ZEISS ZM lenses on M10?

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any experience or comments?

[magixaxeman]

Yes, they work fine, I prefer summicrons but the planar T 50/2 is a cracking lens, so too the 35mms 

[lct]

Couple of links:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/272710-zeiss-lenses-for-leica-m/
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/282639-recommend-zeiss-35mm-f14-distagon-t-zm/
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/293315-m10-p-with-zeiss-35mm-f14-distagon/
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/279525-zeiss-biogon-t-f28-21mm-zm/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4182068

 

[Viv]

Thank you both.

 

[TomB_tx]

I’ve used the 50 Planar and 35 Biogon f2 on my M10 with excellent results, but normally use 50 & 35 Summarits as I prefer their size and handling.

[helohe]

I used the 25 Biogon ZM on the M10. The results are excellent, I would say much better than on the M240. On the M240 I experienced some issues with wrong colors in the corners, however on the M10 the results are perfect. I usually choose a Leica lens which is similar to the Zeiss one from the lens detection menu so the camera applies some distortion correction and so on. (I think the LEICA ELMARIT-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH works well for the 25 ZM). But even without lens detection the lenses work well.

[horosu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They are superb on any digital M, but maybe more so on the M10. The 35/2.8 C-Biogon is maybe the sharpest/contrasty (although that's not a quality in my book)/flare-free/distortion-free 35mm M-mount lens out there.

[RexGig0]

Yes, Zeiss ZM lenses work well on the M10. I am really loving the Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM. I use the Tele Tessar 85mm f/4 ZM less often, but it works very well, too.

[Viv]

Thank you all.

I am gravitating towards either the Distagon 35/1.4 or the 50 Planar.

 

[pedaes]

Both great lenses, but please be sure you are comfortable with size of Distagon and can live with how much of the 35mm Framelines in blocks in the viewfinder. If you buy mail order without trying could be risky unless you have agreement in place to exchange if you aren't happy with it.

Edited August 29, 2019 by pedaes

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, Viv said:

Thank you all.

I am gravitating towards either the Distagon 35/1.4 or the 50 Planar.

 

Both great lenses, but please be sure you are comfortable with size of Distagon and can live with how much of the 35mm Framelines in blocks in the viewfinder. If you buy mail order without trying could be risky unless you have agreement in place to exchange if you aren't happy with it.

[Viv]

Thank you. Good advice.

I will not buy by mail-order.

[oudjunk]

I have used Zeiss 50 f2 on Leica SL and 35 f1.4 on Leica M10 

both of them were good lenses with reasonable price. 

the sharpness and contrast were perfect for me. 

I sold it because i got the summilux 35

[pedaes]

12 minutes ago, oudjunk said:

I have used Zeiss 50 f2 on Leica SL and 35 f1.4 on Leica M10 

both of them were good lenses with reasonable price. 

the sharpness and contrast were perfect for me. 

I sold it because i got the summilux 35

Intersting. Why did you swap to Summilux (asks a Summilux FLE user). I also have 2.8 Biogon as sunny day small lens - sharpest of all the Zeisses (see Sean Reid for good in depth reviews of all the 35's and 50's).

[RexGig0]

The size of the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM bothers some, more than others. I am not annoyed by the amount of viewfinder blockage. Being a serious DSLR user, before I added the Leica M system, none of the ZM lenses seem large.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with those who find the Distagon 1,4/35mm ZM to be too large, for either of the two reasons. I have a tiny Leitz Summaron-M 3.5cm f/3.5 lens, because, sometimes, smaller is better.

[RexGig0]

2 hours ago, oudjunk said:

I have used Zeiss 50 f2 on Leica SL and 35 f1.4 on Leica M10 

both of them were good lenses with reasonable price. 

the sharpness and contrast were perfect for me. 

I sold it because i got the summilux 35

I, too, am curious about your transition to the Summilux FLE. May I ask, please, about any differences you have discovered?

Edited August 29, 2019 by RexGig0

[mmx_2]

I’ve used the 21 f2.8 quite extensively, and although sharp it had quite annoying purple edges (fixable) sold it for a SEM 21 and never looked back. I still think they offer excellent value for money!

[oudjunk]

20 hours ago, RexGig0 said:

I, too, am curious about your transition to the Summilux FLE. May I ask, please, about any differences you have discovered?

 

22 hours ago, pedaes said:

Intersting. Why did you swap to Summilux (asks a Summilux FLE user). I also have 2.8 Biogon as sunny day small lens - sharpest of all the Zeisses (see Sean Reid for good in depth reviews of all the 35's and 50's).

first of all, i did not swap to the summilux fle but i swap to summilux classic Pre-asph (Titanium) my reasons are as below:

1. Design and weight --> I like the design (lens's body) of leica more than Zeiss and the size of summilux is too smaller than the Zeiss 35 f1.4 

2. Titanium version --> It's not the limited edition but the amount of that quite not too much (it's almost exclusive for me  )

3. It's Leica ---> I like leica more than Zeiss haha 

4. The character --> There is leica glow like dream that make my picture look smooth but sharp enough.

However, I have used summilux 35 asph (Pre-fle) as well. I like this lens as well.  in future i wanna try fle version because many users said that was good lens.  

 

 

[rsolomon]

Are you 6 bit coding the ZM lenses?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Viv]

No. Not really necessary.