arthury Posted March 8, 2014 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Pertaining to the Zeiss 'C' designated ZM lenses, what are their characteristics in general? I remember reading about the very first one (50mm/1.5) being soft but what are your feelings about them in your own experiences? I'm looking for these: image tonality image bokeh contrast color 3D feel strengths: what areas are they strong in? do they match well with the M9 and M240 sensors? Here are the lenses I have in mind regarding these questions: C Biogon T* 4,5/21 ZM C Biogon T* 2,8/35 ZM C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Hi arthury, Take a look here 'C' Zeiss ZM lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CaptZoom Posted March 8, 2014 Share #2 Posted March 8, 2014 The "C" lenses are designed to give the look of classic (pre-aspherical elements) look. The 50mm f1.5 is NOT soft wide open (at least not in the center), rather has a slight focus shift. Focusing and shooting the lens wide open via LiveView will account for the focus shift. Also you can have Zeiss optimize the lenses for f/1.5 or f/2.8. I've no experience with the other lenses you mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted March 8, 2014 Share #3 Posted March 8, 2014 Leave the 21/4,5 to film cameras and the Monochrom or crop to square ; severe corner color shifts. 35/2,8 is a superb compact, sharp and contrasty lens. 50/1,5 lower contrast than a modern design, but characterful ; remains a bit soft in the corners even when stopped down but the center becomes very good ; focus shift close up when used away from f/2,8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
struene Posted March 8, 2014 Share #4 Posted March 8, 2014 Hallo, the "C" does NOT mean "classic" or the like. It stands for compact. You trade in one feature for the compactness of the three lenses, of which i use the 35 and the 50: With the 50 1.5 you trade in the last modern punch wide open. There for it looks "classic", as the classic f1.x 50ies were never exactly punchy wide open. Witz the ZM there is some spherical aberation wide open wich results in a bit dreamy rendering a wonderfull bokeh, but also is responsible for the focus shift at closer focusing distances. The 50 1.5 ZM is not soft wide open, but not that contrasty and harsh, as the modern asphericals, it is a very good peoples lens. Stopped down to f2.8 it is sharp and contrasty as any other zeiss lens. at f2.0 it is best of both worlds. The compactness of the 35 2.8 ZM is bought for the price of one f-stop compared to the 2.0 Biogon. the c-biogon besides that is a quite perfect lens. Contrasty, 3D, Sharp, no distortion good on digital too. The 21 c-biogon is a classical (almoust) symmetrical design, which is possible due to the lack of a mirror in rangefinder cameras. It protudes wide into the camera, so there does not remain a lot to stand out of the bajonett. The close distance to the sensor is a problem which results in the Colorcast in the corners, becouse the sensors are not good at interpreting so steep-angled ray of light. There is a software called "cornerfix" which deals with that, but all in all it is surely the better alternativ to go for the 21 2.8 biogon, which is a retrofocal design without the problems of the 21 4.5 on digital. On film there is no colour shading in the corners and not so much lightfall of, so in the analog world the 21 4.5 c-biogon is an absolut perfect and compact lens. Sharp contrasty with zero distortion. schöne Grüße, Johann Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share #5 Posted March 8, 2014 Thank you, guys, for sharing your thoughts. Sounds like they are interesting lenses and certainly full of character. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted March 8, 2014 Share #6 Posted March 8, 2014 Hallo,the "C" does NOT mean "classic" or the like. It stands for compact. In addition to compact, apparently it (the "C" designation) means exactly that, "classic", for two of the three lenses mentioned by the OP. From Zeiss: "The ‘C’ designation in the C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM name means both ‘compact’ and ‘classic’." The “C” in the title indicates another outstanding feature: Unusual for a lens in this class, its speed of 1 : 2,8 allows for an exceptionally compact construction. "The C in the C Biogon T* 4,5/21 ZM name stands for both ‘compact’ and ‘classic’" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
struene Posted March 8, 2014 Share #7 Posted March 8, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) HAllo, ah, OK, sorry, anyway one goes with the other.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2014 Share #8 Posted March 9, 2014 I have quite a few 35 mm lenses. The Biogon C 35 is one of my favorites. In fact, it lives on my Monochrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 9, 2014 Share #9 Posted March 9, 2014 Modern Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM lenses are calibrated for f/1.5 where they have no focus shift at all but they are significantly softer than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph at full aperture. Superb lens for portrait. My favorite 50 with the Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph there. The latter has no significant focus shift but is bulkier and have a longer focus throw. The Sonnar is also very sharp at f/2.8 and on provided you can manage its focus shift at short and long distance. Just turn the focus ring a bit further to the right at f/2.8 and on. That's what i did at f/8 for this pic (30 MB file). No focus shift issue with EVF of course. No significant distortion, no disturbing CA, vignetting is hardly noticeable with M240 lens correction. Very little flare, superb quality, butter smooth focus ring, firm aperture ring, no rattle at all, solid vented hood. Definitely a keeper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 9, 2014 Share #10 Posted March 9, 2014 I had the 4.5/21 ZM C-Biogon, my first 21mm lens, which was spectacular. Virtually no distortion (great for architecture), incredibly sharp, almost transparent in it's rendering, excellent colour transmission (as with the other ZM lenses, and incredibly compact. I used it with the Leica 21mm OVF as the Zeiss finder has offset problems). For a time I kept it as well as the 3.4/21 and 1.4/21 Summilux because I couldn't come at selling this Zeiss lens. However, in the end I did sell it only because of the red-edge problem on my M9 (even though I primarily shoot for B&W) as there was to much repair work to do to the files even for B&W. For film I'd recommend it over any other slower 21mm lens but not for digital (unless using a cropped sensor). I have the 2.8/25 which is is another excellent lens which works perfectly on the digital Leica bodies. It doesn't get that much use as although very sharp, with neutral colouring, and little distortion I just find it a bit 'sterile' (please don't ask me to define that) so I only use it for architectural rather than general photography as again there is almost no distortion. Also a shame that it's not a 'C for Compact' lens. I also have the 1.5/50 ZM C-Sonnar. Which I bought after seeing Bill's work with it on film. Mine was optimised for f1.5. It's a good all-in-one lens. Arty (read soft) wide open but lovely for flattering portraits, and very good resolution and sharpness as it's closed down. One learns to adapt for the focus shift fairly quickly). However, if you want a very high resolution 50mm lens then the ZM Planar (which I've not used) is probably the one to get and it's also quite a compact lens - however I was recently surprised to learn that it has more distortion. I note Jaaps comment about the 2.8/35 ZM which is another nice compact lens but my understanding is that it's quite a high contrast lens (or is that the 2.0/35?, which is also not a 'C for Compact' lens) so it would not be to my taste. Perhaps Jaap could clarify this. Also, don't dismiss the 4.0/85 Tele-Tessar, another excellent and well priced short telephoto. Excellent resolution, only moderate contrast and lovely colouring and tonal range. Remember that all of the ZM lenses use 1/3-stop aperture adjustment. Not a big deal but it requires just that one extra step of mental processing when shooting. All of these Zeiss lenses perform extraordinarily well by any standards, and are very well made, but particularly considering they only cost a 1/4 to 1/3 the price of the equivalent Leica lenses. I have never had to return any of my Zeiss lenses for repair/servicing, unlike almost all of my Leica lenses which have gone back at sometime or another. One could have a full set of ZM lenses (21, 25, 28, 35, 50 and 85mm) for less than the cost of one Leica uber-lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted March 9, 2014 Share #11 Posted March 9, 2014 The colors of the Zeiss lenses (I have the Sonnar 1,5/50mm) are cooler. To have the same look as the Leica lenses You have to raise the color temperature in Lightroom +200 and tint +10. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 9, 2014 Share #12 Posted March 9, 2014 The colors of the Zeiss lenses (I have the Sonnar 1,5/50mm) are cooler. To have the same look as the Leica lenses You have to raise the color temperature in Lightroom +200 and tint +10. Elmar I agree they are cooler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted March 9, 2014 Share #13 Posted March 9, 2014 I have many of the ZM lens series, and have been exercising them on the M240. My C-Sonnar was tweaked by DAG, so I no longer notice any focus shift. I really like this lens. On the M240, the 21mm C-Biogon suffers from severe edge coloring, left and right rather than corners, really. I gather this is due to the orientation of the sensor sites as well as the short back-focus. This cannot be fully corrected with CornerFix. It becomes usable by cropping a little off both sides... It is great on the M8. Surprisingly, in my experience, the 35mm C-Biogon has the same pattern of side-edge coloring as the 21, but much less of it. CornerFix does the job, but with many scenes the subject matter might well mask the problem. I am using a UV/IR Cut filter on mine, pushing the red edges into cyan. Again fine on the M8 where it has excellent performance with no picky edge issues! I might also mention the 18mm Distagon-ZM as a fine performer on the M8 as a "24"mm, and also fine on the M240. In regard to corner illumination fall-off and coloring, it's about the same as the 21mm Elmarit ASPH, quite admirable, and notably absent of the effects of the 4.5/21. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted March 9, 2014 Share #14 Posted March 9, 2014 The C-Sonnar is NOT softer than the Summilux ASPH in the center of the frame, if focused using the EVF on the M240. Please see here. It is however softer on the edges of the frame (see its MTF), but this only contributes to making the center "pop" out in a very beautiful way. Modern Sonnar 50/1.5 ZM lenses are calibrated for f/1.5 where they have no focus shift at all but they are significantly softer than the Summilux 50/1.4 asph at full aperture. Superb lens for portrait. My favorite 50 with the Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph there. The latter has no significant focus shift but is bulkier and have a longer focus throw. The Sonnar is also very sharp at f/2.8 and on provided you can manage its focus shift at short and long distance. Just turn the focus ring a bit further to the right at f/2.8 and on. That's what i did at f/8 for this pic (30 MB file). No focus shift issue with EVF of course. No significant distortion, no disturbing CA, vignetting is hardly noticeable with M240 lens correction. Very little flare, superb quality, butter smooth focus ring, firm aperture ring, no rattle at all, solid vented hood. Definitely a keeper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 9, 2014 Share #15 Posted March 9, 2014 Little focussing problems with your Summilux asph perhaps? I would redo your test if i were you with respect. As much as i like the Sonnar it is not in the same league as the Summilux asph at full aperture in my experience. Same for the Summilux pre-asph BTW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 9, 2014 Share #16 Posted March 9, 2014 Little focussing problems with your Summilux asph perhaps? I would redo your test if i were you with respect. As much as i like the Sonnar it is not in the same league as the Summilux asph at full aperture in my experience. Same for the Summilux pre-asph BTW. I ran this comparative test myself recently using the EVF on the M240 to avoid any focus shift issues. I agree with you the C-Sonnar does improve significantly as it's stopped down and it is a great lens but it does not resolve like my Summilux ASPH (FLE) at any f-stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted March 9, 2014 Author Share #17 Posted March 9, 2014 It appears that in order for this lens to be up to par, some of you are saying it either needs to be sent back to Zeiss or DAG be get it adjusted so that it peaks at f/1.5 in terms of avoiding focus shift (spherical aberrations). Are you all saying that when it leaves the factory, the focus shift issue is all over; especially, at f/1.5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
horosu Posted March 9, 2014 Share #18 Posted March 9, 2014 Little focussing problems with your Summilux asph perhaps? I would redo your test if i were you with respect. As much as i like the Sonnar it is not in the same league as the Summilux asph at full aperture in my experience. Same for the Summilux pre-asph BTW. I'll try an rerun the test and post the results some day. Anyway, I was very positively surprised by the very visible improvement in performance of the C-Sonnar when using the EVF. As I mentioned, mine is calibrated for 2.8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 9, 2014 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2014 ....Are you all saying that when it leaves the factory, the focus shift issue is all over; especially, at f/1.5? Depends if your lens is a current or a earlier one, i mean if it was built before or after 2008 roughly. Current lenses are calibrated for f/1.5 which means that there is no focus shift issue there. Same at f/2 more or less but at f/2.8 and on there is indeed some focus shift and nobody can avoid it AFAIK. What Zeiss, DAG or others can do is calibrating the lens for a slower aperture, typically f/2.8. Then you will get a bit softer images at f/1.5 and f/2 due to focus shift. Reason why Horosu perceived a significant improvement with his EVF i guess. But at f/4 and on focus shift will be less visible due to the wider depth of field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted March 9, 2014 Share #20 Posted March 9, 2014 Depends if your lens is a current or a earlier one, i mean if it was built before or after 2008 roughly. Current lenses are calibrated for f/1.5 which means that there is no focus shift issue there. Same at f/2 more or less but at f/2.8 and on there is indeed some focus shift and nobody can avoid it AFAIK. I've heard this on the forums but also counter claims saying that all current lenses are still calibrated at f/2.8. My December 2010 C-Sonnar has f/2.8 calibration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.