Zeiss M-Mount 2,8/21mm ZM Biogon with M8/M9

[roguewave]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone use this lens with their M8 or M9? I'd love your thoughts about.

[Advertisement]

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

[jlindstrom]

Just sold mine couple of days. And that's not to mean it's a bad lens I just felt it was a bit too wide for me and gave it part-ex against 28mm elmarit.. which is weird as when shooting dslr's I liked to go wide... maybe I'm starting to learn something and getting used to not including "everything" in the photos.

 

Well, back to your original guestion.. I found it to be a really nice lens. I liked the warm Zeiss colors, it had enough contrast and for my eye seemed plenty sharp edge to center. Build quality was also right up there. It focuses down to 0.5m which is about 20cm closer than what the M8 can focus, so going close you'll end up guessing as the RF gives up early.

 

If looking for a new one, get one that brings up the 28mm frames so you can hand code it. Alternatively you can get a new mount from Millich for it, which brings up proper frames and also has dents for hand coding.

 

//Juha

[fefe]

I use it quite a bit on my M8. I coded it as an Elmarit 21 Asph. I love the contrast and nice color rendering. Resolution is high across the entire image, I don't like the focusing tab as much as my 35 Cron Asph but I can live with it. I bought a hood, but this lens seems to never flare so I leave the hood at home. Reidreviews has a good test of it on the M8 and if you intend to buy M mount lenses I found the subscription worth it.

[roguewave]

It focuses down to 0.5m which is about 20cm closer than what the M8 can focus, so going close you'll end up guessing as the RF gives up early.

//Juha

 

If I use this with my M2 or M3 (with an external viewfinder) will I have this same issue? Thanks. Ben

[jlindstrom]

Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that one as I don't own any film leicas..

 

But still, it's a problem only for that last 20 cm between 50 and 70 cm so I wouldn't worry about it too much if you need to shoot that close, try a stopping down the lense and guestimate the distance.. then just adjust focus according to the scale on the lense. Besides going that close with RF's is slightly difficult anyway, because of the parallax.. if I recall correctly M8 parallax compensation is optimised for 1 meter and M9 was 2 meters? (someobody with more in depth knowledge can confirm or correct this). This meaning that framing comes difficult at close distance, because you're not looking through the lense but slightly above and off center.

 

The Zeiss Ikon can focus until 0.5m so if you're thinking of a film backup for your digital M, then maybe that should be an alternative to look at as well. Should be slightly cheaper than similar film M's.

 

//Juha

 

//Juha

[cbretteville]

I have the ZM21/2.8 and use it on my M8. I chose the Zeiss over the Elmarits since I don't use it that much, but never the less wanted a 21 for my M8 and film Ms. I'd been through two 21mm Color-Skopars by then (the first was way better than the second). I like the Zeiss a lot more than the CV despite it's size. As far as price/performance goes the Zeiss is great. A tip is to get the 25/28 hood if you're going to use it on the M8. I got both the 21 and the 25 hoods and change them around as needed.

Carl

[MJones]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the ZM21/2.8 and use it on my M8. I chose the Zeiss over the Elmarits since I don't use it that much, but never the less wanted a 21 for my M8 and film Ms. I'd been through two 21mm Color-Skopars by then (the first was way better than the second). I like the Zeiss a lot more than the CV despite it's size. As far as price/performance goes the Zeiss is great. A tip is to get the 25/28 hood if you're going to use it on the M8. I got both the 21 and the 25 hoods and change them around as needed.

Carl

 

Pretty much the same comments by cbretteville for me. And if I remember correctly, I had one of the earlier models too so had to change out the flange to get it coded correctly - not a huge problem but worth looking for newer issue.

[markowich]

great on the M9, coded as 21mm pre asph. no color shift, very limited distorsion, warm nice colors. beats the Leica 21mm Asph. imho.

peter

[Printmaker]

I'm probably the only person to ever have a problem with a Zeiss 21/2.8. The focus was off. Depth of field masked this somewhat but, if I shot wide open, infinity was soft. I had Zeiss change the mount so it could be coded and had the focus adjusted. But the lens was still a bit soft at infinity. Then I had DAG code the lens and adjust the focus. Now its perfect.

 

This is nothing unusual as it happens with Leica lenses sometimes. And, if I wasn't printing 24x36s, I probably would never have noticed the focus shift.

 

Like others have said, it does not feel like a Leica lens in your hand. There is definitely a difference. Its not a $2000 difference though. On a M9, its probably the right choice for a 21. On a M8, this lens sees more use and opting for a Leica lens might make more sense. It all depends on your style.

 

Here's a sample shot on a M8 pre-adjustment.

 

Tom

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!

[thompsonkirk]

This was the second lens I bought for my M8 & I've always been happy with it. It's not as (disturbingly?) contrasty as some other Zeiss lenses. I don't hesitate to use it at 2.8, though it's a bit sharper & contrastier at f4. You'll probably want to have it coded by DAG, who takes a while. The comment that it doesn't flare was mistaken – without a hood it gets the 'aperture ring' kind of flare when pointed toward a light source. So Carl was right to say you should get the 25/28 hood for it. If you wear glasses, you'll probably want a 28mm external finder.

 

This is a really nice lens & IMO the price is way low for its quality.

 

Kirk

 

PS, with M9 it's too wide for me – but I know you like XL wide angles, so you'd probably enjoy it.

[batmobile]

I use the ZM 28, 35 f2 biogon, 50 planar and 21. I find the 21 2.8 has the highest contrast of them all, but there is not much in it. Considering the 21's similarity to the 25 biogon, which is also regarded as up there with the 35 f2.8 as the highest contrast in the line, this is not surprising. All in all the ZMs are remarkably close in fingerprint and contrast, much more so than Leica lenses, even within the asphs.

 

All my ZMs are somewhat higher in contrast than my Summarit-M 35, as one would expect.

 

This was the second lens I bought for my M8 & I've always been happy with it. It's not as (disturbingly?) contrasty as some other Zeiss lenses. .

[ndjambrose]

The ZM 21 Biogon is my favourite wide angle and one of the best lenses I've used. I've been very impressed with it -- optically it's excellent. My only gripe (and it's a tiny one) is the lens cap is rubbish. It does flare if shooting into the light and I recommend getting the lens hood. The hood is well designed and top quality - very solid, and better than any Leica one I own.

[Mauribix]

Ben, I had that lens (bought when I sold the 21elmarit ASPH) and still I regret selling it too.

The closest focus distance is a great advantage of the Zeiss on the Leica's, even if it's paired just till 0.7m, I didn't find it difficult to guess the focus that closer anyway.

Especially when stopped down a bit.

With the M9 it's absolutely gorgeous, but the VF is essential IMHO.

With the M8 I used it without the accessory VF, guesstimating the frame using the whole viewfinder.

 

Sharpness is as good as it gets with the Zeiss, from corner to corner, colors are crystalline, it remind me of the great Contax G 21mm Zeiss, and flare is absolutely well controlled, much better than the 21elmarit.

 

In a word, buy it! You won't regret, I'm sure, and it's well suitable to your style IMHO.

 

In my opinion, the Zeiss 21 and 18 ZM lenses are masterpieces and they worth every cent. Did you consider the 18 too? Awesome.

 

Ciao!

[Mauribix]

FYI

this is a picture I took with the Zeiss some time ago:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/101107-sitar-player.html#post1065134

[roguewave]

Maurizio, I remember seeing this image. I'm on the hunt for one. Unfortunately, with the M9 selling so well, many fine M lenses are becoming more difficult to buy at reasonable prices. Hope you are well & planning a trip to see us soon.

[jplomley]

Before buying, I compared the 21/2.8 Asph against the Zeiss equivalent since the dealer had both. The Leica won hands down wide open with regards to resolution, and I found the microcontrast and rendering of fine detail superior in every way to the Zeiss at comparable apertures. I found tonal preservation in the Leica much better since the lens was of lower contrast than the Zeiss. Knowing you like to shoot people with the wide angles Ben, this last point will be of chief concern to you. Colors are not as snappy with the Leica, which is my personal preference. I found the Zeiss really oversaturated reds to the point where details are lost. Highlights were a bit more difficult to control with the Zeiss due to the high contrast inherent in their glass. Don't get me wrong, the Zeiss glass has a huge WOW factor when you open the files due to the high contrast and hyper color rendition, but once you start digging you find the shortcomings. Build quality, there was no comparison, the Leica won hands down. This is a core focal length for me on both the M7 and M9 so I was not willing to accept any compromise, optically or mechanically. And since all my other lenses are Leica, I prefer to keep a consistent "look" in terms of contrast and color. And finally, I'm a big fan of tab focussing, much faster than knurled ring IMHO, and the "nipple" design on the Zeiss is laughable as a solution to tab focussing.

 

Regarding the Zeiss 18mm, I did try that lens as well, and both copies were de-centred. So I gave up on the Zeiss, coughed up the dough for the 21 Elmarit Asph and have never looked back. This lens will easily out live me and has been a rock solid performer over the thousands of images I have captured with it thus far. I might also mention that the files from the Leica 21mm held up much better to up-sampling than the Zeiss, and again, I beleive this to be a result of the very fine microcontrast in the Leica that is missing in the Zeiss. Sure wish I still had those comparison files...pictures worth a thousand words.

[wilfredo]

Ben,

 

How do you plan to use this lens? I had the 18mm Zeiss and sold it only because it mostly sat in my bag. From my perspective it was a fantastic lens.

Since you are a great fan of Leica bokeh Zeiss bokeh will probably not be to your liking. It is not creamy but tends to be what I would call chalky.

[Mauribix]

Jeff, reading your comments I must have missed something big on the Elmarit.

I understand the subjective opinions, but still I can't understand what you mean for:

The Leica won hands down wide open with regards to resolution, and I found the microcontrast and rendering of fine detail superior in every way to the Zeiss at comparable apertures

That's the opposite to what many reviewers of these lenses pointed out with meticulous test. And in my (small) experience too.

 

I had 2 Elmarit-M ASPH (one black and one silver) and just one 21ZM Zeiss f/2.8, Macro-contrast is much more evident with the ladder, and that we may not share as a preference ok, but micro contrast, edge sharpness, curvature of field is way better with the Zeiss.

Maybe you did get a lemon for the Biogon too, that's my guess.

Don't get me wrong, Sean Reid, whom I consider as a great reference for these lens tests, came up to the same conclusion.

 

I'm a bit upset with the

I found the Zeiss really oversaturated reds to the point where details are lost.

that you said too.

I found the Biogon to be a bit more "bluish" than "reddish", did you have samples of that phenomenon?

 

Then:

Build quality, there was no comparison, the Leica won hands down

Why? The diaphragm ring of my black Leica Elmarit went loose in just few weeks, that's not right about "rock solid" for 3350.00 Euros' lens, I consider both lenses built excellently anyway, but the Zeiss is 1/3 of that price.

And:

I believe this to be a result of the very fine microcontrast in the Leica that is missing in the Zeiss

Still that is in contrast with both the MTF charts by Leica and Zeiss as well as Sean's tests too.

 

Sorry for my disbelief, but I used both these lenses for much longer than just some shots at the local dealer, and I'm sure that you may reconsider your points with a good sample of the Zeiss, especially if you really can't accept many compromises.

The 21elmarit ASPH is absolutely a great lens, but IMHO that's not in the Olympus of the finest Leica lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ndjambrose]

I've got nothing against anyone who prefers one lens over another. Jeff, if you like the Elmarit more than the Biogon that's entirely your affair.

 

But are you really making definitive and absolute statements regarding colour rendition and fidelity on the basis of shooting on an M9 (which has remarkably inconstant WB and uses imperfect software correction for colour fidelity on wide lenses); presumably also using the LCD as an arbiter of image quality (if your opinions were drawn in your dealer's showroom)?

 

Because I've tried them both too and see no objective reason to prefer the Elmarit. In fact I bought the Biogon because to my eyes it was better. Plus I found the aperture ring more solid, focusing better damped, and detents at 1/3 stop intervals rather than 1/2 stop to be a more useful feature to me.

 

Minor point about ergonomics - I prefer the Zeiss design for focusing - easier for my finger to find when the tab rotates past 90 degrees vertical. But each to their own ...

 

In any event - much of these points come down to personal preference. Which is perfectly fine, but ought to be expressed as such, rather than presented as fact.

[jplomley]

I'm a bit upset with the....

 

Maurizio, my apologies if you took my comments as a personal attack. That was not my intention at all. I tested both lenses very carefully on a tripod, and granted, perhaps the Biogon was a lemon, or the Elmarit was a stellar copy, I simply am reporting my observations having tested the lenses for about a two hour period shooting a variety of subjects that appeal to me (see my LFI gallery and website to get an idea of subject appeal). I will admit that I did not study curvature of field because in applications where this is important to control, I choose to use a 4x5 Arca Swiss where the equivalent focal length is between 55-58mm and therefore more easily corrected in the optical design.

 

Concerning the color palette, yes I did find the Zeiss glass a bit cool, but as stated the reds were far too "punchy". I will add that I have owned the Zeiss 25/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2 before switching to Leica glass, so I have a pretty good idea of how the Zeiss handle mechanically over a longer period. Both my 35/2 and 50/2 developed a wobble in the focussing helicoid after a year of continuous use. I have been using Leica 21/2.8 Asph, 24/2.8 Asph, 28/2 Asph, 35/2 Asph, and 75/2 Cron Asph for about a couple of years now on a pair of M7's and M8's and most recently on the M9. I have not had a single issue with any Leica lens. One thing I did not like about the Zeiss was focussing in vertical mode. There was a lot of resistance in the helicoid compared to focussing in the horizontal orientation. This resistance is absent in the Leica lenses.

 

Regarding microcontrast, I was unaware that an MTF chart gave you that information. But then I have never chosen my lenses based upon an MTF chart, whether for 35mm, MF, or LF. I test the lenses I buy under the conditions and for the subject material that I intend to capture. That is all that matters to me. Perhaps on paper the Zeiss outperforms the Leica, but again, that was not my experience. Sure wish I had kept those files now....

 

My advice to Ben is to simply test both the Zeiss and the Elmarit and make the decision based upon his preferred results.