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

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I never tried the Skopars or the Zeiss 25mm but i have the 24mm Elmarit and i am not sure there is a sharper wide angle out there. The 24mm is a extremely sharp lens and even going against it's brothers like the 21 elmarit it is a sharper lens. Sean has a nice review on the 24mm focal length but i just glanced at it , might be worth a read

[SMF]

I used a CV 21 LTM on my CL, but sold it - the poor corner performance of my copy bothered me on too many pictures. I bought the new Zeiss 21 for the M8 - good handling, great size and excellent quality. I don't mind it being a little contrasty, but it does require taking a bit more care in harsh lighting.

 

Stephen

[sean_reid]

I used a CV 21 LTM on my CL, but sold it - the poor corner performance of my copy bothered me on too many pictures.

Stephen

 

There definitely are copies of that lens that are soft in the corners. Glad the Zeiss worked out.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Dan States]

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

 

Sean, I'm not sure I understand this point. I've always found that lower contrast really meant a higher level of veiling scattered light in the image. If the exposure is the same, wouldn't a lower contrast lens only cast a veil over the shadows? How would it actually draw out MORE shadow detail?

 

To take this to an extreme analogy I'll use the Summar 50. This is a LOW contrast lens even when it is not obviously flaring. It CAN make nice images, but only if overexposure is used to bring up shadow detail and low contrast film/developing is employed to control the highlights.

 

Shot on an M8 the results are the same...twiddling the dials to increase the contrast does help a lot, but will not create shadow detail that was obscured totally by flare in the original exposure. A shot made side by side with a modern lens like the Planar ZM shows that even with adjustment to jack up the image contrast, the shots made with the Summar lack the kind of smooth tonal range that comes right out of the box with the Planar.

 

By the way, on a seperate note about pulling up shadows....I accidently underexposed a daylight shot today by two full stops on the M8. When I checked the image on camera it looked pretty much black to near black. That amazing shadow detail in the M8 held up and I was able to take it up in C1 with no visible artifacts at normal 8x12 print size. Man that baby is nice!

 

Best wishes

Dan

[sean_reid]

Sean, I'm not sure I understand this point. I've always found that lower contrast really meant a higher level of veiling scattered light in the image. If the exposure is the same, wouldn't a lower contrast lens only cast a veil over the shadows? How would it actually draw out MORE shadow detail?

 

To take this to an extreme analogy I'll use the Summar 50. This is a LOW contrast lens even when it is not obviously flaring. It CAN make nice images, but only if overexposure is used to bring up shadow detail and low contrast film/developing is employed to control the highlights.

 

Shot on an M8 the results are the same...twiddling the dials to increase the contrast does help a lot, but will not create shadow detail that was obscured totally by flare in the original exposure. A shot made side by side with a modern lens like the Planar ZM shows that even with adjustment to jack up the image contrast, the shots made with the Summar lack the kind of smooth tonal range that comes right out of the box with the Planar.

 

By the way, on a seperate note about pulling up shadows....I accidently underexposed a daylight shot today by two full stops on the M8. When I checked the image on camera it looked pretty much black to near black. That amazing shadow detail in the M8 held up and I was able to take it up in C1 with no visible artifacts at normal 8x12 print size. Man that baby is nice!

 

Best wishes

Dan

 

Hi Dan,

 

Have you seen that last few lens articles where I discuss this in more detail?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[orjanf]

Sean, I'm not sure I understand this point. I've always found that lower contrast really meant a higher level of veiling scattered light in the image. If the exposure is the same, wouldn't a lower contrast lens only cast a veil over the shadows? How would it actually draw out MORE shadow detail?

 

I think this is what Sean means

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!

[SMF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There definitely are copies of that lens that are soft in the corners. Glad the Zeiss worked out.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean - Your excellent review of the 21s definitely helped me to take the decision, for which thank you.

 

Stephen

[sean_reid]

I think this is what Sean means

 

Yes, nice drawing, that's part of the explanation. This is some something I've been discussing in articles, and demonstrating in pictures, for the past couple of years. A complete explanation really requires pictures but moving the darkest shadows up in tone tends to increase the signal to noise ratio. One can reduce exposure to hold the highlights while still keeping much of the shadow information above the noise floor.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean - Your excellent review of the 21s definitely helped me to take the decision, for which thank you.

 

Stephen

 

Glad to hear it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[carstenw]

Does this Zeiss lens have a 1/3 stop aperture ring?

[sean_reid]

The 21/4.5 - yes, if memory serves. You can check the review to be sure. I think all of the ZM lenses have 1/3 stop aperture rings.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[harmsr]

Carsten,

 

Yes, it does. It is amazingly distortion free and very compact. I bought one a few weeks ago and like it better than both the Leica or Zeiss 2.8 lenses.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[dante]

Yes, nice drawing, that's part of the explanation. This is some something I've been discussing in articles, and demonstrating in pictures, for the past couple of years. A complete explanation really requires pictures but moving the darkest shadows up in tone tends to increase the signal to noise ratio. One can reduce exposure to hold the highlights while still keeping much of the shadow information above the noise floor.

 

If you really want shadow detail. Or if the only end is signal to noise.

 

I've heard the "low-contrast lens/shadow detail" thing since before a digital M was ever thought of. I think its first expression was with Summar users. It's on the mild end of a spectrum of techniques that includes things like prefogging film and preflashing photographic paper. It has its uses in special situations.

 

I don't buy into it as a benefit for the most part.

 

In my view, the interest in most pictures is in the moderate-low midtones to the high tones. The shadows (detail in which is the difference between high and low contrast lenses) merely set the stage for the real subject of the photo.

 

I have printed b/w photos for about 20 years now and I have seen very, very few long-scale negatives (say, pictures on sunny days that run from clouds to blue sky to shadows), scans or straight digital files that I thought would benefit from bringing up the deepest shadows. In film terms, that would be bringing Zone I up to Zone II or Zone II up to Zone III. Not only are the low, low shadows of secondary interest of me - and not worth sacrificing the subject - but they are also often the situs of distracting visual elements that I really didn't see or care about when I took the shot (the human eye only really being able to see a relatively low brightness range at any given instant). In fact, more often than not, I print down and process down to eliminate some of the shadow detail.

 

Because apparent resolution is based on contrast (this is the essence of MTF), low contrast throughout the brightness range (what you get with a low-contrast lens) impacts the detail in the areas I care about (i.e., mid-to-high tones) immediately. Adjusting contrast after the fact (whether by extended paper development, a high grade on a multigrade enlarger, Photoshop levels, USM, etc.) can cause other degradations. Plus it's multiplying the workflow.

 

To consider a different situation, when you are talking about even, low light, there is no reason not to use the highest contrast lens you can. There is no shadow detail (shadow detail being something that only exists relative to the rest of the scene). Since you have a low contrast scene to contend with, you will probably want to fill more of the tonal range of the film or sensor. That way, in my opinion, you are not doing as much violence to the file or negative in post.

 

The one place that the deliberate choice of a low-contrast lens is useful, in my opinion, is where you have a scene that is in general low light with harsh lighting sources in the frame or impacting the subjects. This is where you might employ a 50/1.2 Canon LTM, 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM or some other lens with relatively low contrast wide-open. I think that's precisely the situation those lenses were designed to handle.

 

The better way to preserve shadow detail - at least in my view - and if your platform allows it - is to expose more and to capture just enough highlight gradation in the raw file to pull back things like sky and clouds from one or two channels. This way, you can use a higher contrast lens to cover everything (and the higher contrast actually helps the rendition of things in the shadows). The M8's implementation of DNG doesn't seem too friendly to this technique (this is where you can never have enough gradation info for highlights). But I'm sure it's one of the reasons why full-frame Kodak DSLRs have their adherents. Expose for the shadows, post-process for the highlights. This technique is directly opposite from Sean's suggestion, which is to initially sacrifice the shadows to prevent highlight blowout and then bringing the shadows back up.

 

But in general, we as photographers have too much of an obssession with trying to compress as much of a brightness range as possible into a single frame. That's just not the way humans see things (we have f/2.8, auto-iso eyes that only see something like a 150:1 range), and this is one of the things that makes HDR photography look so contrived.

 

Enough rant.

[sean_reid]

Dante,

 

If you read the articles in question, you may come to a different conclusion. Till then, we can agree to disagree. I appreciate your background in printing as it relates to this. As for myself, I've been printing for 31 years, have worked as a professional photographer for 23 years and was formerly a professional exhibition printer, including printing Stephen Shore's pictures of Andy Warhol's factory, as well as museum prints for Rosalind Solomon, Wendy Ewald, etc. So, informed minds can come to different conclusions, at least for now.

 

BTW, contrast affects the perception of "sharpness", not resolution per se. The detail is still there in a lower contrast file, its just less obvious until and unless local contrast is increased. Sometimes, its preferable not to.

 

I'm used to hearing some objections to the benefits of lower contrast lenses. Then again, I'm also used to hearing from fairly accomplished photographers who actually try them and see the differences for themselves.

 

Again, I prefer lower contrast lenses in higher contrast lighting and *higher contrast lenses in lower contrast lighting*. From a technical standpoint only (leaving aside aesthetics for a moment) I like lens contrast up to the point where it starts to affect effective DR. Aesthetically, of course, there are reasons to prefer either.

 

BTW, the samples David Adamson provided in a thread about large prints (and in an addendum to one of my reviews) was made with the M8 and his low-contrast Kobalux 21. I take it you know who David is. Since you shared your printing credentials with us, you either know his or might be interested to learn them.

 

In my experience, photographers who don't have a lot of background in darkroom work often complain about a lack of "punch" in the initial files from lower contrast lenses. Photographers with a lot of darkroom experience tend to see the advantages pretty quickly simply because they're often used to making longer scale negatives (ie. rating Tri-X at 250 and pulling development by about 15%). Developing to restrain contrast has been done by photographers as diverse as Ansel Adams and Garry Winogrand.

 

You may have rarely seen negatives that benefited from being long-scale but, if that's the case, you simply haven't looked at enough negatives. Have you printed professionally for other photographers or are you mostly just speaking about your own negatives? I believe in holding some blacks as pure black in final prints but that's not the same as making a shorter scale negative.

 

Given your preferences for high contrast, I take it you work mostly with Zeiss ZM lenses rather than Leica lenses? Perhaps that's why you're interested in the 21/4.5? I would never argue preferences, BTW, but global generalizations I often argue with.

 

Photography, BTW, is not about imitating sight. It never has been. How humans see and how pictures can look are two very different things.

 

You wrote:

 

"To consider a different situation, when you are talking about even, low light, there is no reason not to use the highest contrast lens you can. There is no shadow detail (shadow detail being something that only exists relative to the rest of the scene). Since you have a low contrast scene to contend with, you will probably want to fill more of the tonal range of the film or sensor. That way, in my opinion, you are not doing as much violence to the file or negative in post."

 

I agree with the above and have been writing the same for several years now. "Violence", in your usage, is hyperbolic but I'm sure you meant it with some self-irony.

 

You also wrote:

 

"In my view, the interest in most pictures is in the moderate-low midtones to the high tones. The shadows (detail in which is the difference between high and low contrast lenses) merely set the stage for the real subject of the photo."

 

This is just your own taste you're describing. It isn't global. Photographer A is never in a position to tell photographer B how his or her prints must look. Personal preferences are just that. There are no absolute rules in photography or in printing. Mostly what gets passed around is just convention and convention is only convention.

 

If you have a copy of "Stock Photographs", take a look at how those pictures are printed (even in reproduction). Ditto for "A Way of Seeing".

 

I suspect part of the reason that you misunderstand my discussions about lens contrast is because you have not read them, to the best of my knowledge. You may also underestimate how much shadow detail can be pushed below the noise floor when a high contrast lens is used in high contrast lighting (with exposure set to hold the highlights). This is especially true as ISO climbs with a camera like the M8.

 

 

Cheers,

[hankg]

On capture I want as much information as possible. I can make the final as contrasty as I want, exaggerate the highlight detail and block up the shadows in post if that's what I choose. I don't care if the RAW file looks flat it's giving me a larger set of instruments to orchestrate. But with very contrasty lenses like the Zeiss ZM's I'm loosing a lot of options on capture.

[sean_reid]

My feeling is that photographers should go with whatever level of lens contrast they like..with the realization, however, of what the tradeoffs are at either extreme.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[dante]

Sean:

 

You're right - and my characterizations are based on my experience and personal practices, not anyone else's. I'm sure that other people do/see/think of things differently. I haven't seen every negative everyone has ever shot. I'm too far behind on my own.

 

On the choice of lenses, I can say that I am a bigger fan of more modern, more highly corrected, more contrasty lenses than I am of the 1950s style ones. This is just as much due to the "snap" as to my observations that modern lenses (a) max out (or come much closer to maxing out) the 50 lp/mm of the M8 system starting wide-open and ( tend to be more even in contrast across apertures. If I could make up my own term for these characteristics, it would be "optical neutrality" - that in the file (or on film), the only thing that changes palpably across apertures is the depth of field. Human subjects get the softer lenses. I jokingly refer to this as using a lens at least as old as your subject.

 

What got me onto the ZM 21/4.5 was both its size and my (mostly positive) experiences with the ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar (focus shift issues notwithstanding). The Sonnar at f/1.5 was snappier than any previous Sonnar (or copy: Jupiter, Nikkor, Serenar) that I had used. I also know that small-aperture lenses tend to have advantages out of the gate.

 

I can't say globally whether I prefer the "Zeiss" or "Leica" look, because the differences between their performance and general characteristics vary (and diminishes) decade-by-decade, from the 1950s until now. I guess it also depends on what line one references. Zeiss essentially quit making RF lenses in the early 60s - and I think it abandoned its sacrificing correction for contrast philosophy at the same time, going largely from making Biogons and Sonnars to Distagons and Planars. In the post-1960s stuff, and especially now, the differences between Leica and Zeiss "looks" seem a bit more trivial.

 

Dante

[Alberti]

By the way, on a seperate note about pulling up shadows....I accidently underexposed a daylight shot today by two full stops on the M8. When I checked the image on camera it looked pretty much black to near black. That amazing shadow detail in the M8 held up and I was able to take it up in C1 with no visible artifacts at normal 8x12 print size. Man that baby is nice!

Best wishes

Dan

 

Dan, just a side note to your side note (and then really off topic, apologies) - I found out that I can use the "film curve" 'film outdoor' that I copied from PhaseOneH25-Film outdoor.fcrv. (You can just rename or copy it it to LeicaM8-underexposed.fcrv. and it will show up with that naming)

It brings up everything about two stops but does not make a great picture al at once. Amazing what bottom end we have indeed in the M8 raw images.

( I actually aint got a clue how it works)

[hankg]

I can't say globally whether I prefer the "Zeiss" or "Leica" look, because the differences between their performance and general characteristics vary (and diminishes) decade-by-decade, from the 1950s until now.

 

Zeiss has managed to combine high resolution and corner to corner sharpness with a smooth transition to very soft OOF areas and do it without exotic expensive glass at a reasonable price point. I prefer the look to many of the Leica ASPH lenses. Unfortunately the excessive contrast is a deal killer for me. I tried the 35mm Biogon and after shooting with it for a few days I sold it. It would make a fantastic lens for color negative film but for digital/E6 film it does best in flat lighting or a studio where you can control the lighting ratios. I'm not interested in trucking around a bag full of lenses for different lighting conditions and subjects. It's one lens for each of 3 focal lengths that will need to handle any lighting or subject I encounter. I find the Leica 28/2, the little 90/4 macro and the preASPH 50/1.4 to be excellent in this respect with an appealing balance of contrast, resolution and tonality.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Alberti]

I think this is what Sean means

Orjan,

I remember having seen a commercial print machine that had a small 5 w lightbulb in the exposure chamber. I asked the guy what it was for. He told me that it was to give a basic exposure on prints (a floor) such that subsequently underexposed photos (or underdeveloped negatives) would still print. Yes - commercially attractive.

 

For Dan States: I can imagine the working of a low contrast lens like that, and thus it can bring up details at least just at the edge. Also I am the stupid guy who sometimes double exposed a film. Found that it showed more details!

 

alberti