Elmarit-M 2.8/21 ASPH vs. Zeiss ZM 4.5/21

[Ivar B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have ended up with two 21mm lenses and I am wondering which one to keep. If there is anyone who has compared the lenses in debth, I would appreciate your advice.

 

I know that Erwin Puts did a quick review, including the ZM 2.8/21 as well as the two other lenses, and pronounced the 4.5/21 the winner. I can live with the slower speed of the 4.5/21.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[batmobile]

You have them both and its for your purposes only that comparisons are valid or not. If you can live with the speed and have no intention of getting a M9 (which the 21 4.5 has issues on I hear) then it seems pretty clear: the smaller cheaper lens.

 

Unless you have a poor example, there is nothing out there to better the 21 4.5. The 2.8 version I have is superb in every way but the 4.5 allegedly has a slight edge.... at the edge.

[budrichard]

I purchase Leica lenses not only for thier performance at maximum aperture but for thier build quality. I expect the Leica lens not to fail even under duress. I also shoot K64 at this time and f2.8 is a big help, so I have the f2.8 21mm ASPH and could really care less about how it compares at f2.8 in the corners to another 21mm lens.

 

 

I haven't used any of the Zeiss lenses or cameras and don't intend to as my Leica equipment has an excellent performance record and that's what i expect and pay for.-Dick

[batmobile]

I purchase Leica lenses not only for thier performance at maximum aperture but for thier build quality. I expect the Leica lens not to fail even under duress. I also shoot K64 at this time and f2.8 is a big help, so I have the f2.8 21mm ASPH and could really care less about how it compares at f2.8 in the corners to another 21mm lens.

 

I haven't used any of the Zeiss lenses or cameras and don't intend to as my Leica equipment has an excellent performance record and that's what i expect and pay for.-Dick

 

OK so you have no idea how other lenses perform and don't care, but how does this remarkable display of blind brand loyalty help answer the OP?

 

FWIW I feel my Leica lenses are more solid but I am not sure they are more reliable as such. None of my ZMs have fallen apart but one needs a service for the wobbles. Leica lenses often frequent the service department, often several times and often straight out of the box, so I am not too sure that build is such an issue. Besides you get three 21 4.5s for each 21 asph elmarit.

[christer]

I sold my ASPH, it was just too heavy and too big (and too expensive). Some time soon I am getting the Voigtländer 21 mm which I understand is one of the best lenses in the Voigtländer stable.

 

But sometimes the 2,8 came handy.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[batmobile]

Christer,

 

Watch out for QC issues on the little CV. Do a test to ensure your corners are acceptable. My second lens is pretty darned good but the first was so bad the centre did no come into sharp relief until about F8 and the right side never did. The one I now have is not as good as my 21 ZM 2.8 at any aperture, but gets somewhat close by F8 in the corners. The CV is just as sharp on centre, however. The corners remain just that bit softer than the ZM throughout but thats not always an issue. Still, it makes a super walkabout lens if you get a decent one.

[budrichard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I was trying to convey maybe a little too obliquely was that all this concern over which is lens is supposedly a little sharper at one aperture and/or area is a total waste of time.

When you get to a certain point with these lenses it really doesn't matter which lens that you use. Getting the job done with correct exposure, lighting and composition is far more important than ruminating about optical performance. I haven't had a single performance or quality issue with any of the Leica ASPH lenses I own of which there are four at the present, 21mm, 35mm Lux, 75mm and 90mm. If I was having wobbles with any lens, I would find another brand.

I have used Nikon SLR equipment for almost 40 years now starting with a pair of Nikon F's. Did I worry about which lens by some other maker was maybe a little sharper in a corner? Not in the least, the Nikon/Nikkor equipment functioned 100% in the field and did the job. When an editor sends you on an assignment, the last thing you will hear from the editor, is that the corner of the frame could be a little sharper and when one does a wedding that is the last thing to concern oneself with. It's not blind brand loyalty as you term it but common sense to chose the equipment that does what you need it to do rather than spending endless time discussing optical performance. It also seems rather odd to me that individuals chose lenses based on their perception of the physical size of the lens. I don't really care in most instances how big a lens is, if a I need what the lens can do, I get that lens. The only lens that a lens ever really gave me a size concern was a 500mm F5 Nikkor, a beast of a lens but it could do things with slow emulsions that no other lens could accomplish at that time.

Chose the equipment and lenses that will get what you need done and don't worry about insignificant issues. I use K64 and need f2.8 in a 21mm and in fact a 21mm f1.4 maybe down the road for me. If one only uses TMAX 400 in daylight then maybe an f4.5 21mm is sufficient but if it wobbles, its not worth anything.-Dick

[Ronazle]

Ivar, I have never used the Elmarit 2.8 so cannot intelligently comment on it other than noting that it is large. I do have a Zeiss Biogon C f:/4.5 which is small, light and unbelievably sharp and crisp. I don't know how well it does full format, but it is a wonderful M8 lens. Being an old guy and accumulator of old Leica stuff and lenses, I have a fair number of lenses to draw upon. The two I use most often are the 35mm Summicron asph f:/2.0 and the the 21mm Biogon-C f:/4.5. regards, ron:)

[Ivar B]

Many thanks to you all. I have just shot a roll of film no less (!) with the Zeiss on an MP, and it draws beautifully. There is a little vignetting wide open and this may be more of a problem on the M9, I don`t know.

 

Sold my M8, bought an MP and put the M9 on hold.

[hoppyman]

Ivar I have not used the Elmarit in 21mm (I think the 24 is superb though) but did have the little Zeiss 4.5 21 which I used on an M7 and M8. The build quality on mine had no issues and it produced crisp, contrasty images. I think that its biggest strength was its lack of distortion.

The negatives for me were that:

the mount could not be replaced with a custom one for coding (ask JM, we tried)

In strong backlighting mine would give noticeable flare and loss of contrast. I haven't seen that happen with any of my modern Leica wides.

Reportedly Zeiss does not recommend it use on the M9 (according to a big US west coast dealer).

 

I ended up selling this lens (and my Zeiss 18 also) and now have the wonderful 24 Elmar instead. Of course it helps to have an M9