Ziess 21 2.8 or Leica Elmarit 21 ASPH?

[byron_fry1]

I am trying to decide between these two lenses, the ziess goes for much cheaper

I understand and according to erwin putts is even a better or equal lens. Anyone

help me out with decision?

[leess]

I believe Puts was comparing against the pre-ASPH version, not against the current ASPH verison.

[vic_.]

This is what Tom Abrahamsson says:

<p>"... As for recommendations: For reasonable cost, go for the VC 21, either the LTM (less money and comes with a finder) or the P-mount (added cost of the finder),

<br>A bit more (almost double the VC), is the 21/4.5 Biogon ZM. This one has become my benchmark for 21mm lenses. As good as it gets! The 21/2,8 is just about the same price and no slouch, but considerably bigger and clumsy.

<br>Money no object, the 21f2.8 Asph Elmarit. Big, heavy and very sharp but in reality not better than the ZM offerings and the tiny 21/4 VC has less distorsion as has the 21/4,5 ZM. The Leica finder now come as a 21/24/28 version and it is crap! The 24 setting is OK, but both the 21/28 settings are pathetic (for the price). Either stick with the VC finder (very good) or the Zeiss ZM finder (the best there is, pricey but worth it). ..."

<p>Here is the link to the discussion quoted above:

<p>http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49367

<p>Best of luck!

[stuart_richardson]

The 21/2.8 Biogon is superb and a great value. I greatly prefer it to the 21/4 voigtlander I

had. I don't think the Elmarit ASPH is going to be any better than the Zeiss. The only problem

with the Zeiss, if there is one, is that it is a very high contrast lens and this along with a bit of

vignetting (which is normal in these wide angles) can make the edges quite when used with

slide film in contrasty light. <P>Another factor is whether or not you are going to use it on

the M8. If so, and you can afford it, just get the Elmarit. Fussing with the wrong frameline

selection and self coding is a pain in the ass and the Elmarit will not have this problem.

<P>All of this said, are you sure you don't really want the 25mm biogon? It is a better lens

and the 24/25mm focal length is often more useful...at least I prefer it.

[stuart_richardson]

I missed a word there...dark. It can make the edges quite dark when used with slide film.

Particularly the bottom edges .The Elmarit is slightly less contrasty and fares better in this

respect.

[peteradownunder]

I just bought the latest Elmarit - it is very very sharp and renders beautifully on the M8 - I use it without finder for snappy wides.

[byron_fry1]

I do plan on an M8 eventually, or something . So I guess the elmarit would be the better choice if I can't use the ziess on a m8?

[harvey_edelstein1]

The Zeiss 21mm f4.5 has no visible distortion, its compact and cuts into the viewfinder less that the larger Biogon or Elmarit. If it had been out I would have bought it instead of the CV21. Compared to the other choices at 21mm I think its a no brainer.

[stuart_richardson]

It's not that you can't use a Zeiss on the M8, it just requires either modification or patience

if you want to shoot color and use the IR filters. The Zeiss lenses bring up different

framelines than the Leica lenses (only the 21 and 25mm) and they don't have the 6 bit

coding, so you need to either have Zeiss change the mount (which they will do for a fee)

and then use a sharpie to mimic the Leica code. Or just use a sharpie to mimic the Leica

code and hold the frameline preview lever in the correct place. Either way, it is a bit of a

pain so if you can just bite the bullet and get the Elmarit. Or go cheaper and get the

Voigtlander which is screwmount and you can buy a special Milich adapter which will bring

up the right framelines and has slots for you to use for the lens coding, making it much

easier and longer lasting than just using the sharpie. <P>If you shoot solely black and

white, none of this is a concern at all.

[bobmichaels]

I've shot with the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 Biogon in ContaxG mount for about five years and find it just superb. When it came out about six years ago, it was considered at least the equal if not better than the Leica equivalent. It's optically superb, fast, compact and downright cheap.

 

And, the ContaxG mount 21mm Biogon sells for around $650 including the external finder. Now you need to spend another $200 for the body to mount the lens to but you cannot beat the quality even without considering the price.

 

I have one of the new Zeiss Ikon M mount bodies but would never consider replacing my ContaxG mount 21mm Biogon.

 

Of course if you want to shoot digital, ignore all the above. Same if you feel you can't make good photos unless the lens has an M mount.

[andrew robertson]

CV 21 f/4.

[devtank.com]

I just dont get it on two counts....

 

If you are gonna drop that amount of coin on a M8 why the frig would you even glimpse

at anything other then an Elmarit..?

and

If one were to flinch and opt for the Zeiss, and again opt for the C f4+ version why not just

get a CV lens instead?

For me it would be totally LOGICAL to look at nothing other then the Elmarit, but if you

cant afford it after hammering yourself into oblivion with the purch of an M8 (which would

buy you an M6 and a ton of film and processing for another five years by which time that

horrid M8 beast will be worth nothing anyway), then the other LOGICAL purch would be

the fast Biogon.

By the way, the optics on those Zeiss's are nice, but the build quality is just the worst

heaps of rubbish out there, even the CVs are better built in most cases...

Chrome coated brass lenses are little heavy 'rocks', but are self lubricating brass, warm

under the hand where the lubricants change and the lens personality and performance

exceeds the sum of its parts. Heavy but friendly.

[andrew robertson]

Joe, you are aware that the Zeiss lenses are Cosina lenses too?

 

The straight answer is that, I doubt anybody could tell the difference between them unless

they were shooting identically framed photos off a tripod. And even then, I doubt many

folks could match them all up in a blind test.

 

Robert Monaghan had an interesting test up on his site, comparing various medium

format photos of identical subjects. The short answer was that you could pick out the

Seagull from the rest, if you were really good. But the Hasselblad with its Zeiss lens did

not have an advantage over the more modest lenses. Too bad his site kinda fell apart,

that was some good reading.

 

I bought CV, Canon, and Enna lenses over the Leicas not because I lacked the money, but

because they are a much better VALUE.

[laurentvuillard]

"Hasselblad with its Zeiss lens did not have an advantage over the more modest lenses" Achtung achtung if hand held the limiting factor is the photographer's hand shake and + the shutter vibration. So from experience I can affirm that a HAND HELD 35mm leica which ratlles very little is sharper than a HAND HELD Blad. Once on a tripod things do change. I certainly can tell the difference between a Leica M and a nikon F image shot hand held in poor light although both 50mm are similar on a tripod!

[laurentvuillard]

PS tried the Asph once (too expensive unfortunately) , hand held at 1/250 definition was amazing could enlarge 50cx60cm no problem!

[andrew robertson]

These tests were done off the tripod. And, the evidence says that while you think you can

tell the difference between a Leica and a Nikon, you really can not.

[ray .]

<p>Zeiss Biogen f/4.5 ZM has plenty of contrast. If you like shadow detail, might not be the lens to go with.</p>