Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Zeiss Biogon 21mm ZM: f/4.5 vs f/2.8 version
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:15 pm    Post subject: Zeiss Biogon 21mm ZM: f/4.5 vs f/2.8 version Reply with quote
No, unfortunately this is not a comparison of the two.

I try to decide between these two lenses.
The price difference is not so big, so it is not a decisive factor.

The f/4.5 is a compact version. A bit slow, but I find its small footprint very attractive.
It also has zero distortion.

What troubles me is vignetting.
Comparing the two rel. illumination graphs from Zeiss, it seems the f/4.5 version will not make me happy.
Even at f/8, there is still quite a bit of vignetting.
What do you think?


f/2.8



f/4.5


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've never used either, I regret to say, but looking at those charts in the context of others and "real world" experience I think the difference will not be nearly as noticeable as you fear.

Some time ago, I had a 21mm f3.4 Super Angulon (Leica mount) which according to the "Leica Guru" Erwin Puts seems to suffer from vigneting even more than these Zeiss ones. I never found it a problem on slide film, where there was no means of correcting such matters. With digital photography, there is the opportunity to do such things, so I would not worry.

I now have a 21mm Voigtlander Skopar, also in M mount. This is said to vignette noticeably, although I've never seen a chart quantifying the extent. But again, it is not a problem on film nor on the M8, although that is something of a crop format. It is easy to remove the vigneting in post-processing, but I rarely feel the need to bother.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

I now have a 21mm Voigtlander Skopar, also in M mount.

This Skopar is another very nice option to consider.
Small, light, cheap.
Would you recommend it?

EDIT:
I am reading here, that the Skopar has corner issues on the NEX.

Last edited by Nikos on Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:49 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have G-Biogon 21mm, which has similar vignetting "feature" see > http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/image/71784020

But in real use you hardly notice it much, also you can fix it at PP time.
My examples G-Biogon > http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/cg_biogon_21mm_f28
& M-mount G-biogon > http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/cg_biogon_21mm_f28_mod

Of course if you shoot a flat uniform place, you will see "vignetting" clearly, and
G-Biogon wont work with NEX-5 or -7 well, the corners are smeared.
But I have never used Biogon 21mm ZMs, so you have to googling a lot. Very Happy

Last edited by koji on Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can only speak of using it on Leica cameras, film and M8. I think it is a very good lens, and reasonably priced for a coupled-rangefinder one. I don't think I would want to change it for any other lens as long as I have the M8. It's tiny and weighs very little.

I'm not sure of its reputation on the NEX models - it isn't a retro focus design and the rear element is quite close to the sensor, so there might be a problem with the angle at which light rays hit it. But no doubt Googling will turn up answers to that.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really depends what you want from it.
Picking lenses for someone else is like picking a girlfriend or a car for someone.

The only think I can say is... I would go for the Skopar. Its f4. Small and superb optics.
That is if I would want a 21mm lens on M mount.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joosep wrote:
Really depends what you want from it.
Picking lenses for someone else is like picking a girlfriend or a car for someone.

The only think I can say is... I would go for the Skopar. Its f4. Small and superb optics.
That is if I would want a 21mm lens on M mount.

The main use for it will be landscape photography.
This is why I was concerned about vignetting.
I do not like uneven skies. Nor do I like to correct hundreds of photos.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I had the money, I would always buy the f/4.5.
Compact, terrific resolution, and... have you compared the distortion charts?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
If I had the money, I would always buy the f/4.5.
Compact, terrific resolution, and... have you compared the distortion charts?

Sure I have! A 21mm lens with absolutely NO distortion...
However, the 2.8 also has very low distortion.
The 21mm Distagon looks like a monster in comparison.

BTW, why does Zeiss not include the hood in the ZM series? I am not impressed, and it is expensive...


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:
Joosep wrote:
Really depends what you want from it.
Picking lenses for someone else is like picking a girlfriend or a car for someone.

The only think I can say is... I would go for the Skopar. Its f4. Small and superb optics.
That is if I would want a 21mm lens on M mount.

The main use for it will be landscape photography.
This is why I was concerned about vignetting.
I do not like uneven skies. Nor do I like to correct hundreds of photos.

There you have it. You answered your question.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:
Orio wrote:
If I had the money, I would always buy the f/4.5.
Compact, terrific resolution, and... have you compared the distortion charts?

Sure I have! A 21mm lens with absolutely NO distortion...
However, the 2.8 also has very low distortion.
The 21mm Distagon looks like a monster in comparison.


it may depend from the point of view. Compared to the Distagon 2.8/21, the Biogon 2.8/21 appears better (it has about 2/3rds of the distortion of the Distagon)
But if I tell you that the f/2.8 has about 8 times the distortion amount of the f/4.5, would you still consider it low enough? Because that's what it is:



Note that both the ZM lenses feature the so called "wave" or "moustache" distortion, which is nearly impossible to fix in post.
But while the f/4.5 has it so low, that a computer would be needed to detect it, the f/2.8 has it visible, and it will stay with your photos forever.
And, it will show: just try and photograph a sea horizon...
About vignetting, if you use a decent software like Lightroom, you can save the edit settings of vignetting and have them applied to your ZM photos at import time. It will be a zero-time impact editing.
But anyway, the difference in vignetting between the two lenses is really minimal. So, whatever problem you would have with the f/4.5, you would also have it with the f/2.8, as the graphic shows:



Last edited by Orio on Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:35 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:
Joosep wrote:
Really depends what you want from it.
Picking lenses for someone else is like picking a girlfriend or a car for someone.

The only think I can say is... I would go for the Skopar. Its f4. Small and superb optics.
That is if I would want a 21mm lens on M mount.

The main use for it will be landscape photography.
This is why I was concerned about vignetting.
I do not like uneven skies. Nor do I like to correct hundreds of photos.


Most lenses have some vignetting. Wide angles suffer from this even more, simply because of the physics. There are graduated neutral-density center-spot filters to solve the problem. They have greater density in the center then fade away to the edges.

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/zeiss-zm-center-filter-for-15mm-f2-8-distagon.html

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/schneider-iv-82-105-centre-filter.html


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Note that both the ZM lenses feature the so called "wave" or "moustache" distortion, which is nearly impossible to fix in post.
But while the f/4.5 has it so low, that a computer would be needed to detect it, the f/2.8 has it visible, and it will stay with your photos forever.
And, it will show: just try and photograph a sea horizon...
About vignetting, if you use a decent software like Lightroom, you can save the edit settings of vignetting and have them applied to your ZM photos at import time. It will be a zero-time impact editing.
But anyway, the difference in vignetting between the two lenses is really minimal. So, whatever problem you would have with the f/4.5, you would also have it with the f/2.8

You are correct Orio, before seeing your post I almost clicked the button to buy the f/4.5.
But better wait a few days.

The hood is not only sold separately (€75), but is also out of stock (ARGHHH).
Do you find it necessary for landscape photography with a crop body?
The 21mm distagon tends to flare a bit, but it has double the number of elements.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
Most lenses have some vignetting. Wide angles suffer from this even more, simply because of the physics. There are graduated neutral-density center-spot filters to solve the problem. They have greater density in the center then fade away to the edges.

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/zeiss-zm-center-filter-for-15mm-f2-8-distagon.html

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/schneider-iv-82-105-centre-filter.html
well that is quite expensive toy:) as was written before, it is quite easily fixable in postprocess - also with negative film!! only when shooting on slide film it´s a problem if you just show them projected with projector..


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
berraneck wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
Most lenses have some vignetting. Wide angles suffer from this even more, simply because of the physics. There are graduated neutral-density center-spot filters to solve the problem. They have greater density in the center then fade away to the edges.

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/zeiss-zm-center-filter-for-15mm-f2-8-distagon.html

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/schneider-iv-82-105-centre-filter.html
well that is quite expensive toy:) as was written before, it is quite easily fixable in postprocess - also with negative film!! only when shooting on slide film it´s a problem if you just show them projected with projector..


Well that's what they are for, for your problem.

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=182


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:

You are correct Orio, before seeing your post I almost clicked the button to buy the f/4.5.


If I made you change your mind, I have done an horrible job explaining myself: I am totally in favour of the f/4.5! Shocked
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1