Zeiss 21 Biogon ZM lenses: 4.5 vs.2.8 Differeces?

[rafael_macia]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am hearing of major differences between the 21 Biogons , (ZM) lenses.

There is a 4.5, which seems a direct relative of the old but proven design (I have been told, ..... by someone selling one, of course, that the 4.5 is far superior in all respects.), and the newer 2.8 which is twice the size and weight .... (about), of the 4.5,

 

Anyone here know the both lenses? And has experienced the differences ?

 

I am looking to buy one of the 21's

I have the 18 Distagon, and it's fine.

The ideal would be to get a WATE .... I am thinking

Opinions on going in that direction also sought;

Should I abandon Zeiss ... sell the 18, finder, and sink all into a WATE ? (I like the Leica design on the WATE)

I appreciate all replies.

 

thanking you in advance,

 

Rafael

 

so little time .... so many lenses

[tgray]

I hear the 21 has very little distortion. And is probably optically superior to the 2.8 except for the fact that it is slower.

[thompsonkirk]

I don't have both, but I do have the 2.8, which is quite sharp & is low in distortion. I didn't consider the 4.5 because I saw value in the larger aperture, & the price differential is surprisingly small. And with so short a focal length, you don't get much in the way of selective focus at f4.5!

 

Since sharpness is excellent, I don't know what the 4.5 could add that's 'superior,' except more contrast, which I don't regard as a gain. Though Zeiss lenses are generally very contrasty, the 21 2.8 doesn't present as much of a problem in this regard. Maybe it flares a bit, since you can't use very effective lens hoods with shorter focal lengths. (If you choose the 2.8 for an M8, you can use the 25/28mm hood without vignetting.)

 

I use it with CornerFix, but you could also code it.

 

But if the WATE is in your budget & you don't care much about the aperture, why not?

 

Kirk

[lars_bergquist]

Got to the Carl Zeiss website ( http://www.zeiss.com/photo ) for the complete dope on all Zeiss lenses, complete with MTF and distortion graphs.

 

But yes, the 2.8 has practically unnoticeable linear distortion and the 4.5 has none at all.

 

The old man from the Age of the Contax Biogon

Übrigens bin ich der Meinung dass die M9 muss wetterfest sein (Cato Maior)

[cbretteville]

I have the 21/2.8 and can only say I'm impressed with it. (It replaced the CV21/4 which I found too slow.) The 4.5 weighs 190 grams that is 110 grams less than the 2.8 and is sticks out only 31mm where the 2.8 is 64mm long. Both uses 46mm filters. If small is what you want the 4.5 is what you get. If speed is important go for the 2.8.

 

- Carl

[jaapv]

Read Reid Rreviews - the Biogon 21/2.8 is close to the Leica offering - and better in the corners IIRC. So the 4.5 may be a very good lens, I wouldn´t know, but if it is better than the 2.8, is would be a sensation we would have heard about.

[akiralx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 21/2.8 and can only say I'm impressed with it. (It replaced the CV21/4 which I found too slow.) The 4.5 weighs 190 grams that is 110 grams less than the 2.8 and is sticks out only 31mm where the 2.8 is 64mm long. Both uses 46mm filters. If small is what you want the 4.5 is what you get. If speed is important go for the 2.8.

 

- Carl

 

Yep, that's right - I have the 21/4.5 and like it a lot, especially for travel. No good in poor light of course. Superb build.

 

The C in its name means both Compact and Classic, and it does give contrasty, rich, classic colours, slightly retro in feel. I used it quite a lot in Spain recently:

 

 

[Kittyphoto]

I have 2 zeiss zm lens.

 

1. 50mm f1.5 sonnar which has very special character but a bit contrast and quite saturate color. But I like to glow effect at f1.5 but very difficult to use at widest open.

 

2. 21mm f4.5 has difference character from f1.5 sonnar. It has moderate contrast, very good sharpest, compact, light weight, low or no distortion and good flare control (I don't see color fringe from heavy backlit). I have tried f2.8 which is good sharp lens but a bit longer and heavier. I feel quite comfortable with the lens because it is good from widest f4.5. Stop down to f.8 up you can use zone focus very fun.

 

I attached some pictures. Hope it help.

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]

Read Reid Rreviews - the Biogon 21/2.8 is close to the Leica offering - and better in the corners IIRC. So the 4.5 may be a very good lens, I wouldn´t know, but if it is better than the 2.8, is would be a sensation we would have heard about.

 

I've tested both lenses and they're both excellent.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Kittyphoto]

more picts.

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!

[Kittyphoto]

The last one.

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!

[rafael_macia]

Thank you all for your opinions/photos. Seems like it's a toss up. Either one looks Ok.

This helps me a lot.

 

Rafael

[Double Negative]

I don't have the 21, but I do have the 18, 25, 35 and 50/50. If either 21 is like the rest in the line-up (and it's supposed to be, as they all share similar characteristics) then you certainly won't be disappointed. Ridiculously sharp, even wide open and across the field, contrasty and with good saturation. Distortion amongst the lenses is either non-existent or barely noticeable.

 

I've been on the fence about picking up a 21 myself (I'd go for the f/2.8 personally; size isn't as important to me and I find f/4.5 too dark). But for now I'm happy with my current spread.