I'm very interested to know as well.
I have been meaning to test this for a while myself, but the time and the weather haven't cooperated. So your question inspired me to do a quick test indoors. These photos are purely to show the corner colour effects, they are hand held and when the weather is nicer I will try some outdoors with better subjects. The room in the first series is light tan with white ceiling and trim, the room in the second series is yellow with white ceiling and trim, just so you have a reference on the colours.
The series are:
F4 no coding
F4 Coded as 21mm non-ASPH
F8 coded as 21mm non-ASPH
same for the second set. exposure in light room adjusted to try and match all 3, camera on auto white balance.
I found the 21mm setting worked best on my M9, so that is why I chose it. There is no manual setting for a 18mm in the menu.
Last edited by DaveS; 6th November 2013 at 09:42.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Have you tried coding it as a WATE? Not sure which frame lines the WATE brings up, so if the Zeiss doesn't bring up the same frame lines you may not be able to code it as a WATE.
From my experience, the WATE was the best of the Leica Wide angles at the time, though I have no experience with the most recent Leica wides or the Zeiss.
So, what is your conclusion? Since you have real files on your screen?...
I just tried it with WATE 18mm and it recognizes it, but it isn't pretty. Here they are at WATE 18mm manual code, F4 and F8.
My thought is maybe the real WATE 18 is pretty well corrected on its own, so the manual correction doesn't fix the ZM 18. Maybe the older non-ASPH 21 really need lots of correction, and the ZM takes advantage of that. Either way, no correction is really good that I have found. It seems to be mostly on the right side.
On the other hand, the 18mm is really sharp !
1 Member(s) liked this post
Sisoje, the problem shows well on the posted jpegs and is basically the same on raw DNG. The 21mm works best for a profile that I have found so far, but it is too much for me to use for my architecture work. There is probably a way to profile the lens with corner fix or something like that, but I haven't tried that. So for now it is used for B&W and I do architecture with my Canon system.
I bought this lens in hope of doing interiors and getting better edge sharpness than the canon lenses. But since I am on a tripod at F11 normally, it probably isn't as necessary.
My second use was going to be with travel since I usually take the M system for that. I will be trying it a bit more outside when the suns shines again. (Likely in the spring, since I am in Vancouver )
I tried both the Zeiss and the Leica Super Elmar on my M9. I bought the Leica lens without hesitation. On my M it works equally well.
Dave S., Just wanted to say thanks for the samples.
Such "on demand" examples are becoming non existent nowadays.
In past testing, these have been my experiences with both the Zeiss and Leica 18mmm lenses on the M9.
I have found coding the Zeiss 18mm as the Lieca 21mm pre asph was most effective in virtually eliminating read edge on the M9 compared to any of the other codes I've tried. Both the Zeiss 18mm as well as the Leica are superb lenses, each having their strengths and weaknesses, depending on use.
What sold me at the time on the Zeiss, was it's relative lack of waveform "mustache" type distortion, something that;'s fairly evident with the Leica. For landscapes, the Leica was ever so slightly preferred due to it's warmer rendition and somewhat sharper along the sides/edges...but for architecture or shots of subjects with straight lines, the Zeiss was clearly superior in my opinion.
How they fair on the M240, I honestly can't say at the moment, especially as related to color casts but it appears in the test shots shown above, once again coding the Zeiss 18mm as a Leica 21mm pre asph, works best.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Can't speak of the M240, but on the M9 it works well. Amazing lens, optically. Some crappy samples:
Goes without saying it's great on the M8 also. Just missing the Millennium Falcon...
I wasn't knocking the Zeiss, it is just that I have a marked preference for the Leica rendering. For my photography a mild distortion is not that important. The Leica has less three-dimensional distortion towards the corners (i.e. egg-heads) btw. Other photographers have other needs, obviously.
Those are great shots Michael and show what the lens can do. I was hoping that the corner colour wouldn't be as big a deal when shooting stuff like this where there is not a consistent tone across the whole frame. (ie: a white wall)
Did you have to apply any edge colour fixes, or did the subjects just not show it?
thanks for sharing.
Aside from the focal length difference, which one performs better on M240?
ZM18mm or ZM21/2.8...?
I know your question specifically asks for the level of performance of these two lenses on the M240....but I can offer you my opinion of these two on the full frame M9. I am a fan of both, especially considering their price points. Whereas the 18mm Zm is excellent, has relatively low distortion and notable sharpness across the frame (somewhat higher centrally than at the sides/edges), the Zeiss 21mm Zm is simply superlative. One area I haven't looked into is the level of distortion with the 21mm...fullly aware that it's SLR counterpart, the Zeiss 21mm ZF.2 has very noticeable "mustache" distortion that's difficult to correct.
I personally didn't have color cast issues with the Zeiss 18mm and coding the Zeiss 21mm as a Leica 21mm pre asph all but eliminated color cast issues with that lens. I hear though that the 21mm is a bit more problematic on the M240 vs. the M9, but cannot confirm this.
Thank you so much for the kind info.....
I'll probably get either one of them when I can gather funds...
It is very hard to sell gear nowadays....
Before the last firmware update on the M9, CornerFix was a necessity. Afterwards not so much. In the end, it comes down to the lens code you choose. On the M8 it worked without much fuss at all (since the edges were lopped off due to the crop).
I don't generally shoot "white walls" so I can't say for certain... But as I recall, the "optimal" code for the M9 eliminates the red edge; however because my particular lens is older, with a flange that brings up the incorrect framelines for me to code it as I'd prefer (forcing me to manually do it in MENU).
If there is any residual coloring, CornerFix would certainly take care of that. I've seen it take out much worse!
Still looking for some real life experience with ZM18 on M240 (not M8, not M9 thanks... It has been proven with flying colors that it's a great match...)... No white walls, just more "nice stories"...
Especially with latest M240 firmware. Thanks.
Finally found a ZM18 in stock in Toronto. Went to Downtown Camera for a quick test. Lens code "21 pre asph" as suggested.
Quick shots inside/outside. Looks good to me! one image of the ceiling tiles with florescent advertisements was so mixed lightning but i did it anyways... Still very nice.
Latest M240 firmware.
This lens suddenly climbed on top of my list....
Since I have some options, I don't tend to use the ZM18 on the 240, but it does work. Sometimes it produces a slight colour cast, so I tend to shoot B&W with it mostly. For colour on the M240 I mostly use the WATE, which while not quite as sharp overall, has fairly even and very good performance, no colour cast issues and the current LR has profiles for the distortion, so that is no longer an issue.
Since Canon has now proven that they CAN design and produce decent wideangles, I now also (like Dave) now use the TSE lenses without qualms for architectural work here in Vancouver.
It appears many 3rd party wides and especially ultra wides do better with regards to reduced color casts, on the M9 vs. the M 240 when coded with the most effective code for a particular lens. A case in point is the Zeiss ZM 18mm. When coded as a Leica 21mm pre aspherical, it generally performs with little or no issues on a M9 but not a M240. Of course pixel desity of the M240 has much to do with this. There are other examples of ultra wides performing better on an M9 when compared to their use on a M240.
So when evaluating a lenses performance, it's worth mentioning the body it's going to be used on.
I tried ZM 18 on my M240, as you can see from posted samples. There is no color shift that I can notice. It was a quick test, but enough to seriously consider this lens for my new M.
Again, it was tested with latest firmware.
So, I am not sure about your last statement...
As far as "other" WA lenses go, I have no desire to put any DSLR lenses on puny M body just because I can (mount it with adapter). For DSLR lenses I might as well use DSLR body...