you're new here, right? Just kidding: this lens is legendary on canon full frame, which has given its peculiar qualities a new lease of life. Although this isn't an interesting photo, it gives some insight into what this combination is capable of: http://www.cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/images/cremorne_lowrez.jpg
Since this lens has come up for discussion again, I am curious and hence I have to ask.
What did Zeiss do different with this lens that they could not achieve with their other primes. No other Zeiss wide angle to normal prime has the "special" qualities this lens has. What's the secret.
Also, who knows how much this little jewel sold for when it was first released..... I am sure today's market price is not what it was back when it was first introduced.
The MSRP was $1,700.00 and the street value was between $1,200.00 and $1,500.00. The higherst I have seen it sold for on the B&S was $4,850.00 and the current price, depending on the condition, is between $2,300.00 and $3,000.00.
This is the reason I am hanging on to this lens....
pascal03 wrote:
What did Zeiss do different with this lens that they could not achieve with their other primes. No other Zeiss wide angle to normal prime has the "special" qualities this lens has. What's the secret.
I've often wondered this myself. I believe the 21 was one of the last C/Y designs if not *the* last, which may have led to its superior performance across the C/Y line. The information that I have has the first run of production in 1994, then again in 1996, and one more in 1997.
I sold my copy for financial reasons and the possibility of a move to a converted N17-35, which I've since decided not to pursue. I had such a love/hate relationship with the 21mm. It's truly superior in all regards except that brutal moustache distortion. I do a lot of architectural stuff and couldn't find a way to satisfactorily control for it.
I sincerely hope we see a new 21 of similar design in ZF mount. The 28/2.0 is here, now bring on the 21/2.8!
ADAM HIRSCH wrote:
Any wide angle in this focal length come close?
The Leica R 19/2.8 comes close according to some tests, but many others say it has soft corners.
The Zuiko 21/2 and 21/3.5 are very good, depending on the copy you get. When I sold my CZ21, I got a Zuiko 21/3.5 and I am quite satisfied with it. The corners are about a 7.5 or 8 out of 10 at f11, which serves the purpose fine. It also has the advantage of being extremely tiny and having minimal distortion. I also love the fact that it vignettes heavily when wide open. It has a gorgeous, classic feel to it.
The CZ21, by comparison, is a much more "perfect" lens (with the exception of the gull-wing distortion mentioned by Steven), but at the same time more "sterile."
I do not find the CZ21 to be sterile. But I did like the pop on the Lecia 19 better. I traded my Lecia 19 for my CZ21 and do not regret it. I have never really seen the gull wing distortion. The CZ21 is quite an unbelievable lens, however, the Leica 19 may be better (than the CZ21) on a 1.3X crop factor such as the 1DIII.
pascal03 wrote:
What did Zeiss do different with this lens that they could not achieve with their other primes. No other Zeiss wide angle to normal prime has the "special" qualities this lens has. What's the secret.
I've been thinking about this and I've concluded that I'm not sure what you mean. Other than being sharp for a 21mm lens, what are the "special" qualities you are talking about that other Zeiss lens might not have?
One could consider the Zeiss 35mm f3.5 Distagon for the Contax 645 as achieving in the larger 645 format what the 21mm f2.8 achieved in the 35mm format.
It has the ideal optical property that usually in reality is never achieved:
Highest resolving power wide open.
The resolution in the center will not improve stopped down.
See: http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/_21f28.htm
This makes the lens different from quite any other SLR lens ever being built. (That is why there are so many rumours and stories about its discontinuous emergence. And I doubt that it can be reproduced for the ZF line. As I said before, there are certain methods of production that are not available any longer.)
The gullwing distorsion can be - if needed - easily corrected.
The 9th-order polynomial solutions for correcting the linear distortion relying on published specifications from Zeiss are done for many software plug ins. I use John Luke's algorithm for pano tools.
The price for a good used one seems to be even higher in Germany now.
I spent > 2,300 EUR on each of the perfect copies that I have. And on top of that I did what Zeiss strictly recommends for Contax lenses with floating elements: I got it cleaned and calibrated in Oberkochen. Makes another 300 EUR each. I will part with one of the pair.
Arianne Dubois wrote:
And I doubt that it can be reproduced for the ZF line. As I said before, there are certain methods of production that are not available any longer.
What are the methods of production that are no longer available? And could they not be worked around in the same way as the 28/2.0?
Lotusm50 wrote:
I've been thinking about this and I've concluded that I'm not sure what you mean. Other than being sharp for a 21mm lens, what are the "special" qualities you are talking about that other Zeiss lens might not have?
What Arianne Dubois says above - the resolving power of the CZ 21mm is impressive. How often does one get to see a lens with this kind of resolution.
All Zeiss lenses have the distinctive "zeiss look" to them - call it micro-contrast - call it color, etc..... What this prime has I doubt if any other wide angle lens has matched. The overall image quality is simply impressive - especially when you can see minimal loss of quality in the corners.
The Biogon 21mm f2.8 was sweet. Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to get a conversion done on that AF lens. If only.......
Arianne Dubois wrote:
The 21mm Distagon's special qualities?
It has the ideal optical property that usually in reality is never achieved:
Highest resolving power wide open.
The resolution in the center will not improve stopped down.
See: http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/_21f28.htm
This makes the lens different from quite any other SLR lens ever being built.
Using the ilprode measurements, there are several Zeiss lenses that are as sharp in the center wide open as they are stopped down, and even more that are only down 5% in the center when wide open. So that is not that rare or that different from several Zeiss lenses. Look at most of the Zeiss f2.8-f4.0 lenses including:
35-70 VS
35-135 VS
17-35 N VS (from the MTF's)
60/2.8 MP
100-300 VS
28-85 VS
135/2.8 S
180/2.8 S
300/2.8 APOS
It is sharp, and I know it is sharp, but there are a lot of sharp Zeiss lenses. That's one of the reasons we look to Zeiss for lenses (there are others) as well).
Arianne Dubois wrote:
The gullwing distorsion can be - if needed - easily corrected.
The 9th-order polynomial solutions for correcting the linear distortion relying on published specifications from Zeiss are done for many software plug ins. I use John Luke's algorithm for pano tools.
Others contend that the distortion in the this lens is actually more difficult that most to correct, and others have given up trying to use it for architecture because of the distortion (this has been discussed several times in this forum). I don't have an opinion on this. I just note that there are different opinions on this. Zeiss will probably tell us that it was not designed for architecture.
I am not saying that it is not a great lens. It clearly is, and it is the best SLR lens at the focal length. No doubt about it. I just don't view its qualities as all that "special" when compared against many other Zeiss lenses. It exhibits qualities that we have come to expect from most Zeiss lenses, not just this one.
StevenPA wrote:
What are the methods of production that are no longer available? And could they not be worked around in the same way as the 28/2.0?
I'm not sure if its the case with the Zeiss 21, but certain glasses with desirable optical properties used for lens elements are no longer used due to new regulations(RoHS) restricting the use of certain materials such as lead and cadmium.
