Ron, very nice and informative test series. I'm kind of surprised by the results - I would have expected a bit more local contrast from the 35/2.8. I judge the rendering style in this series to be quite similar to the 35/2 @ f/2.8. The up close shots are also interesting - fairly neutral with a touch of spherical aberrations.
Anyway, I don't know why I keep doing it, especially since a rangefinder camera is the worst possible tool for this but.. they need no introduction
Luka, I really like your 18ZM images, which is good because this will probably be the first lens I will get for my new M8.
I received the camera (which is in a very good condition) a few days ago, but still have no lens to test it.
I decided to go all Zeiss and ordered three lenses: 4/18, 2.8/25 and 2.8/35.
Both the 25 and the 35 will be delivered not before february (in black, I could get them immediately in silver). I will get the 18ZM probably next week.
By the way the 50 Lux has an even longer waiting time of about 6 month, but I will stay with Zeiss at moment.
denoir wrote:
Ron, very nice and informative test series. I'm kind of surprised by the results - I would have expected a bit more local contrast from the 35/2.8. I judge the rendering style in this series to be quite similar to the 35/2 @ f/2.8. The up close shots are also interesting - fairly neutral with a touch of spherical aberrations.
That's exactly what I thought when I saw theses pictures. Is there somewhere on the net a direct comparison between the 2.8/35ZM and the 2.0/35ZM and maybe the 2.0/50ZM?
I'm a bit insecure at the moment whether the 2.8/35ZM is the right lens for me.
Thanks Boris. I think you made a good choice in lenses. The 18 ZM and 25 ZM are very good - the general rendering style is related to the (ZE) 21 Distagon. I can't say much about the 35/2.8, but the 35/2 definitely lacks some 'Zeiss attribute' if I can call it that. I can't put my finger on what it is. The MTF charts suggest that it is somewhat weaker in low frequency (10 lp/mm) resolution which would translate to local contrast. It's also possible that it's a combination of lens and sensor/RAW development. The M9 RAW files with default settings in Lightroom produce an image with a lower contrast/black levels than 5DII RAW files.
As for good systematic tests, I'm afraid there aren't any. Lloyd Chambers has some brief notes for various lenses on his site, but no proper tests. Sean Reid's site contains some reviews and tests which tend to be of fairly solid technical quality but his choice of sample images (low contrast B/W shots) give essentially zero info and the site itself is really badly designed.
So far the best sources of information that I've found in the form of sample images is this thread, a thread over at the GetDPI forums and Flickr.
denoir wrote:
Thanks Boris. I think you made a good choice in lenses. The 18 ZM and 25 ZM are very good - the general rendering style is related to the (ZE) 21 Distagon. I can't say much about the 35/2.8, but the 35/2 definitely lacks some 'Zeiss attribute' if I can call it that. I can't put my finger on what it is. The MTF charts suggest that it is somewhat weaker in low frequency (10 lp/mm) resolution which would translate to local contrast. It's also possible that it's a combination of lens and sensor/RAW development. The M9 RAW files with default settings in Lightroom produce an image with a lower contrast/black levels than 5DII RAW files.
As for good systematic tests, I'm afraid there aren't any. Lloyd Chambers has some brief notes for various lenses on his site, but no proper tests. Sean Reid's site contains some reviews and tests which tend to be of fairly solid technical quality but his choice of sample images (low contrast B/W shots) give essentially zero info and the site itself is really badly designed.
So far the best sources of information that I've found in the form of sample images is this thread, a thread over at the GetDPI forums and Flickr....Show more →
Thanks Luka! Have you seen any images shot with the C Biogon 2,8/35 that you really like (for example of flickr)? What's your opinion of the 2,0/50mm Planar?
Boris, I don't know all that much about the 35 C Biogon. I can't remember any specific samples off hand. I think Charles has some experience with it - he did not like the 35/2 but liked the 35/2.8.
Every owner of the 50/2 Planar seems to hold it in very high regard. I personally chose the 50/1.5 Sonnar for the larger aperture. The Sonnar is a sort of special lens with a classic rendering wide open and modern contrasty and sharp rendering stopped down. Optically it's nowhere as good as the 50 Lux ASPH, but it definitely has its charm.
Boris, Steve Huff reviewed both the 35mm Biogons on the M9, though not as a comparison to each other. Still, I found it informative. As it happens, I ordered a 35mm Biogon C f:2.8 for my NEX 5, and was promised delievery early next week, which I frankly don't believe, because my dealer said this came from Zeiss Germany, and they show it out of stock. If I get it, I will post pics on the Z* thread. Even though I think ZMs and Z* don't really belong together, because they are very different animals and fit different cameras. Steve Huff reviews
I believe Dan (Thrice) and Makten (if I remember the spelling correctly) use the 35 C Biogon.
A friend of mine here in Canada is a Zeiss distributor and he has a few demo lenses I can try, including the ZM 35 f/2. I'll see about borrowing it for a comparison at some point, though it won't be for another few weeks due to travel I have coming up.
I did a brief comparison of the two ZM 21s yesterday as well. I bought the 2.8 but borrowed the f/4.5 from my friend. The 2.8 will suit my range of needs better but I think the 4.5 is technically better, though it has significant color shift issues as I think everyone knows. I didn't set up a cornerfix profile for it to see how well it will clear up. If it does, I might get it in addition to the 2.8. It's very good at 4.5 with moderate corner softness that sharpens up nicely by 5.6. At f/8 you can already see a slight drop in sharpness due to diffraction. The 2.8 in contrast is softer in the mid and corners wide open but is decent at f/4. It needs 5.6 to clear up across the board and is even better at f/8 in the edges, though I think it too loses a touch in central sharpness at this point.
Here are a couple more 35 C Biogon
It's also possible my fiddling with Lightroom is affecting rendering to some degree, though I'm trying not to be aggressive and for the most part have not used fill light or recovery.
Thank you Joakim, Ron and Joe
Joe, really nice shots of Thanksgiving! There is a special quality to the older versions of the 35 and 50 Cron's.
Ron, thanks! Excellent example with the ZM 35/2.8... nice shots
Luka, very nice shots! My favourites are the ducks
Congratulations Boris on your M8
joe88 wrote:
Thanks Ron and congrats on the M9. How do you like it so far? Nice shot of the church (?) with the 35 Biogon.
Thanks Luka Like the #1 & #3 shots of the ducks.
Thanks Joe, yes it's a church. Here are a couple wider shots of it with the ZM 21 f/2.8
The second image was at f/2.8. At full rez the bottom of the image is pretty blurred, but by f/4 it's much better and improves even more at f/5.6. I've been a Canon 1D series APS-H sensor user since 2002, so this is about the same view as what I'd get with the 16-35 at the wide end - one of the reasons I decided on the ZM 21 f/2.8 - it's an angle of view with which I'm extremely familiar, making it easy for me to eyeball compositions without even using the 21mm viewfinder. The 16-35 is actually pretty good for what it is, but does have much stronger field curvature which sometimes is a nuisance.
At some point I'll do a three-way comparison between the ZM, the 16-35 and the TS-E 17. One thing is for sure though, you can't beat the combination of small package and great optical quality of the ZM.
I like the M9 so far, though in some ways it feels like using ca. 2002/2003 Canon DSLR technology, especially the UI and having to wait a long time for the buffer to clear. I used it at a social occasion tonight and there were a number of times when seven shots was a limitation, but I'm using it in my DSLR style of shooting, which is very prolific.
I love how people don't take it seriously. One friend thought it was an antique film camera.
I especially like the simplicity of it and the direct manual interface without much in terms of electronics getting in the way. Being able to zone focus with an UWA lens with an accurate focusing scale is great and the lenses are so small yet so good. While the camera certainly lightened me financially, being able to discreetly carry a FF camera and three lenses in a small sling bag is awesome.
One other thing that has impressed me about the ZM 21 f/2.8 and the 35 f/2.8 is the lack of chromatic aberrations. I have yet to see any in the usual areas, such as tree branches against the sky, etc.
Interesting observation: I was able to use my Canon 580 flash on the M9 without problem, setting the output manually. And, when waking the camera it will wake the flash as well. But the 580 is much too big for the M9... I need to look into smaller alternatives.
Is there any superiority in image quality of the M9 + zm's over a high end DSLR like the 5DmkII + ZE's? Or is it more a matter of what one prefers shooting? Did those of you who purchased an M9 do sonto get something that you can't with a 5DmkII, or was it just camera lust and the money was there?
Sorry for my off topic question, but this is the M9 watercooler.
ewadler - at the moment I get better shots with my 5DII and ZE lenses. However, there are instances where the M9 is better suited for a certain situation. Like for instance candid shots of people, rarely will someone shy away from the M9, or if approached most people will allow an M9 shot to be taken of them, whereas in my experience the 5DII and ZE lenses freak people out. That and, imagine being able to vacation with a 28, 50, 90 all fitting in your jean pockets. Whereas before it would take up a whole carry on bag, just for photo gear. Now when I go on short trips, I don't even have to check-in a bag
Honestly though, a DSLR has more pros then cons over a RF.. But to be fair a DSLR has more pros then cons over a top MFD camera kit... Though sometimes you really just need/want the pros of a MFD or a RF.. Get it?
I think it more a matter of what one enjoys. I have a 5d2 and an M9... I can finesse fine images from both, but I enjoy shooting the Leica soooooooo much more!
Thanks, guys. I love it when I ask a nebulous question and get very direct and thoughtful answers to exactly what I was asking. Well, don't let me get in the way of your pic thread any more. As you were.
Ron, nice examples of the 21 Biogon and interesting discussion.
ewadler wrote:
Is there any superiority in image quality of the M9 + zm's over a high end DSLR like the 5DmkII + ZE's? Or is it more a matter of what one prefers shooting? Did those of you who purchased an M9 do sonto get something that you can't with a 5DmkII, or was it just camera lust and the money was there?
Sorry for my off topic question, but this is the M9 watercooler.
I agree with Adam. A DSLR is generally a more versatile tool but for certain things the M9 provides a superior user experience. In essence, for handheld shooting the M9 is much nicer to use.
What you can't do with the M9 is to do macro shots and you can't use longer lenses (>135mm). It's optimal range of operation is between 28-75 mm. As for image quality the M9 sensor has higher resolving power than the sensor of the 5DII due to no anti-aliasing filter. The lens is however a more important factor. The M9 also has a lot more headroom in the shadows than the 5DII but less so in the highlights. The 5DII base iso is 100 while the M9 base iso is 160 so the 5DII produces a somewhat cleaner image. If you have a well exposed image with both cameras with a very high quality lens the differences are small in practice. The difference between a 5DII with Zeiss glass and a 5DII with Canon glass is much much larger than the difference between a 5DII and an M9, both with Zeiss glass.
The primary reason for me getting an M9 is simply because I wanted a compact full frame camera to be used on those occasions where I can't be bothered to carry a full DSLR kit. It turned out however that I prefer the M9 for almost all handheld shooting.
charles.K wrote:
Ron, nice shots! Excellent examples with the ZM 21 What coding do you use? Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the M9
I used the 21 2.8 non ASPH. The code is 000001, which is really easy to hand code with a marker.
As I think I mentioned, last night I did some social photos with on-camera flash, mostly bounced. It's probably too early being the first time I've used the M9 in this type of situation, but I'm kind of so-so about the results. It doesn't seem to like over exposure and responds differently than I'm used to with the Canon CMOS sensors. It reminds me of what I used to get from the original Canon 1D with the CCD sensor. I guess it's safer to err on the side of underexposure when using flash, but when shooting at ISO 1250, there's only so much you can open up those files it seems. It's somewhat concerning because one of my plans for the M9 is to use it for event coverage.
