Zeiss vs Voigtlander 21mm lens

[daleeman]

Zeiss vs Voigtlander 21mm
Requesting input on the opinions and facts between the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 lens and the Voigtlander 21mm F4 pancake lens. I am interested in the love hate relationships and the brutal facts you have come across. I have an M2 and have been putting quarters under my pillow wishing the Leica Fairy would bring me a M8.2, but I had my hopes dashed about the age of 7 when my mom woke me up pulling the lost baby teeth from under my pillow. Although one never knows.
Some of what I am interested in is has anyone shot with either of these lenses?
What is your opinion?
Have you show with both and can see a difference?
Barrel distortion better on one or the other?
Shades cutting into the viewfinder?
The cost difference and the F4 to 2.8 differences is obvious and I cannot find a lens in the condition I hope for at the price. KEH has a non aspherical 21mm now at the price point of the Ziess at EX condition, but I would like to see a bit better unless others have had great success with EX shape Leica lenses from KEH.
Really like to know if anyone has had one of these two lenses on an M8 or 8.2. and is the extra distance from the 24mm marks in the M8 cameras to the frame edge approximately the difference between a 24 and a 21mm, such that one would not need a little finder on top of the camera with a 21mm on a M8 or 8.2. (Sorry to use the D word here)

Lots of questions but I come to believe the immense experience on this site is incredible if you tap into it.

Lee

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I have practically the same questions, but involving the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 instead of the f/2.8.

I've had the C/V 21mm for years... And it is a love/hate relationship.
I'm seriously thinking of upgrading to the Zeiss f/4.5 and here's why (M6 - full frame):

1) I find it vignettes far too much, especially with colour slides. This seems to be a common complaint with the CV wides (BTW, I also have the 15mm).
2) The corners are softer than I'd like. Perhaps mine has some decentering problems, as in one test it gave some really weird astigmatism on a test chart in the corner (only one corner tested - must repeat)
3) The lens shade that comes with the lens is useless. A better one can be bought, but for a disproportionate sum (though I guess Zeiss isn't any better in this respect).

The reason to like/keep the lens are:
1) All in all it is a solid good lens. My complaints are based on comparisons with a Zeiss 18mm and a Leica 19mm II for SLRs. Not meeting the expectations of those isn't so bad, but I would like something at least as good.
2) Distortion? Where? Well, there *might* be some somewhere, but I haven't tried measuring it. Not really an issue. And I *am* very sensitive to distortion.
3) It's light and tiny. Not at all visible in the frame when looking through it's viewfinder.
4) It's viewfinder also closely approximates the coverage of the 15mm lens outside the 21mm bright lines. The viewfinder lives permanently on my M6 and serves both lenses well.
5) Build quality is quite decent.
6) Did I mention that it really is light & tiny?

BTW... The Leica non-Asph is probably no (or at least not much) better than the C/V.
From all the tests I've read, it seems that the Zeiss' both beat the Asph. I'd also love to hear from a real life user.

 

[daleeman]

Your insights are amazing. I can sense I am not alone and that there are many with the same issues. I hope others chime in. I see Ken Rockwell gives a review on the Voigtlander 21mm lens, hails it as great and take a big bite out of Leica in the review at:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/21mm.htm

I have not seen any Zeiss reviews like this one. Have you?

Lee

 

[Richard Wasserman]

I have played withe C/V 21mm, but not enough to form a strong opinion–it seemed like quite a decent lens at an excellent price. I do own the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 and it is a stellar lens, very sharp, excellent build quality, virtually zero distortion, and it's small and light. I use the hood for the 25mm lens as it is smaller than the 21mm hood and have never had a problem with flare. I purchased the Zeiss finder to go with it and it is amazingly bright and easy to use. It's one of my very favorite lenses.

I would take anything Mr. Rockwell says with a grain of salt....

Richard Wasserman

 

[Jeremy]

The C/V 21mm is the lens that is calling me back to shoot 35mm rangefinders--haven't yet, but the call is strong

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) in my gallery here was made with the 21mm f/4 at f/4 way back in early 2005. The lens is small, light, and I never had a problem with it vignetting even wide open. I used the additional lens shade that you have to purchase separately and the C/V viewfinder. I think it's a great little lens and if I do decide to jump back onto the 35mm rangefinder wagon it will be to buy this lens and the 40mm f/1.4 Nokton.

edit: Let me add that my lens was the screwmount version and I used an M-adaptor to use it on a C/V R3A. I have never used the newer M-mount version of this lens.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Ken Rockwell gives a review on the Voigtlander 21mm lens, hails it as great and take a big bite out of Leica in the review at:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/21mm.htm

I have not seen any Zeiss reviews like this one. Have you?

Lee

I'd also take Ken Rockwell's reviews with more than a bit of caution.
Some of his statements on lenses that I own and use (and even basically like), make them sound like the best lenses ever... If only!

I've seen several reviews around, all of which say that the Zeiss' are excellent, but not really directly comparing them with the C/V.

Also the previous posting unsurprisingly speaks well of the Zeiss f/4.5 but without a good comparison with the C/V... Sigh!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

The Zeiss 21 2.8 is a stronger peformer in most aspects. I own both and the Zeiss, IMO, performs to a higher standard with better corners by far and consistency across samples. Quite a few of the CVs have decentering issues and I guess this assembly accuracy is what you pay for withmore expensive lenses. This might not matter with smaller prints but can be quite an issue at wider apertures and larger prints with one or more corners suffering.

IMO if you can afford it and a slow lens is OK, the ZM 4.5 is the one to have. My 2.8 is a touch on the large side but is faster of course. I might change to the 4.5 once I have a particular project out out the way as I shoot almost entirely past 4.5.

 

[lns]

I use a screwmount CV 21mm f4. I use it a lot, but only for black and white film, so my comments are based on that. Mine is fantastic: sharp, sturdy and no excessive vignetting. The corners seem fine to me. I use the tiny hood it comes with and haven't had a flare problem. The one and only thing I don't love is its slow speed, but that's the compromise when you get small and inexpensive.

I am sure the Zeiss 21mm lenses are even better, and occasionally I've been tempted to upgrade, but my CV is so good that the mood passes.

I think you need to consider how much you'll use it, and what your budget is, and those factors should decide the question handily. I bought the CV used with viewfinder and hood for perhaps $300. The Zeiss 21mm lenses are around $1,000. I can only imagine how much a Leica is.

-Laura

 

[lns]

By the way, despite my love for the CV, I agree with Tom Stanworth's comments. There appears to be some sample variation with the CV lenses, so while my particular copy is great, you can read in this very thread, and elsewhere, that some people haven't been so lucky.

-Laura

 

[Tim Gray]

I've heard very good things about the Zeiss 21/4.5 (or is it 4?).

 

[ntenny]

As another owner and fan of the CV 21mm, I also agree with lns's agreement with Tom Stanworth. There are reasonable reports of sample variation with the Voigtlaender lenses consistent with what you might expect at the price point; that's not a very damning statement, though, considering that the Zeiss 21mm viewfinder will run you about the same price as the CV lens! With that in mind, I think you'll get better pictures through the CV lens than through the Zeiss viewfinder...

-NT

 

[daleeman]

I live with a 2/3 factor for my choice between the two (c/v or ziess) quality over price, but in today's economy its no wonder the 3 in the situation is price. I'll agree the Ken R reviews are a bit salty, but without the discussion threads like this and people like you all there is not much out there to make decisions.

I did a bit of the math, looked at an all ziess solution, f2.9, hood, finder, uv/ir and I was 2/3 to a less with attractive new Leica 28mmf2.8. Ran the c/v # and was up about 550.00 plus or minus, (it was yesterday my brain worked better then) The uv/ir is buying into the M8 dream, but all my lenses get a uv. I am interested in the off centerness of the c/v 21 or the non sharp corners. Might this be the earlier builds or just the old Detroit GM "Monday Build" syndrome. Limited to screw mounts used with adapter maybe? I have the 50mm c/v nocto-what ever and it is a nice lens on the M2, so I imagine it is not a adapter issue.

Jeremy, nice stairway photo, hand held? have any more examples, or anyone have any more examples from the two lenses.

So in the zeiss world, any real distinct difference between the 4.5 and the 2.6 besides speed, the price difference at a thousand bucks is not noise, but possibly just a few more months of savings.

 

[Tim Gray]

I think the big difference between the Zeiss 2.8 and 4.5 are the obvious ones: speed and size. The 4.5 also apparently has pretty much zero distortion. From what I've read, unless you need 2.8, the 4.5 if better - smaller, less distortion, possibly sharper (not sure on that one). Tom A. raves about it a lot on rangefinderforum, and he's a self-confessed 21mm junkie. Actually, just look at this recent thread over there: rff

 

[Jeremy]

Jeremy, nice stairway photo, hand held? have any more examples, or anyone have any more examples from the two lenses

Yes, that image and the one I just uploaded here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

were both taken hand-held. Both shots were made in the U.S. Capitol building so there was no chance of a tripod. I never had any problem with my corners not being sharp as you can see in this image.

And thanks for the compliment.

 

[cmo]

I own a CV 4/21 and a very rare beast, a Zeiss 4.5/21mm made for the Contarex with a Leica M adapter - there are probably only 5 to 10 of these adapters on this planet.

Zeiss tried to take quality to the maximum when they made the Contarex lenses, their craftmanship was unsurpassed, they built them even more precisely than the Contax lenses. Only about 4000 21mm Biogons for the Contarex were built, probably because it cost about an average annual salary.

The verdict is simple:

- The Biogon has no noticeable distortion, is sharp as a razor, and there is almost no light falloff, and it seems to be immune to flare. The original Zeiss finder is neither very bright nor big. This lens is quite big and heavy, but the build quality is amazing, and I really love to use it.

- The CV 21mm has a lot of distortion (and the CV finder has even more), average sharpness, some light falloff, but it is tiny and weighs only a fraction of the Zeiss lens. It does not like backlighting, reflexes ruined many of my shots. As there is no visual control of lens reflexes in a rangefinder, I really started to hate this lens. Was it made for rangefinder cameras at all?

The 21mm Leica lenses I have seen and tried are somewhere in the middle between these lenses. The most modern 'Asph.' version of the 21mm Elmarit is probably as sharp as the Contarex lens or better, but I didn't try it because I don't like the price tag - 2800 Euros.

 

[SimonXpan]

The Zeiss 21 4.5 was my 2nd lens purchase (after the Zeiss 35 2) - very compact, sharp and a joy to use. Highly recomended

Simon

 

[daleeman]

I own a CV 4/21 and a very rare beast, a Zeiss 4.5/21mm made for the Contarex with a Leica M adapter - there are probably only 5 to 10 of these adapters on this planet.

Zeiss tried to take quality to the maximum when they made the Contarex lenses, their craftmanship was unsurpassed, they built them even more precisely than the Contax lenses. Only about 4000 21mm Biogons for the Contarex were built, probably because it cost about an average annual salary.

The verdict is simple:

- The Biogon has no noticeable distortion, is sharp as a razor, and there is almost no light falloff, and it seems to be immune to flare. The original Zeiss finder is neither very bright nor big. This lens is quite big and heavy, but the build quality is amazing, and I really love to use it.

- The CV 21mm has a lot of distortion (and the CV finder has even more), average sharpness, some light falloff, but it is tiny and weighs only a fraction of the Zeiss lens. It does not like backlighting, reflexes ruined many of my shots. As there is no visual control of lens reflexes in a rangefinder, I really started to hate this lens. Was it made for rangefinder cameras at all?

The 21mm Leica lenses I have seen and tried are somewhere in the middle between these lenses. The most modern 'Asph.' version of the 21mm Elmarit is probably as sharp as the Contarex lens or better, but I didn't try it because I don't like the price tag - 2800 Euros.

I am quite taken with your review and experiences. The CV sounds less and less like the choice I will make unless I just fall back in fear of spending money and go cheap. I am enticed by the F2.8 model for the speed and the fact it is just 10 or 12% more than the F4.5 version. I wonder if the extra length 75mm will block the viewfinder.

Any experience with lens shades with your F4.5 Zeiss lens? I hope to someday move to an M8 digital and will have to approximate the image edge. I hope it is just indide the total M8 viewfinder since the 24mm lines in the finder do not go to the edge.

In my M2 I imagine I will need to go to use a finder on it. I hope to use the lens a lot with the M2 because it will be some time before I see a M8. In using your CV finder over the Zeiss one do you find a real ease in one or the other?

Thank you for your advice. I hope to hear back from you soon on the finders and the F2.8 vs the F4.5 and lens hoods.

Lee

 

[cmo]

Any experience with lens shades with your F4.5 Zeiss lens?

No, and I don't have the impression it needs a lens shade at all.

I hope to someday move to an M8 digital and will have to approximate the image edge. I hope it is just indide the total M8 viewfinder since the 24mm lines in the finder do not go to the edge.

Though this is an analog forum, I guess that "someday" there will be a digital full frame M.

In my M2 I imagine I will need to go to use a finder on it. I hope to use the lens a lot with the M2 because it will be some time before I see a M8. In using your CV finder over the Zeiss one do you find a real ease in one or the other?

The CV finder is brighter and bigger, but distortion is awful. But my Zeiss finder was made in 1962. The newer Zeiss and Leica 21mm finders are great - and expensive.

Thank you for your advice. I hope to hear back from you soon on the finders and the F2.8 vs the F4.5 and lens hoods.

I never compared the 2.8 vs. the 4.5, both are probably great lenses. If the price and weight difference is not a big deal the 2.8 would be my choice.

 

[daleeman]

I took delivery this week of the Zeiss 21mm F 2.8 and I opted for the CV finder to put on my M2. I'm still looking to grow into a M8.2 but that is one of those when I grow up I want to be a M8 photographer.

Now to gain time to get out and shoot some film and process it. Hope to have samples up soon. Purchased the lens from popflash. Nice folks.

Lee

 

[mablo]

I have the CV 21mm lens and I'm very happy with it. The relative lack of speed hasn't been a problem for me so far. I've had some difficulties with the plastic viewfinder however. The viewfinder shoe is IMHO too fragile and when you'll inevitably destroy it one day the replacement viewfinder costs ~ 150€. You cannot replace the shoe which is a bummer.

 

[nuckabean]

The CV 21 was my first rangefinder lens and I love it. It's compact (I have the screwmount version), very sharp, and cheap. I'm a student so I can't afford the Zeiss and Leica options, especially for a lens that is somewhat specialized (I've found it easy to overuse a 21). I've never noticed substantial vignetting, in fact now that I'm going back through some of the pictures I took with it, I barely see any vignetting. Same with distortion. I think it's a great bargain, and even if I had the money, the only reason I'd upgrade would be for some extra speed (21 lux ASPH, never gonna happen). Here are a few sample images, the first is taken on rebranded Superia 200 that I bought at the 99 cent store. The second is on Neopan 400 in Rodinal 1:50. Both scanned on an Epson V700.

 

[elekm]

The think the Cosina lens is excellent value for the money. Distortion and vignetting appear to be within acceptability. And for those on a budget, it's unlikely that you'll find a better bargain.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I have both the Zeiss 2.8 and the Bessa in stock if you want to slip them on a camera and give them a try let me know.
-rob