Zeiss ZM Biogon-C 21mm f/4.5 (current)

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. Does anyone have experience with this lens?

 

2. Can anyone tell me how long it is from the camera lens mount to the front of the lens?

 

3. If you order from Zeiss directly, can Zeiss deliver it with a 28/90mm bayonet?

 

Thanks

Dante

[carstenw]

Why would you choose this in preference to the supposedly excellent CV21/4P? Zeiss lenses are typically high contrast, which doesn't work well with digital, although I am trying to remember if the "C" means classic, or somesuch low-contrast variant?

[Advertisement]

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

[gumshoecamus]

I purchased one recently and am selling my zeiss zm 21/2.8. the c is for compact and it is -- a tiny lens, almost as small as the voitlander 15/4.5. contrasty, but very little distortion for such a wide angle (on the m8 at least). great resolution, as expected from zeiss.

[Dan States]

Why would you choose this in preference to the supposedly excellent CV21/4P? Zeiss lenses are typically high contrast, which doesn't work well with digital, although I am trying to remember if the "C" means classic, or somesuch low-contrast variant?

 

 

Dante, I have to disagree with what seems to be a new mythology about contrast and digital reproduction. I have both the 28 Ultron and the Biogon 28 and 21mm lenses. I have found the Zeiss lenses to have much higher levels of "clarity". While the Ultron is certainly good, the slight flatness to the contrast is hard to truly compensate for in post processing. What you get with contrast/curves adjustment in pp is blackened shadows and/or messy highlights.

 

The Zeiss lenses are clearly much higher in contrast (the histograms show that clearly), but the nature of M8 files is such that as long as you protect the highlights to some degree you can pull up the underexposed areas quite easily. The high level of shadow detail and clarity in the Zeiss lenses makes fine art level printing much easier.

 

Best wishes

Dan

[wizard]

Why would you choose this in preference to the supposedly excellent CV21/4P?

 

Carsten, most if not all CV lenses offer outstanding value for the money, but these last words "for the money" are meaningful. I have the 15/4.5, 21/4, 25/4 and 50/2 CV lenses, and while they are all good, you CAN clearly see the difference to e.g. a Leica or Zeiss lens. CV's are generally very good in the center (sharp and contrasty), i.e. the center 1/3 of the entire frame, but give up visibly towards the corners (in the corners detail rendition is much reduced due to siginificantly less contrast and resolution). I still use these lenses quite often for their compactness, but have also thought of swapping my 21/4 CV for the new Zeiss 21/4.5, which should offer visibly better image quality.

 

Cheers,

 

Andreas

[jamriman]

I have this lens. Its wonderful and I'm glad I bought it. Compact, great for outdoors. It comes with a 50/90 bayonet mount (go figure). I coded it for a WATE 21mm. It codes only on IR coding mode. The only downside is that for it to code the mount has to bring up the 28mm framelines. In order to swap out the mounts, you have to send it to zeiss. They have to do it since it requires adjustments. So you can't just swap it out yourself. It runs about $80 or so for Zeiss to this. I decided to just move the VF frameline lever to the right, before you shoot. This brings up the WATE menu whice gives the three focal lengh choices 16,18,21mm, which defaults to to 18mm. For whatever reason I noticed through trial and error, that you don't have to set the 21mm choice. It just needs the 28mm frameline brought up to see the code. You need only to move the lever once, not everytime you shoot. No biggie, just have to remember. Rather than bother to send it to Zeiss, I bought a 46mm IR filter to leave permanetly attached. If you want the zeiss contact info to send it into zeiss, just pm me.

[Baxter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought this lens early in the Summer and agree with Dan. Its performance is wonderful - so long as you use cornerfix.

 

I haven't yet managed to hand code the lens to activate internal firmware, having just learnt about 'wrong' mount and tripping lever to enable software correction. Cornerfix does a wonderful job, but long term, I'd prefer a simpler work-flow. Am investigating swapping the mount and getting it machined.

 

31mm from mount to front of lens (no cap) and 37mm with Leica IR cut filter.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Dante, I have to disagree with what seems to be a new mythology about contrast and digital reproduction. I have both the 28 Ultron and the Biogon 28 and 21mm lenses. I have found the Zeiss lenses to have much higher levels of "clarity". While the Ultron is certainly good, the slight flatness to the contrast is hard to truly compensate for in post processing. What you get with contrast/curves adjustment in pp is blackened shadows and/or messy highlights.

 

The Zeiss lenses are clearly much higher in contrast (the histograms show that clearly), but the nature of M8 files is such that as long as you protect the highlights to some degree you can pull up the underexposed areas quite easily. The high level of shadow detail and clarity in the Zeiss lenses makes fine art level printing much easier.

 

Best wishes

Dan

 

 

I tend to agree here Dan , it is much better to pull up the shadows here with fill on the M8 as long as you protect your highlights with your exposure. I am not a big fan of this low contrast lens talk. I want low contrast than i can go back to Canon which i always wound up pulling the contrast up.

[sean_reid]

1. Does anyone have experience with this lens?

 

2. Can anyone tell me how long it is from the camera lens mount to the front of the lens?

 

3. If you order from Zeiss directly, can Zeiss deliver it with a 28/90mm bayonet?

 

Thanks

Dante

 

Hi Dante,

 

I reviewed this lens in detail some months ago as part of my review of 21s. Excellent lens, similar performance to ZM 21/2.8.

 

Cheers,

[sean_reid]

Dante, I have to disagree with what seems to be a new mythology about contrast and digital reproduction.

Dan

 

Hi Dan,

 

It's not mythology but it also is not set in stone. With digital capture we have a highlight cutoff at one end and a noise floor at the shadow end. The closer the shadows get to the noise floor (in the RAW file) the more their recovery will be limited. That's why under-exposing won't always do the trick. My own preference is to use high contrast lenses in lower contrast subject lighting and lower contrast lenses for higher contrast lighting. But, of course, there's no one "right" combination for all photographers.

 

So, the advantages of using lower contrast lenses are not myth but they may not be the right answer for every photographer, every lighting condition, etc. I myself own lenses of various contrast levels.

 

BTW, you may already be doing this but to enhance the mid-tone contrast try using USM with a radius of about 50 and a threshold of 0. Varying the amount slider can do wonderful things for local contrast.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Carsten, most if not all CV lenses offer outstanding value for the money, but these last words "for the money" are meaningful. I have the 15/4.5, 21/4, 25/4 and 50/2 CV lenses, and while they are all good, you CAN clearly see the difference to e.g. a Leica or Zeiss lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Andreas

 

There certainly are differences, at F/4 a good copy of the CV 25 Skopar shows slightly better resolution in the corners than the Leica 24/2.8 Elm. ASPH. Ditto for the 75/2.5 vs. the Summicron.

 

Generalizations can be a dangerous thing but people love them nonetheless. We really need to talk about specific lens A compared to specific lens B.

 

The Zeiss and Leica lenses have different strengths as well. I happen to love Leica lenses but there are a lot of myths out there about the differences among various lenses. Very often, the most noticeable difference between two lenses of the same focal length is contrast. People who prefer strong contrast straight from the camera tend to find that more moderate contrast lenses lack "pop", "zing", "sizzle" etc. Those folks would tend to prefer the rendering of the Zeiss 25/2.8 to that of the 24/2.8 Elm. Asph. (whereas I prefer the latter lens).

If we all wanted to use only the highest contrast lenses, we'd all be using ZMs.

 

My biggest hope, with respect to this topic, is that discussion of lenses will eventually become less over-simplified and less over-generalized.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I tend to agree here Dan , it is much better to pull up the shadows here with fill on the M8 as long as you protect your highlights with your exposure. I am not a big fan of this low contrast lens talk. I want low contrast than i can go back to Canon which i always wound up pulling the contrast up.

 

Hi Guy,

 

I'll call you. Pulling up the shadows means hitting the noise floor at some point. There's only so deep one can go into those shadows and that, of course, gets to be a shallower and shallower pool as ISO increases. What lower contrast lenses do (for better or worse, depending on the photographer and upon a lot of factors) is to record those shadows closer to the mid-tones (thus further from the noise floor).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[jamriman]

Forgot to mention, coding the 21mm zeiss is not easy as others. The screw on the mount is located right on one of the code bars which has to be white. Be sure to use either alot of paint to fill in the cut in the screw or use a white film to cover the screw.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Quick sample of what i mean. 35 cron maybe one of the higher contrast lenses . Arizona sun deadly bright. Does not get much worse than this

 

Normal shot

 

than just adding some fill In LR and playing a little very quickly i can hold the highlights and the sky but open up the shadows. quicky here

 

Almost as good as fill flash

 

 

Now i strecthed this a little but Sean is right at some point your going to hit the noise floor but you want have to always go to the degree like i have here. This is the worst case, really honestly I should have used a fill flash but i can still save it

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!

[sean_reid]

Hi Guy,

 

You can certainly do that (under-expose and then lift the shadows) until you hit the noise floor.

 

With lens contrast, there's also the question of the mid-tones. Some people prefer the gentler mid-tone transitions of lower contrast lenses and some prefer just the opposite.

 

The CV 21/4, BTW, really isn't a low contrast lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[jamriman]

I'm in luv!

[Baxter]

At the top end, the cheerleaders are exhibiting lift, but something other than shadows, nor flashing either. Their exposure calculations seems equally tricky.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Hi Guy,

 

You can certainly do that (under-expose and then lift the shadows) until you hit the noise floor.

 

With lens contrast, there's also the question of the mid-tones. Some people prefer the gentler mid-tone transitions of lower contrast lenses and some prefer just the opposite.

 

The CV 21/4, BTW, really isn't a low contrast lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I know i am that Kodachrome guy that loves the zippity do da. So i tend to like the snap.

 

 

Thos are Arizona Cardinal Cheerleaders, certainly better than the crap football team. LOL

 

I only used that one becuase of the really high contrast in it

[wizard]

There certainly are differences, at F/4 a good copy of the CV 25 Skopar shows slightly better resolution in the corners than the Leica 24/2.8 Elm. ASPH.

 

Sean, I happen to own two copies of the CV 25 Skopar, one chrome, one black (not that it matters re optical performance ), and I also have Leica's 24/2.8asph. I use all lenses on slide film and project the results on a 1.8m wide screen using the same projector.

 

IMHO, there is a significant difference in optical performance between the two Skopars and the Elmarit. Fully open or stopped down, the Skopars are muddyish in the corner (and by corner I am not only refering to the extreme corners) while the Elmarit retains its excellent center performance over almost the entire frame. You could almost say the Elmarit is in a different league.

 

You might have had an extremely good copy of the Skopar and my two copies may be dodgy, but I'd have to say that their performance is similar to what I get from my other CV lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

 

I only used that one becuase of the really high contrast in it

 

yea sure...it was the contrast that drew your attention.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean