so maybe the shift is stronger. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscheffler Posted December 15, 2014 Share #8 Posted December 15, 2014 I subscribe to Lloyd Chambers' site and he carefully documents how the 15, 18 and 4,5/21 have similar severe color shift issues with the M240 (some too with the M9) and are consequently not recommended (by him, at least). One would have thought the 15 would be the first victim as it is suffers from the same acute ray angle issues perhaps to a greater degree, but is also both the most expensive ZM while lacking RF coupling. Wishful (? magical) thinking, in light of the surprise 1,4/35, is that these will all be redesigned for digital M. Same quiet corner of my mind that hoped for a digital Ikon. I just did a comparison test of a range of RF lenses on the Sony a7S and M240, including the ZM18. I shot it coded as the WATE (16mm) and uncoded. The lens was borrowed and already coded as such and I didn't bother trying other options. In any case, uncoded does show some color shift, but it's not terrible. Coded cleans most of this up and use of a different lens code could potentially be better. My experience with other lenses is that the 21/2.8 non-ASPH (11134) seems to be a generally good choice, in addition to the 24/2.8 Edward mentioned, or one of the 28mm flavors. I'm not surprised Zeiss hasn't tried a digital rangefinder... They seem to be happy making lenses. Considering the difficulties Leica had and still has with theirs, it might be beyond the capability of outsourcing such a camera to Cosina, as the Ikon was. Shame about the ZMs... the 21 isn't such a surprise. I guess the 18 just wasn't selling enough? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted December 15, 2014 Share #9 Posted December 15, 2014 The 4.5/21 ZM C-Sonnar is a spectacular little lens. Red edge on digital unfortunately killed it, although it is very impressive on the Monochrom. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 15, 2014 Share #10 Posted December 15, 2014 Also we should note that it says production discontinued not the product itself. Zeiss must have manufactured enough copies for the next 10 years or so Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscheffler Posted December 15, 2014 Share #11 Posted December 15, 2014 I guess that's true, Edward, but then why would Zeiss bother posting this tidbit of information if not to warn that supply will eventually become a problem? I suppose there could be periodic supply shortages. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted December 15, 2014 Share #12 Posted December 15, 2014 We don't anything new anyway, do we? Except Sony bodies LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted December 15, 2014 Author Share #13 Posted December 15, 2014 I guess that's true, Edward, but then why would Zeiss bother posting this tidbit of information if not to warn that supply will eventually become a problem? I suppose there could be periodic supply shortages. This is precisely what I thought Ron when I noticed the footnote on the product pages on their website. I have no problem today buying either new and I think I can just about get either in mint condition secondhand here in the UK, or one of them at least. That might not be the case though in a years time or more who knows. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 17, 2014 Share #14 Posted December 17, 2014 Perhaps it's more sensitive as the M240 deep pits don't work as well as the M9 angled micro-lenses Perhaps the M260 will improve on this ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
derleicaman Posted December 20, 2014 Share #15 Posted December 20, 2014 I'm sorry to hear about the ZM 18 being discontinued. It is a wonderful lens, which I personally own. I did a comparison of it with the 18 SEM and found them to be virtually identical performance wise. I code mine as the 24/2.8 ASPH and have no issues with it on the M9. I wrote a review of the 18 SEM for the LHSA Viewfinder which appeared in issue 47-1. As the performance between the two lenses is so similar, I prefer the ZM for it's price advantage and the fact that you don't need a special extra cost adapter to use standard filters. The Zeiss finder is superior to the Leica's optically, although the Leica finder is a little more streamlined and doesn't catch on as many things in normal carry on the camera. The 18 SEM's form is a little more friendly in the bag when not mounted on the camera. I wish Zeiss would come out with revised versions of both lenses optimized for digital. I had owned the 21/4.5 and was really sad to have to sell it as it was just too much of a PITA to use on the M9. Even with Cornerfix, it was just too much trouble. I am currently using the CV 21/4 Color Skopar for 21, but I keep toying with getting a 21/2.8 ASPH to satisfy my 21 lust. Then again, I think the 18 and 21 are so close to each other, why bother. On the other hand, the 21 is slightly easier to use with less distortion and less critical of converging verticals, etc. This is how we torture ourselves! The only answer is to own them all! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted December 21, 2014 Share #16 Posted December 21, 2014 Perhaps it's more sensitive as the M240 deep pits don't work as well as the M9 angled micro-lenses Perhaps the M260 will improve on this ? I think it's a matter of pixel pitch. The denser the pixels the stronger the color shift. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted December 21, 2014 Share #17 Posted December 21, 2014 I wish Zeiss would come out with revised versions of both lenses optimized for digital. I had owned the 21/4.5 and was really sad to have to sell it as it was just too much of a PITA to use on the M9./QUOTE] No one thought a ZM 1,4/35 would happen. Good sign Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.