Jump to content

ZM 18/4 and 21/4.5 discontinued


NJH

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

15351453706_9f8e611471_b.jpg

All downhill form here by unoh7, on Flickr

 

15174946680_0c621292d8_b.jpg

L1021261 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

below WO:

15338562746_82f256915d_b.jpg

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 by uhoh7
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...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 by james.liam
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...