21mm f4.5 Zeiss on M8 ?

[Simon Baker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all,

 

I've done a search on this topic but would be grateful for some up to date comments off those with knowledge of this used on an M8. Before I go further please note my question relates to the Zeiss 21mm F4.5 only, as I have a chance to buy a mint one for under £500, and having in the last three months bought two M8's, a 28mm 2.8 asph, 50 & 75 summarits all new my budget is currently and understandably low, therefore I am not interested in the Zeiss f2.8 or the elmarits as current budget will not allow, as would be the case for the F4.5 if it were new , thank you.

 

So my queries:-

 

1) How much issue is there "really" with cyan shifts etc if this lens is used unaltered, ie. as shipped from factory, how does it perform when shooting in B/W ?

 

2) I know that ideally Zeiss have to change the mount for the correct frames due to the lens requiring factory alignment etc, but does anyone know that if it "is" a given the mount should be changed will Zeiss sell me the new mount and post it to me so that I can then send it to JM in NY for milling then upon its return I can send both the lens & milled mount to Zeiss for fitting ?

 

With regard to Q2, I know I should phone Zeiss and I shall on Monday, just wondering if anyone has been down this route and can answer the question. I am sure I read somewhere that Zeiss will not post out this mount on its own due to the 4.5 having a unique helical or something like that so am hoping that someone may know if this is accurate info.

 

I admit that getting a new mount if needed, sending it to NY and back, then onto Zeiss with lens and back will add a fair bit to the attractive purchase cost of this 4.5 but along with most other imported items Zeiss lenses have rocketed in price due to the £ poor performance and if coding is necessary then I would have to incur those costs if I bought new.

 

I also like the 4.5 because it is small & light, has great IQ and takes 46mm filters of which I have several ( inc a spare UV/IR ) for when I want ultra wide B/W shots on my M7.

 

Thank you in advance of your replies, Simon

[Advertisement]

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

[lars_bergquist]

Dear Simon,

I have no experience of the Zeiss 1:4.5/21mm, but of both an 18mm Distagon and a 25mm Biogon, which became operative as late as yesterday. Optical and mechanical quality is in both cases excellent. But though results can often be very good with uncoded and IR-filter-less lenses, problems do pop up and can be far more troublesome than Carl Zeiss admit in their own literature. Filter use, and hence coding, is really necessary. So you will have to do it my way.

 

Both lenses can be obtained directly from Carl Zeiss via their web store, with bayonets that code for the correct frame lines, or the bayonet alone for something like 60 euros. This is necessary if the camera shall correctly identify the lens and apply the right corrections for cyan shift and vignetting. These non-standard bayonets will in all probability be of the new pattern, which allow easy 'marker pen coding' but also machining for coding recesses---though do not embarrass Carl Zeiss by telling them what you are going to do! Just say that you want a bayonet to fit your lens, but one that keys in the 28/90 framelines.

 

After receiving the lens do give it a good trial, checking general function, correct focus etc. When you have meddled with the bayonet, the guaranty is void, so you should spot problems before that happens. Then you must obtain the following: (1) A set of jeweller's screwdrivers, because you will need one with an exactly fitting blade; (2) a small bottle of acetone, and (3) a small can or bottle with a screw top. You will now remove the bayonet ring by first removing the four retaining screws. Put a small drop of acetone (applied with a toothpick or the screwdriver) to each screw before backing it out, this to soften the compound that secures the screw. *Remove the screws very carefully*, taking care to place them immediately in the container--they are very small. Send the bayonet to the estimable Mr. John Milich. When it returns, code the recesses with black and white enamel paint (sold in small cans to model builders). There is a file here on this forum with appropiate codes. I would recommed coding it as a pre-aspheric 21mm Elmarit-M. Then, using the same care as before, replace the bayonet. If you do not feel up to this, you will have to find a competent camera mechanic to handle the mechanics of the modification. But it does not touch the focusing sleeve or the helicals of the lens, so it is not really dangerous. All the rest of the lens hangs together during the operation.

 

Now check that the identification works properly, and you are home free. By the way, I have not found that Leica-branded UV/IR-filters are superior to the less expensive B+W 486 filters that I mostly use. Maybe I am not enough of a pedant ...

 

The old man from the Age of the Home Mechanic

Edited February 21, 2009 by lars_bergquist

[don_panko]

I have the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 and I simply added a Leica UV/IR filter without encoding. It works well as is and it was the only lens that I took on a recent vacation to Tuscany. The real trick to using it well is to crawl into the eye piece for a good look at the corners as this is what you will get in the final picture.

 

I like it for landscapes and cityscapes and it didn't break the budget for me.

[hoppyman]

I would add a couple of notes to the excellent information provided by Lars. I did have this lens. John Milich will tell you that we tried to fit his replacement bayonet flange for the 2.8 21 and it does not work. This is because of the internal helical. If you remove the bayonet flange yourself, take note that you must re-engage the helical correctly when reassembling. By that I mean turn the focus ring fully in one direction before removing it and don't move it after you take the bayonet off. If you mix it up it is a bit of a fiddle but you can get it back together. If you shear one of the tiny screws, then you will need skilled assistance to remove the broken fastener.

Very important, the early production lenses did not bring up the 28/90 frame lines and even if you get the coding done it therefore will not work. You must have the later bayonet flange provided by Zeiss. Either purchased from them or if the lens is sold to you new with this later flange.

My lens was returned to Zeiss via Zeiss USA and the later bayonet flange fitted. To get that coded, you need to take the new one off and send it to John Milich. I think that he may disassemble, machine and reassemble for you for an additional charge. However check with him first. In any event, if your lens does not currently bring up the 28/90 frame-lines, I would start by sending the lens to Zeiss through your dealer with a polite request. You might be pleasantly surprised what Zeiss charge you for the operation.

By the way, after my lens was modified by Zeiss, I ended up selling it towards the new Elmar 24. I found the sharpness, contrast and lack of distortion excellent but the Leica glass gives me better performance in very difficult light (veiling glare resistance). You can use your spare 46mm Leica filters on the Elmar 24 and even fit the Universal POL

 

 

Dear Simon,

I have no experience of the Zeiss 1:4.5/21mm, but of both an 18mm Distagon and a 25mm Biogon, which became operative as late as yesterday. Optical and mechanical quality is in both cases excellent. But though results can often be very good with uncoded and IR-filter-less lenses, problems do pop up and can be far more troublesome than Carl Zeiss admit in their own literature. Filter use, and hence coding, is really necessary. So you will have to do it my way.

 

Both lenses can be obtained directly from Carl Zeiss via their web store, with bayonets that code for the correct frame lines, or the bayonet alone for something like 60 euros. This is necessary if the camera shall correctly identify the lens and apply the right corrections for cyan shift and vignetting. These non-standard bayonets will in all probability be of the new pattern, which allow easy 'marker pen coding' but also machining for coding recesses---though do not embarrass Carl Zeiss by telling them what you are going to do! Just say that you want a bayonet to fit your lens, but one that keys in the 28/90 framelines.

 

After receiving the lens do give it a good trial, checking general function, correct focus etc. When you have meddled with the bayonet, the guaranty is void, so you should spot problems before that happens. Then you must obtain the following: (1) A set of jeweller's screwdrivers, because you will need one with an exactly fitting blade; (2) a small bottle of acetone, and (3) a small can or bottle with a screw top. You will now remove the bayonet ring by first removing the four retaining screws. Put a small drop of acetone (applied with a toothpick or the screwdriver) to each screw before backing it out, this to soften the compound that secures the screw. *Remove the screws very carefully*, taking care to place them immediately in the container--they are very small. Send the bayonet to the estimable Mr. John Milich. When it returns, code the recesses with black and white enamel paint (sold in small cans to model builders). There is a file here on this forum with appropiate codes. I would recommed coding it as a pre-aspheric 21mm Elmarit-M. Then, using the same care as before, replace the bayonet. If you do not feel up to this, you will have to find a competent camera mechanic to handle the mechanics of the modification. But it does not touch the focusing sleeve or the helicals of the lens, so it is not really dangerous. All the rest of the lens hangs together during the operation.

 

Now check that the identification works properly, and you are home free. By the way, I have not found that Leica-branded UV/IR-filters are superior to the less expensive B+W 486 filters that I mostly use. Maybe I am not enough of a pedant ...

 

The old man from the Age of the Home Mechanic

[lars_bergquist]

Again, I am not personally acquainted with any one of the Zeiss ZM 21mm lenses, only with 18 and 25mm. These gave no trouble with the helical. A local mechanic did the disassembly-reassembly on the 18mm lens, but I did the 25mm myself. The flange is just bolted to the main mount, and it does not engage with anything else. Nothing in the rest of the lens comes loose. But it may of course be less hard on your nerves to pay a good camera repairman (a vanishing species nowadays) to do the job and to take the responsibility. You will pay a price in money, and in some extra waiting; he will likely have a queue all the way out in the street.

 

The old man from the Age of Screwdrivers

[ericperlberg]

I recently bought the zeiss 21 f4.5 and use it on my M8s. I use an IR filter but I haven't changed the mount. I've probably only shot 30 or so images to this point with the lens so my experience is very limited but at least real.

 

I have several shots which came out absolutely fine (see for example the shot on my website posted on Feb 14 at 10:51pm with fence and my shadow) and some shots (with lots of sky on a rare sunny day in London taken in landscape mode) which had a lot of vignetting and cyna shift. On the shots with vignetting (and cyna shift) a very few were fixable-ish in Lightroom. The others seemed unfixable, at least I wasn't able to get something I liked. I messed around with CornerFix but without a proper profile for the lens so it wasn't helpful (but using it without a proper profile is not using it correctly so this doesn't reflect at all on CornerFix). I've read reports of people who were satisfied with CornerFix using profiles and I suspect a proper profile should at worst be helpful and at best, fix the problem in which case its a great solution. If it works, sending Sandy some appreciation money will be far cheaper than paying Zeiss for a second mount and then paying John M money to mill in the pits for coding.

 

I read another report which said to simply move the frame line selector to 28 (using the original Zeiss flange which brings up the "wrong" framelines) and that this works. I haven't tried it yet.

 

Hope this helps.

Eric

 

ps, The 2 images posted above the image mentioned on my website were also taken with the 21 4.5 and not reworked to eliminate vignetting.

Edited February 22, 2009 by ericperlberg
added ps

[Simon Baker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the replies so far, I am most grateful.

 

Eric, this is most helpful as you have direct experience with the exact lens I am enquiring about, and thank you for directing me ( and others ) to your website as I am able to see the results of said lens used with the M8.

 

As per my original post, I am yet to purchase the lens, I have the chance to buy a mint - used example for £500, which is a considerable saving against new as prices for new here in the UK are now heading towards £1k ( exchange rate of the £ is dire right now ) so even after buying the correct mount off Zeiss, paying to send it to NY and back for coding then sending both the lens and coded mount to Zeiss for remounting I should still be a few hundred pounds better off than buying a new one with the correct mount which BTW would not be coded anyway.

 

Of course a cheaper and easier to code alternative would be a Voightlander 21mm F4 screw thread, I can obtain a new one for around £315, then purchase a milled mount from JM ( only one way postage cost too ) and fit the mount myself, no need to send lens away. What do you guys think of this option, given a 21mm focal ( 28mm on M8 ) length will likely only be used occasionally by myself would this be the way you'd go ? What is the build quality of the "screw mount" 21 like ? I have felt a 21mm F4 VM and whilst I believe the performance to cost ratio is very good the lens itself felt a little too "plastic" for my liking, is the screw mount version better in that respect ?

 

Once again, many, many thanks for your replies which have and hopefully will continue to be most helpful

 

regards Simon

[Ronazle]

Hi, generally I concur with the detailed comments of Lars and Geof. I have a f:4.5 Biogon and love it. Mine was sold with the correct mount and I coded it with two lines (filled in w/black paint) made with a Swiss file; the coding has worked fine for over a year of frequent use ( I also had to add white paint to the screw/screw hole that intruded into the coding area).

While I find my Leica aspherics to be approximately wonderful, the Biogon is in no way inferior. I have a fixed lens testing setup and find it in all aspects equal or better than the leitz products. Given front lighting from a fixed source, flare is no worse than the best aspherics.

The CV 21mm f:4.0 is certainly a buy - but it does not compare favorably with the Biogon or Leitz products (yes, I do know other CV do!). The CV in the same test environment as used w/the Biogon flares badly. Yes you do need a IR blocking filter and the Leica ones are superior in my opinion - I have put the B&Ws I bought on longer lenses. Hope this is helpful. POSTSCRIPT: I do use the CV 21mm on screwmount Leicas occasionally. regards, ron

Edited February 22, 2009 by Ronazle
error

[sean_reid]

Cyan drift is much more associated with field of view than it is with any specific lens model, per se. Any 21 mm lens used on the M8 (with an IR-cut filter) will show cyan drift unless the file is corrected (in-camera or in post). This includes the ZM 21/4.5 which I have tested for cyan drift on the M8.

 

Some subject matter tends to hide this shift however and that's why some seem to not mind it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[arthury]

There's another way to deal with the Cyan issue. Here are the steps:

 

1. Code it by hand using a sharpie pen.
   
2. Slap the IR/UV filter on.
   
3. Before you release the shutter, push the Frame Selector towards the lens
   
4. Release the shutter
   

Using the above method, all you images will have EXIF identifying the lens as a 21mm lens and the Cyan shift will be corrected based on a 21mm lens. You do not need to replace flange, pay for it to get drilled and experience the stress and inconvenience involved.

Edited February 22, 2009 by arthury

[lars_bergquist]

I too have owned the CV21 but sold it because the corners were very soft. This is not an issue with the M8 of course, and otherwise it worked well on my film M cameras. I did not notice any great susceptibility to flare.

 

As for Leica-brand filters ... I use a B+W 486 in E60 size on my pre-aspherical 21mm Elmarit-M, and a 58mm ditto on my 18mm Distagon, without any untoward effects. Or am I just a sleazy old man from the Age of the Yellow Filter?

 

P.S. "The cyan shit" is an apposite term.

[arthury]

P.S. "The cyan shit" is an apposite term.

 

I apologize: it was an unintended typo. The spell checker did not pick it up because it's a real word.

[lars_bergquist]

I apologize: it was an unintended typo. The spell checker did not pick it up because it's a real word.

A happy typo indeed. I concur heartily.

 

H.M. King Carl Gustav of Sweden (who is a mild dyslectic, but otherwise perfectly normal as royalty goes) was once interviewed a propos some social scheme and answered: "But isn't that pretty utopetic?" I think this neologism--a fusion of 'utopian' and 'hypothetic'--was a work of spontaneous genius, and does fill a real need.

 

The old man from the Age of Republicanism

[arthury]

So far, all the reviews and experiences that other have had, I have never seen people saying the 21mm/2.8 Biogon is soft. This is the first time.

 

You should send your sample back to Zeiss if it is soft. This lens is supposed to be untouchable when it comes to resolution and rectilinear corrections.

 

Take a look at Erwin's comments : Biogon 2.8/21

 

M6TTL; 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM

 

 

 

M6TTL; 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM

 

 

M8; 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM

Edited February 22, 2009 by arthury

[hoppyman]

Simon, if you have not already purchased the lens, check if it brings up the 28/90 frame-lines. If it does not, you may like to do your sums, adding the cost and time to have the mount replaced then sent to JM etc, if you want to use the UV/IR. You can shoot it with no filter and camera correction if you want. It depends how you want to use it. If you use it with a UV/IR then you may see the cyan corners (vignetting) sometimes, or not, if the lens is not coded.

I just looked and most of the shooting I did with my lens was on bw film in my M7.

Here are some shots. Nothing scientific. The last shot shows what I regard as less resistance to veiling glare in really tough light. You have to make your own assessment of what you are prepared to pay and how much performance you want/need.

I finally got the new Elmar 24 instead. It is superb.

Poinsettia, sun and cloud photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Beach rock photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Prison wall and culvert photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Formal garden with fence photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Thank you for the replies so far, I am most grateful.

 

Eric, this is most helpful as you have direct experience with the exact lens I am enquiring about, and thank you for directing me ( and others ) to your website as I am able to see the results of said lens used with the M8.

 

As per my original post, I am yet to purchase the lens, I have the chance to buy a mint - used example for £500, which is a considerable saving against new as prices for new here in the UK are now heading towards £1k ( exchange rate of the £ is dire right now ) so even after buying the correct mount off Zeiss, paying to send it to NY and back for coding then sending both the lens and coded mount to Zeiss for remounting I should still be a few hundred pounds better off than buying a new one with the correct mount which BTW would not be coded anyway.

 

Of course a cheaper and easier to code alternative would be a Voightlander 21mm F4 screw thread, I can obtain a new one for around £315, then purchase a milled mount from JM ( only one way postage cost too ) and fit the mount myself, no need to send lens away. What do you guys think of this option, given a 21mm focal ( 28mm on M8 ) length will likely only be used occasionally by myself would this be the way you'd go ? What is the build quality of the "screw mount" 21 like ? I have felt a 21mm F4 VM and whilst I believe the performance to cost ratio is very good the lens itself felt a little too "plastic" for my liking, is the screw mount version better in that respect ?

 

Once again, many, many thanks for your replies which have and hopefully will continue to be most helpful

 

regards Simon

[hoppyman]

Arthury, if you re-read the posts, people were talking about softness with the CV 21, not the Zeiss Biogon design. There are two Zeiss designed 21's and both are different to the Voigtlander branded 21, even when all of them are made by Cosina.

So far, all the reviews and experiences that other have had, I have never seen people saying the 21mm/2.8 Biogon is soft. This is the first time.

 

You should send your sample back to Zeiss if it is soft. This lens is supposed to be untouchable when it comes to resolution and rectilinear corrections.

[arthury]

Arthury, if you re-read the posts, people were talking about softness with the CV 21, not the Zeiss Biogon design. There are two Zeiss designed 21's and both are different to the Voigtlander branded 21, even when all of them are made by Cosina.

So far, all the reviews and experiences that other have had, I have never seen people saying the 21mm/2.8 Biogon is soft. This is the first time.

 

You should send your sample back to Zeiss if it is soft. This lens is supposed to be untouchable when it comes to resolution and rectilinear corrections.

 

 

Ooops, sorry again. Not familiar with CV denotation. I thot the thread was about Zeiss lens.

[DwF]

M6TTL; 21mm/2.8 Biogon ZM

 

 

 

Arthur is that Glacier Peak and Snohmish?

 

David

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[arthury]

 

Arthur is that Glacier Peak and Snohmish?

 

David

 

 

David,

 

I am not sure what that peak was but it was shot from the southern tip of the Diablo Lake at the North Cascade National Park.

[batmobile]

(My recently acquired used 21 2.8 ZM is ridiculously sharp - absolutely merciless (film). At 2.8 the edges are a touch softer at infinity, but very good - vignetting is noticeable tho and that takes the edge off the percieved sharpness in the corners due to fall off. at 4 it is much improved in terms of fall off and the sharpness in the corners takes a leap. At 5.6 it is a hair sharper in the corners and fall off is reduced further. It gets little better at f8. So, at f4 and beyond it is brutally sharp on 35mm film, corner to corner. At 5.6 the image is more balanced in fall off terms. Betters my CV 21P quite dramatically. Only thing is the size and i may well go for teh 21 4.5 as well, for when I do not expect to work inside. To all intents and purposes they are supposed to perform the same at the same apertures, except for less vignetting and more distortion on on the 2.8.)

 

Diversion over.