Jump to content

The end of the line for Zeiss ZM?


Peters

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Harpomatic said:

Which Zeiss ZM suffers from smeared corners? My Biogon 35mm F2 has mediocre corners across most of its aperture range (it’s the second one I have and it’s the same as the first - not a copy issue!) but that’s due to coma and it’s visible in the MTF chart. I didn’t notice any on the other ones!

Never got serious issues with 35mm lenses. As far as Zeiss lenses are concerned, the ZM 21/4.5 springs to mind. I have no experience with it though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

Which Zeiss ZM suffers from smeared corners? My Biogon 35mm F2 has mediocre corners across most of its aperture range (it’s the second one I have and it’s the same as the first - not a copy issue!) but that’s due to coma and it’s visible in the MTF chart. I didn’t notice any on the other ones!

I had issues with the 21mm 2.8. The 21mm 3.5 Voigtlander recently released takes great photos even without the lens profile...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Peters,

I'm interested in 21 mm lens. Can you give me any additional info on Voigtlander 21 3.5 released in 2019? Maybe photo examples?

There are many 21mm options so I can't decide between 21 1.8 Ultron and 21 3.5 (also Leica SEM and TT Artisan). I know there is substantial difference in price and maybe performance so dificult to compare. 

Is somebody using 21mm lens for indoor family photos? Do you need extra light stop in many occasions? Sharpness/performance between them?

I plan to use 21 mm lens for family events as well as nature photos.

Thank you for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

What camera do you shoot with?  I rented an original monochrom years ago and did not have significant issues indoors with the ZM 21/4.5 due to the good high ISO with the camera. Not saying it was ideal, but I was able to shoot with “acceptable” shutter speeds (1/8 to 1/60) with ISOs of around 4000-5000.  With my new M10M, ISO 12,500 is very useable.  The difference between f/3.5 and f/2 is less than two stops - can you make that up with ISO?

A camera shot at lower ISO is going to struggle. I usually move to my 28/2 if I’m shooting film.  

I’d like to pick up the SEM at some point. If I needed more speed, I’d wait for the Voigtlander 21/1.4 to become available. If I wanted to save some money and size, the 21/3.5. Heard great things about both of them on the Sony platform - to the point where people were dumping their Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8, which is a stunning lens. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Cobram said:

Dear Peters,

I'm interested in 21 mm lens. Can you give me any additional info on Voigtlander 21 3.5 released in 2019? Maybe photo examples?

There are many 21mm options so I can't decide between 21 1.8 Ultron and 21 3.5 (also Leica SEM and TT Artisan). I know there is substantial difference in price and maybe performance so dificult to compare. 

Is somebody using 21mm lens for indoor family photos? Do you need extra light stop in many occasions? Sharpness/performance between them?

I plan to use 21 mm lens for family events as well as nature photos.

Thank you for your help

Only used it briefly and don't have pictures. But from what I remember it was sharp, good colour, and I loved the sunstars. Distinct, yet picturesque, and this was all without the need for a lens profile. No smearing or colour shifting, though I'm sure if you pixel peeped you could find some flaws. I also used this on a 24MP and not 47MP camera.

 Then handling was fine, and the build was beautiful. I found the lens hood to be too big and unnecessary.

I have used the Ultron 1.8 and I didn't like it very much. Big, with odd colour. The 35mm 1.4 VM was to my eye awful on digital. Mushy rendition wide open, strange bokeh, and the aperture ring / focus felt flimsy. 

I have no experience of Artisan lenses. 

If it's between older Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses, the Zeiss wins every time in my book. However, the new Voigtlanders really hold their own, and in the case of the wide lenses, are now exceeding what Zeiss currently offers. 

The Leica version will be optically more perfect, but its weaknesses (aside from the price) is its handling of lens flares. The sunstars Leica produces on most of its M lenses are unpredictable and not the prettiest. Voigtlander wins in this department, though of course this is a very subjective topic!

Edited by Peters
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2020 at 5:58 PM, Peters said:

I had issues with the 21mm 2.8. The 21mm 3.5 Voigtlander recently released takes great photos even without the lens profile...

Interesting, my copy was bitingly sharp all the way into the corners. And it just wouldn’t flare. With a lens profile it has no colour shading. I found it to be one hell of a lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2020 at 10:58 AM, Peters said:

I had issues with the 21mm 2.8. The 21mm 3.5 Voigtlander recently released takes great photos even without the lens profile...

I replaced the Zeiss ZM 2.8/21 with a Leica Elmarit-M 28. Not having live view on the M9, it was just too cumbersome with the viewfinder. I'm using the 28 much more than I used the 21. ( I hear the Zeiss ZM 2.8/28 is good at half the price). One of my favorite lenses for Leica M is the C Sonnar 1.5/50. Focus shift isn't really an issue for me. Mine seems optimized for f=1.5. From there I mostly jump to f=4, where it's gone. If I use f=2, I move the camera an inch or so closer before releasing the shutter. I rarely change aperture after composing/focusing.

I'm very curious about the  C Biogon 2.8/35 ZM ...

In an ideal world, Zeiss came out with a  1.4/35 ZM lens with a 46mm filter thread and a performance matching the Biogon 2/35 ZM, but smaller. Too much to ask?

In regards to the corner smear on the 21, here's a post from another thread on Zeiss lenses for Leica M – it's there, but the rest of the image is superbly sharp. I'd say it's a great lens if you're into 21mm.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It is so sadly that majority of people have concentrated on whether the lens is sharp or not. So, could one tell me why Noctilux-M f/1.2 is much more valuable than currently available one? The hint is close to an aesthetical perspective even at the wide-open. Carl-Zeiss lenses are heritage that can be perceived by their own distinctive looks. For instance, Zeiss 32/2.0 should be elaborated a bit so as to clear what I have intended to say... Zeiss 35/2.0 is not a sharp lens at f/2.0, yet if you use it at f/2.8 or f/4.0 you will see the capability in terms of what we called 3D pop. The lens also has significant CA. The coma is another issue for all of the Zeiss lenses. Should these things make the lens worse than Leica equivalents? The answer is not on the paper. In real life, it is one of the best lenses I have ever used... if I assess it from the point of rendering and character. And I would like to buy a Zeiss 35/2.0 again. Because we will understand the value in time, especially after being discontinued. I suppose that 35’lux AA, the double aspherical, owners would appreciate my thoughts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had DAG calibrate my Biogon 35 f2.0, which certainly made my pictures sharper. F2.0 is very usable, and if a bit softer than smaller apertures, it is sharper than my non-asph Summicron 35 at f2.0. While coma is noticeable at f2.0, especially in corners, it is well controlled by f2.8 on my sample. The contrast is nice in flat lighting. I prefer the Summarit 35 f2.5 mainly because of size, not image quality.

I haven't heard of any announcement of the ZM lenses being discontinued - just people worried they could be soon. I notice B&H notes "more on the way" for the 35 f2.0.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Now that the M11 has a decent EVF for critical focusing, I would love it if Zeiss or Voigtlander made us a good macro lens for the M System. Maybe a 50/2 and 90mm/2 Makro Planar ZM or a 65mm/2 Apo Lanthar VM. Maybe 135mm/2.8 and 180mm/2.8 Apo Sonnar ZM telephotos? The Leica 135mm/3.4 Apo Telyt is an OK lens, not spectacular, just good, and could easily be bested by contemporary lens design and glass types.

It would be great if Zeiss made new versions of the 35mm/2 Biogon ZM and 28mm/2.8 Biogon ZM recomputed for digital sensors with improved corner performance.

Sadly I think new Zeiss ZM lenses are unlikely unless an engineer at Zeiss decides to design one in their spare time, and make sure it would be profitable for the company to produce it with Cosina. Zeiss seems content to abdicate the high quality 3rd partly M lens market to Cosina's in-house Voigtlander lines, which have come out with amazing Apo lenses like the 35mm/2 Apo Lanthar and 90mm/2.8 Apo Skopar (and I guess the 50mm/2 Apo Lanthar too, which I don't have). Maybe Voigtlander will make some more compact Apo Skopar telephotos in longer focal lengths like 105mm, or 135mm, or even 180mm. I would be quite interested in something like the old Nikkor 105mm/2.5, but done in a modern barrel with apochromatic performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...