Upgrading my 21mm Skopar to a 21mm f/2.8 Biogon ?

[Torontoamateur]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 21mm f/4.0 Voigtlander skopar and I have been offered a 21mm f/2.8 ZM Biogon. Will I see a difference in color and sharpness by upgrading to the Zeiss 21mm in 13x19 size prints? Or am I just chasing my tail in thinking about this as an upgrade? I have an M4-P and M6 . I typically shoot Ektar 100 and Fuji Pro 160 S.

[cbretteville]

The ZM has a lot better contrast then the CV and it is sharper. Down side is size and weight. Puts rates the ZM ahead of the Elmarit-M 21/2.8 ASPH. I've never used the Leica, but in my experience it outperforms the CV by a large margin. I went through two CV21s before I decided to upgrade to the ZM21/2.8. That was two years ago, I have no regrets.

Carl

[ndjambrose]

Agreed. The Biogon is a better lens by any reasonable measure.

[batmobile]

I agree with the above. Those who think they are close tend to be using them on cropped M8s. On full frame the improved performance of the ZM is very obvious in the outer field.

 

Contrast is better, as is flare resistance. Resolution on the very centre is about the same but the Zeiss is better at f4-5.6 in the corners than the CV ever gets... this being beyond what a M8 would see. Vignetting is lower too.

 

IMHO it is well worth the additional cost. Size? Its small compared to a 24 lux asph and no larger than a 50 lux asph in real terms.

[Xmas]

HI

 

I can agree with every one.

 

But you will need to be shooting brick walls and holding the camera real steady, while swapping lenses to see a real difference in the corners, at f/8, rather easier at f5.6. The ZM lenses are real good, and do you shoot brick walls?

 

It is larger and heavier so unless you don't carry the gbag far, some of the time the lens may be at home. I prefer to leave the monopod at home, and not worry about any loss in resolution, the ZM is lighter then the monopod

 

I'd check out the ergonomics fit your hand as well...

 

Noel

[earleygallery]

Indeed, one uses such lenses wide open and measures critical focus. Who wants vignetting and softer corners, apart from Noctilux fans?

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Zeiss lens large? Not compared with SLRs! It' a beautiful lens, as is the finder. You do need an additional hood, however.

[Jaws]

I find it quite easy to see the difference in the corners of film at F8. Its blinding at F4 and even more obvious at f2.8 I have a good sample of the CV too. My first was a dog.

[Torontoamateur]

I got the Zeiss ! I am doing the first roll today. I really like the feel. Size wise it is the same as my 90mm Elmarit M. I am keeping the 21mm Skopar for future trading.

 

I thank everyone for the advice.

[Bartie]

I use one of these lenses,it's pin sharp has great contrast and I have printed at A1 with fantastic results.

 

Andy

[christer]

Re: Upgrading my 21mm Skopar to a 21mm f/2.8 Biogon ?

 

I use one of these lenses,it's pin sharp has great contrast and I have printed at A1 with fantastic results.

 

Andy

 

please tell us which one!

[Bartie]

Sorry guy's, it's the 21 mm zeiss I'm talking about on a M9.This image was taken with it

 

Andy

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!

[christer]

Superb picture!

[Michael Markey]

I take a lot of horse pics Andy and yours is superb.

 

Michael

[pes084k1]

HI

 

I can agree with every one.

 

But you will need to be shooting brick walls and holding the camera real steady, while swapping lenses to see a real difference in the corners, at f/8, rather easier at f5.6. The ZM lenses are real good, and do you shoot brick walls?

 

It is larger and heavier so unless you don't carry the gbag far, some of the time the lens may be at home. I prefer to leave the monopod at home, and not worry about any loss in resolution, the ZM is lighter then the monopod

 

I'd check out the ergonomics fit your hand as well...

 

Noel

 

The ZM 21 2.8 is appreciably better than VC 21 at f/5.6-8 (not so the ZM 15 vs VC 15, and with more distortion), no doubt. It is also more flexible versus digital. But I will take at least a monopod or a Gorillapod with me, differences are much more pronounced, if you are truly seeking for quality. And my friends recognize my rock solid hands...

 

Elio

[Xmas]

The ZM 21 2.8 is appreciably better than VC 21 at f/5.6-8 (not so the ZM 15 vs VC 15, and with more distortion), no doubt. It is also more flexible versus digital. But I will take at least a monopod or a Gorillapod with me, differences are much more pronounced, if you are truly seeking for quality. And my friends recognize my rock solid hands...

 

Elio

 

Hi

 

I not suspect your results, almost all my shots are one handed, rarely stationary, If I have a static shot I will use a pillar or other support and hill walking I'd take a monopod, if the visibility is good.

 

But using 400iso colour I don't see much difference between the ZM and CV 21 and 25mm, at f/5.6 or 8, i.e. four lenses, my friend with a M8 says he can. There may be sample variations. I have two CV 25mm I'll try them on lens test charts, for variation first and report.

 

Noel

[marduk]

I agree with the above. Those who think they are close tend to be using them on cropped M8s. On full frame the improved performance of the ZM is very obvious in the outer field.

 

Contrast is better, as is flare resistance. Resolution on the very centre is about the same but the Zeiss is better at f4-5.6 in the corners than the CV ever gets... this being beyond what a M8 would see. Vignetting is lower too.

 

IMHO it is well worth the additional cost. Size? Its small compared to a 24 lux asph and no larger than a 50 lux asph in real terms.

I second that, I went from CV 25mm to ZM Biogon 25mm f/2.8 and I do not regret that. This lens has a spark that CV is lacking, bitingly sharp and contrasty even wide-open.

[NB23]

They're both Cosina lenses. One is faster then the other so it boils down to a stop difference.

 

Leicas perform much better then Cosinas, especially in color rendition. Of course, if you use photoshop to transform images and to make a nice blue sky into a B&W dark unreal sky, then you don't need quality lenses at all.

[Xmas]

They're both Cosina lenses. One is faster then the other so it boils down to a stop difference.

 

Leicas perform much better then Cosinas, especially in color rendition. Of course, if you use photoshop to transform images and to make a nice blue sky into a B&W dark unreal sky, then you don't need quality lenses at all.

Hi

 

Sweeping statements little concern for reality?

 

One is a Cosina design the other a Zeiss design.

 

Zeiss seem to have designed theirs as a statement lens, whereas e.g. the Planar 5cm is much more conservative. The Zeiss 21mm MTF seem to be as good or better then the Leica MTF for the Elmarit f2.8 ASPH - at f/5.6.

 

In the past Leica bodies were much better then Contax but the lenses, hardly. Only occasionally has Leica raised the bar on lens performance. I not think of buying a ZM body today.

 

Some of the ZM lenses do seem to have rotational play in focus ring but this does not affect the lens performance, it sure annoys some people, though, and you can get such a lens real cheap. I've not noticed this play in the Voightlander branded lenses so Cosina may be building and inspecting to Zeiss rules....

 

I do accept I frequently use a yellow filter on a nice blue sky and wet print, Please tell me what is wrong with that, It seems the same with a SA f/3.4 or CV f/4 21mm?

 

Noel...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NB23]

People get defensive when one says that zeiss is Cosina. As if the term "Cosina" is supposed to mean something bad.

Cosina manufactures lenses for Nikon, pentax and a multitude more. It is one, if not the biggest, lens manufacturer.

But yes, zeiss is nothing else then a cosina product that share many parts with voigtlander lenses. I have owned many zeiss and voigtlander lenses. While all good, thet suffered when compared to Leitz lenses.

The 18mm zeiss, altough great on its own, simply has no contrast when compared to the Leica 18mm.

And what s there to be said about The pathetic focus shift beyond belief on the sonnar? I mean, really! There's that company telling us that their f1. Lens is calibrated for accurate focusing at f2.8, making it a worthless f1.5 lens. Who, in his right mind, accepts this?

And so much more.

 

So I repeat: while Zeiss and voigtlander are ok, zeiss is now a japanese product (and the fact that Zeiss, the now japanese company, dictates its specs doesn't make it any better or more "Zeiss" then what it really is. And it simply doesn't rival Leica. It simply fills a gap that's ecnomically viable. Not everyone has the money to buy a brand new Leica lens.