Still leaving the 5D2 at home with its all fast cheap and super-performing lenses - so I have against all odds started to think about really slow 18 or 21 lenses. The ZM 18/4 is praised very much, but what\'s the word on the ZM 21/4.5? That\'s super slow - on par with a long white excellent Canon tele. But what the heck, it\'s small
Or would it be betterto get the large ZE 21/3.5? - which I could use it on the 5D2 when eh... I want some slow optics on that.
EDIT: and then there is the Voigtländer Color Skopar 21/4, but I guess that\'s inferiour to the above choices...(?)
Thanks for all the congratulations...yes I must admit, one of my better lens designs
But seriously, this issue of the great 21 is interesting.
The skopar is a hellva lens with centers like you cannot believe, tiny, weightless and cheap. But its downfall is the edges, as with so many afforable options. You don\'t even notice it much till you are working in large landscapes--and it may be possible to mitigate.
The ZM 21/4.5: great question. Who has one? My main source of gossip havs been down for a week--RFF.
My thinking right now is: daylight ZM 18 + leica 28/2; night time ZM 21/2.8 and CV 35/1.2, But the truth is I have not seen more than a handfull of ZM 21 samples on 5n-- from the fast or the slow.
here from nick at LL
\"In my informal tests against the CV21, the lenses had matching center-resolution at all working apertures, though the ZM21 had perceptibly better resolution toward the edges and corners at f/4 and f/5.6. That said, the difference was small and only noticeable in a relatively close-up subject with very fine detail. By f/8 the two lenses were effectively identical in resolution. For daily use, I would take the CV21 over this lens on account of the size difference, notwithstanding the Biogon\'s marginal quality advantage.\"
While Rock Huffwell states:
\"The Voigtländer 21mm f/4 or even the best 21mm SLR lens or zoom is nowhere near the performance of this Zeiss or the LEICA 21mm lenses.\' (refering to the 21/2.8)
The ZM is 258 grams or so.
Apparently the rear node of the 4.5 is very deep.
Jack Flesher on the CV 21:
“ Well, as it just so happens... I had an opportunity to try out one of these little gems. Simply stated, in terms of resolution it performed at least as well as the 21P if not a bit better, and as such is not really very far behind the 21A. Its big faults were more significant falloff in the corners (maybe 2 1/2 stops?), more visible distortion in the corners, and the fact it is more flare-prone than either Leica 21.
I think I need to do some more shooting with the 21 CV!
My experience with the ZM21 f/2.8 on the NEX-5N indicates it\'s not a great performer into the corners. You need to stop it down to f/8 to get sharp corners. I believe this is an issue of the lens design rather than it being a wide RF lens on a NEX because if you look at the Zeiss MTF curves for it, you\'ll see that it falls off into the corners at wider apertures, and this carries over to the APS-C crop of the 5N. The CV15 is a much, much more problematic lens on the M9, but performs great on the 5N, so I don\'t suspect it\'s an issue with the 5N causing the poor ZM21 results.
I posted a blog write-up with full-rez downloads, including my results with the CV12 and CV15.
I think my CV12 is a bit out of alignment, and looks kind of bad on the NEX, though on the M9 it\'s not as noticeable...
Still leaving the 5D2 at home with its all fast cheap and super-performing lenses - so I have against all odds started to think about really slow 18 or 21 lenses. The ZM 18/4 is praised very much, but what\'s the word on the ZM 21/4.5? That\'s super slow - on par with a long white excellent Canon tele. But what the heck, it\'s small
Or would it be betterto get the large ZE 21/3.5? - which I could use it on the 5D2 when eh... I want some slow optics on that.
EDIT: and then there is the Voigtländer Color Skopar 21/4, but I guess that\'s inferiour to the above choices...(?)
Thanks for all the congratulations...yes I must admit, one of my better lens designs
But seriously, this issue of the great 21 is interesting.
The skopar is a hellva lens with centers like you cannot believe, tiny, weightless and cheap. But its downfall is the edges, as with so many afforable options. You don\'t even notice it much till you are working in large landscapes--and it may be possible to mitigate.
The ZM 21/4.5: great question. Who has one? My main source of gossip havs been down for a week--RFF.
My thinking right now is: daylight ZM 18 + leica 28/2; night time ZM 21/2.8 and CV 35/1.2, But the truth is I have not seen more than a handfull of ZM 21 samples on 5n-- from the fast or the slow.
here from nick at LL
\"In my informal tests against the CV21, the lenses had matching center-resolution at all working apertures, though the ZM21 had perceptibly better resolution toward the edges and corners at f/4 and f/5.6. That said, the difference was small and only noticeable in a relatively close-up subject with very fine detail. By f/8 the two lenses were effectively identical in resolution. For daily use, I would take the CV21 over this lens on account of the size difference, notwithstanding the Biogon\'s marginal quality advantage.\"
While Rock Huffwell states:
\"The Voigtländer 21mm f/4 or even the best 21mm SLR lens or zoom is nowhere near the performance of this Zeiss or the LEICA 21mm lenses.\' (refering to the 21/2.8)
The ZM is 258 grams or so.
Apparently the rear node of the 4.5 is very deep.
Jack Flesher on the CV 21:
“ Well, as it just so happens... I had an opportunity to try out one of these little gems. Simply stated, in terms of resolution it performed at least as well as the 21P if not a bit better, and as such is not really very far behind the 21A. Its big faults were more significant falloff in the corners (maybe 2 1/2 stops?), more visible distortion in the corners, and the fact it is more flare-prone than either Leica 21.
I think I need to do some more shooting with the 21 CV!
My experience with the ZM21 f/2.8 on the NEX-5N indicates it\'s not a great performer. You need to stop it down to f/8 to get sharp corners. I believe this is an issue of the lens design because if you look at the Zeiss MTF curves for it, you\'ll see that it falls off into the corners at wider apertures, and this carries over to the APS-C crop of the 5N.
I posted a blog write-up with full-rez downloads, including my results with the CV12 and CV15.
I think my CV12 is a bit out of alignment, and looks kind of bad on the NEX, though on the M9 it\'s not as noticeable...
Still leaving the 5D2 at home with its all fast cheap and super-performing lenses - so I have against all odds started to think about really slow 18 or 21 lenses. The ZM 18/4 is praised very much, but what\'s the word on the ZM 21/4.5? That\'s super slow - on par with a long white excellent Canon tele. But what the heck, it\'s small
Or would it be betterto get the large ZE 21/3.5? - which I could use it on the 5D2 when eh... I want some slow optics on that.
EDIT: and then there is the Voigtländer Color Skopar 21/4, but I guess that\'s inferiour to the above choices...(?)
Thanks for all the congratulations...yes I must admit, one of my better lens designs
But seriously, this issue of the great 21 is interesting.
The skopar is a hellva lens with centers like you cannot believe, tiny, weightless and cheap. But its downfall is the edges, as with so many afforable options. You don\'t even notice it much till you are working in large landscapes--and it may be possible to mitigate.
The ZM 21/4.5: great question. Who has one? My main source of gossip havs been down for a week--RFF.
My thinking right now is: daylight ZM 18 + leica 28/2; night time ZM 21/2.8 and CV 35/1.2, But the truth is I have not seen more than a handfull of ZM 21 samples on 5n-- from the fast or the slow.
here from nick at LL
\"In my informal tests against the CV21, the lenses had matching center-resolution at all working apertures, though the ZM21 had perceptibly better resolution toward the edges and corners at f/4 and f/5.6. That said, the difference was small and only noticeable in a relatively close-up subject with very fine detail. By f/8 the two lenses were effectively identical in resolution. For daily use, I would take the CV21 over this lens on account of the size difference, notwithstanding the Biogon\'s marginal quality advantage.\"
While Rock Huffwell states:
\"The Voigtländer 21mm f/4 or even the best 21mm SLR lens or zoom is nowhere near the performance of this Zeiss or the LEICA 21mm lenses.\' (refering to the 21/2.8)
The ZM is 258 grams or so.
Apparently the rear node of the 4.5 is very deep.
Jack Flesher on the CV 21:
“ Well, as it just so happens... I had an opportunity to try out one of these little gems. Simply stated, in terms of resolution it performed at least as well as the 21P if not a bit better, and as such is not really very far behind the 21A. Its big faults were more significant falloff in the corners (maybe 2 1/2 stops?), more visible distortion in the corners, and the fact it is more flare-prone than either Leica 21.
I think I need to do some more shooting with the 21 CV!
My experience with the ZM21 f/2.8 on the NEX-5N indicates it\'s not a great performer. You need to stop it down to f/8 to get sharp corners. I believe this is an issue of the lens design because if you look at the Zeiss MTF curves for it, you\'ll see that it falls off into the corners at wider apertures, and this carries over to the APS-C crop of the 5N.
I posted a blog write-up with full-rez downloads, including my results with the CV12 and CV15.
I think my CV12 is a bit out of alignment, and looks kind of bad on the NEX, though on the M9 it\'s not as noticeable...
