Leica-M 21mm ASPH vs. Contax 21mm Biogon-G

Always wanted to try this - finally found both lenses in the same place

at the same time....

 

Sections of full-res (2700 dpi) scans from Pan F - from tripod.

 

It's a 'blind' test - I'll reveal which lens is "Z" and which is "Y"

after a day or so.

 

And reserve my own comments....<div></div>

My vote is for lens Z. These are cool comparisons.

Let's see, the Contax lens is about $600 in mint used condition, and the Leica is 3x that, even used...

 

Regardless, Z looks a tad better.

Z it is, although hand-holding/faster film/smaller tripod/small prints/etc will instantly eliminate the already slight difference.

And I agree with Patrick. When you factor in the price, the Biogon is the winner. Of course it would always be Z(eiss) too. ;-)

I wish Z was the Zeiss lens. Not that it's cheaper but also I have this lens, not Leica's. Otherwise I may need to save a lot of $$ to get the Leica's!

As a Contax/Zeiss user I predict that lens Z is the 21mm Biogon-G.

looks the same to me....ones certainly not worth 3 times as much thats for sure...

Let's see, Andy. You've said in earlier Zeiss vs Leica comparisons that the former are higher in contrast. So I'm going with the Biogon as lens Z too.

 

BTW, how are the inventory levels at Mile High these days? It's been a while since I've been downtown, but I did hear recently that they're carrying quite a lot of consignment Leica equipment.

Not much difference to see. What f-stop were you using? I would predict it wasn't

wide open. Can you see any distortion differences? No big deal just curious. How

about flare too? My Asph handled flare very well but was soft in the corners wide

open.

Color film would have exposed any chromatic aberation / color fringing. Many lenses look good in B&W but a really good lens will focus all the colors in the same place.

Lense Z is my choice sharper better contrast and more detail

no matter which which, this mainly proves something I've said for a long time that lens from the 1950's on made by top level manufacturers are all quite good and while differences can be found they are not earth shaking. Arguments over which Summicron is better are not productive and opinions while strongly held don't often hold up.

the difference in price is 1250$ of these lenses.<p>

what a crock of shit.

<<What f-stop were you using? I would predict it wasn't wide open>>

 

Says right there, f/2.8 both lenses, on the picture.

 

I also believe that lens "Z" was the Biogon, as I was not awed by the performance of my 21ASPH...so much not awed that when I bought a C/V 21 I couldn't see any difference (from f/4 of course), then had a 21 non-ASPH drop out of the blue and found that it wasn't any different than the 21ASPH and in fact in certain instances the non actually performed *better*. Sold the ASPH for enough to cover the other 2 lenses and then some...but still lost money since I'd bought the 21ASPH new. Back when I first discovered Erwin's site and hadn't yet figured him out. Ended up selling a perfectly good 135 T-E for a no-better but lots more expensive APO-Telyt for the same reason. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Oh well.

"Z" Nice paragraph, Jay. I love my CV 21mm 1:4 on the little BessaL body. Cost new: under $400 from Steve Gandy.

Ya see Jay, one can see a difference between lenses on the monitor. Do you test lenses? I'd be surprised if you said no.

 

I would guess that "Z" is the Zeiss lens.

In order to get a true measure of these lenses, you need to look at the lens' optimum stop. I would guess the difference would become more dramatic at f-8 or 5.6. I won't dare guess which-is-which wide open!

I've had a 21 G Biogon and have a pre-asph. 21. The "Z" lens has more contrast, but to me the "Y" lens appears sharper (but not by any significant difference). Given the reputation of Leica glass that they have more contrast than other lenses, I might guess that "Z" is Leica glass.

 

But I was never dissapointed with my Contax 21 or have I been with my Leica 21

The Y frames seem to be under exposed compared to the Z frames. The area to the immediate left of the frame is much darker on the Y. Also above and behind the nikon, left side of the frame, object is at a different angle and darker. Variance in shutter speed, f-stop, focus? The Y frames, regardless of the lens, are at a disadvantage seemingly due to factors unrelated to the lens.

I get the bonus points for not reading :-( I would have predicted softer corners from

what I have been used to getting from my 21A. So much so that I pretty much only

used it at f4 and below. If pressed to use it at f2.8 then I would be very careful not to

have any important elements in the corners. I traded the 21 for a 24 and I am much

happier with the 24's wide open corner performance.

i still dont see a 1250$ difference....am i missing something...or are you guys just full of it?

Grant, relax!! You already know the answer to your question, don't you?

so, initially I wanted to read the print on the corner box (which is ok). But fine contrast is exmained better in seeing the distinct bar code, and, especially, the black details on the Nikon body, say the areas just beneath the pentaprism.

 

but, I am concerned that there appears to be very slight exposure differences, as pointed out (camera shutter differences?), that could cause slight loss of shadow details (the background exposure behind the nikon is less on the right hand dingy-bodied Nikon). And, with any rangefinder, it would take several carefully refocussed shots to be certain you did not have a slight error in focus. I could not imagine a single focus not being off an inch or several. and the Biogon-G (autofocussed?) could be pointed at front or back of shelves, as well. It needs a clearly defined, flat poster target.

 

My first ideation was that 2700 dpi would not have shown a difference, especailly on B&W. I may stick to that.

"X" is the Nikon lens, right?