Zeiss ZM M-Mount Lenes – The Lenses I “Need”, and not just “Want”

Over the last 6 or so months I’ve really bought into the Zeiss ZM system of lenses. I’ve gone from owning 2 of them to 5, and in combination with film and digital cameras they mount to, I now feel like I have all I “need” from my photography equipment. Significantly, the last three of these lenses have been bought at a time that I’ve been describing as a bit of a “low ebb” in my photography. So I thought I’d write a bit about which lenses I’ve chosen and why I’ve chosen them at this particular point in my photography journey.

The most recent two new acquisitions are the Zeiss ZM 85mm f/4 Tele-Tessar and 25mm f/2.8 Biogon. Both of these have been bought within the last month or so. This year I have also bought the 50mm f/2 Planar and 35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon. These 4 are to sit alongside the 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar which has been a longstanding favourite of mine. I’ve also owned the 28mm f/2.8 Biogon, but I recently decided to sell it. I’ll come to why a bit later.

This dedication to Zeiss lenses isn’t something that will come as a surprise to those who know me well. I’ve long felt that the contrast, 3D rendering and colour that Zeiss lenses produce most fits my tastes –  I’ve mentioned this fact on this website often. The Zeiss “look” I’ve just described is something that some other photographers question, don’t see or simply don’t appreciate. But for me, it doesn’t seem to matter how much other kit I use, ultimately I always seem to favour the results I get from modern Zeiss lenses.

This was really brought home to me in the spring of this year when I borrowed a 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. I took it on a short break to the Welsh Borders, and got some absolutely stunning results with it. I quite genuinely couldn’t have been happier with the photos, but as much as I liked them I concluded that the lens wasn’t for me. Whilst I’d liked the results I’d achieved shooting the lens in low light, the images that really appealed to me were the ones I’d taken in daylight. They really encapsulated everything I felt I could possibly need from a lens for that type of photography. I just didn’t need the weight, size, or indeed speed advantage that came with the Distagon.

Hereford & Wales day out
35mm f/1.4 Distagon

I returned the lens to Zeiss knowing exactly what my next step was to be. I needed to buy myself the 35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon. This is a lens that’s regarded by many as a bit of a master stroke by Zeiss. It’s tiny but – and I say this fairly objectively – has exceptionally high quality rendering. Significantly for me, it does everything I love about Zeiss lenses in droves: wonderful rich slightly warm colours, high contrast and absolute peak 3D pop. In short, it did all of what the larger faster Distagon does, but it small and slow.

Icecream at Powis Castle
35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon

I should add, I know some people can’t “see” 3D pop, and I do appreciate that it’s one of those things that’s just a bit too subjective and hard to define. But I do wonder how it’s possible to look at a photo like the one above and not see how 3 dimensional it looks.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, I bought that lens with a certain amount of hope and expectations, and they were absolutely met. Whats more relevant to this particular story about that photo is that was taken on an outing that I previously wrote about here. It was actually one of the first articles where I talked about my aforementioned low photography ebb. In brief, I’d had a helicopter ride bought for me as a gift. I was initially really excited about it, and had high hopes for it being a great excuse to take some photos.

In actual fact, by the time it came around, I was feeling fairly morose about photography. I didn’t find myself particularly inspired to shoot much, and certainly wasn’t bothered about messing about with cameras and lenses in the way I often am. In the end, when it came to choosing kit for the day, I just wanted a camera and lens that I could trust not to let me down… so I took my digital rangefinder and the 35mm C-Biogon. I only took a few shots, but I was more than happy with the results and indeed the experience of taking them.

Helicopter Ride in Near Welshpool
35mm f/2.8 C-Biogon

This experience sealed a bit of a deal in my mind. I’d long been thinking about buying a set of Zeiss ZM lenses, but for one reason or another, I hadn’t ever bitten the bullet. I decided soon after that I needed to take the plunge and complete the set. I decided that for all my messing about with other kit, I needed a default fallback. A set of kit that I could always rely upon to not let me down. I’ve had this sort of set of kit at work for use within my “professional” photography for a long time, but I wanted this at home too.

The 50s

It’s fair to say the 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar started this Zeiss fetish. I bought that lens after a lot of indecision, but if you’ve read my 8000+ word love letter to the thing, you’ll know that ultimately I became completely besotted with it. This hasn’t changed since, but with the 50mm focal length being my most common choice, I’ve regularly felt that I needed other lenses to compliment what it offers.

I actually made a bit of a YouTube video about this. In the video I talk about how I like to use the Sonnar for certain types of photos, but like to also have an even more “classic” rendering lens and more fit-and-forget lens options alongside it. At the time, the Voigtlander 50mm f/2.5 was the fit and forget lens, but a few months back I decided to replace it with the 50mm f/2 Planar.

I must admit, the Voigtlander was plenty good enough, but the experiences I’d recently had with the Zeiss 35mm lenses sealed the deal on the Planar. The Planar has a bit of a reputation for being almost too “sharp”, but so far I’ve not found an issue myself. In practice, it offers me something I can shoot at mid-apertures easily, and gives results that I don’t really have to think about. In short, it’s basically the 50mm equivalent of the 35mm. It gives me a fit and forget option for results I can rely on to look how I like them. You might be noticing a bit of a trend in my thinking here…?

50mm f/2 Planar

The 85mm f/4 Tele-Tessar

The problem of a longer-lens for my Leica cameras is one that’s been hanging around for a long time. I don’t shoot at these sorts of focal lengths often with my m-mount cameras, though oddly considering that fact, I use my 85mm Zeiss Batis more than any other lens on my Sony cameras. The Batis gets used so much because I shoot a lot of corporate events and office reportage photography. The focal length gives me what I need to not get in people’s faces at events, and has almost defined my style as a corporate/office reportage photographer. As such, I’m very familiar with the field of view.

Within my hobby work, I only tend to use longer lenses for landscape photography and initially – at least for the most part – felt that this was what I wanted the 85mm Tele-Tessar for.

Now, I’m not sure I believe in “fate” as such, but I’ve read The Alchemist and so I can’t help sometimes thinking that it’s important to take note when it feels like the “universe” is telling me something. The 85mm came to me from a regular reader and friend Des who’d decided it wasn’t for him. I’d been thinking about buying one, so when he offered me his I figured it’d be daft not to jump at it.

A week or so after it landed on my desk, I found myself shooting a project I’d been thinking about starting for a while. The details are a story for another day, but it’s essentially a personal project that involves photographing people in a similar way to how I shoot at events with the Batis. I’d chucked the 85mm in the bag purely for the fact that it was new. I’d actually intended to use the 50mm Sonnar. But when I got there, it became very clear that the 85mm was not only the right lens for the job, it was actually the perfect choice.

85mm f/4 Tele-Tessar

I’m not entirely sure Paulo Coelho was writing specifically about signs that point to the continued ownership of lenses when he wrote The Alchemist, but if this wasn’t a sign that buying the 85mm was a good idea, then I don’t know what would be…? To top it off, the results were spot on. I didn’t miss focus once, and they were reliably how I like my photos to look.

The 25mm f/2.8 Biogon

The final piece in the puzzle was the 25mm f/2.8 Biogon. Once again, Des has a lot to answer for. He’d bought the 25mm and had decided it wasn’t right for him. I offered to sell it for him through the shop, but when it landed, I noticed it had slightly uneven focusing for a Zeiss ZM lens. He’d bought it ex-dem not long before too, so between us we decided to take advantage of the warranty send it to Zeiss for repair before it was resold.

Before it went though, I thought I’d tease myself with it. I had this little nagging feeling that I might favour it over the 28 – not because the 28 isn’t great – but more because I’m used to shooting with a 25mm Batis lens. As it turns out I was right. I think I’ve spent so much time with the Zeiss Batis lenses now that 25 and 85 just feel like the right fit me. Of course, 25 isn’t a natural choice for a rangefinder camera that only has frame lines as wide as 28mm, but actually I find that 25 works really well. It only takes a little bit of imagination to guess the framing, but the field of view advantage seems quite significant. I decided I wanted the 25mm for certain not long after Des’s lens went to Zeiss, so promptly bought a slightly tattier older (cheaper) one off eBay, and sold the 28mm. Now I have the 25mm, just like all the others, I’m satisfied that I have a lens that does exactly what I need and very little more or less.

The speed compromise

As far as I understand it, lens speed hasn’t always been quite as important to photographers as it seems to be these days. In fact, I think I’ve grown up in an era where lens speed has been something that’s almost universally highly prized. For me – at least in the early days of my photography – fast lenses were things that I sought out too. Back then, I was shooting a lot more photos of mates in bars late at night than I was shooting landscapes when out taking the dogs/kids for a walk – so I can argue a case that I did actually need the speed. Things have changed. I’ve grown out of that need for a set of ultra fast lenses, though it’s fair to say that my mentality has grown slower than that real terms need.

I’ve written about this a few times on this site, but a previous post that sticks out in my mind as being particularly relevant here is one I wrote about a Voigtlander 28mm f/1.9 lens I used to own. It stuck around in my collection for a long time waiting for a moment that I’d need a fast wide angle lens. That time never came, so in a moment of rational thinking I eventually sold it.

Yet, despite this, one of the mental hurdles I’ve had to overcome when committing to the idea of the Zeiss ZM line of lenses is that in the 25 and 85mm focal lengths, the options are only a f/2.8 and f/4 respectively. (I know Zeiss made an 85mm f/2 Sonnar, but those things go for a fortune and I just can’t justify that sort of cost for a focal length I don’t use that much.) For a long time, especially when it comes to the 85mm, I felt that these lenses were going to be just too slow for me.

Some practical thinking

What’s happened with my “low ebb” recently though has adjusted that mentality. It’s had me thinking a lot more practically than I have been for a while. It’s not that practical-Hamish didn’t exist, he was just being squashed by a different Hamish who could be a little too easily motivated by other less practical desires. In short, rather than buying these lenses through looking for something unnecessarily fast, different, unique, novel – or even just as something to write about – I’ve bought them quite simply to allow me take that sort of photos I actually take reliably and without too much thought to the kit.

Yes I like the way they render, but more than that, for me they are solid trustworthy workhorses that function as I need them and consistently as a set. It’s taken me a long time to get here, and has – somewhat ironically – taken a bit of a dip in my positivity about photography to get me here… I’m pleased I have got here now though. I feel like I have a bit of a cornerstone in my kit now. For all the other stuff I decide a “want” for whatever reason I can dream up at the time, behind it all I have what I “need” to fall back on when I just have a desire to be able to trust my kit to produce images at the peak of my requirements. And in a period of otherwise-grumpiness about photography, that feels quite reassuring.

Contribute to 35mmc for an Ad-free Experience

There are two ways to experience 35mmc without the adverts:

Paid Subscription - £2.99 per month and you'll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).
Subscribe here.

Content contributor - become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.
Sign up here.

About The Author

39 thoughts on “Zeiss ZM M-Mount Lenes – The Lenses I “Need”, and not just “Want””

  1. I’ve come to a similar conclusion of late but from a different angle. It took me a long time to move from respecting the 35mm f2.8 Biogon to loving it – primarily because I used it on my M3 (which lacks 35mm framelines) and was using the Summaron with goggles instead. That has had rangefinder alignment issues and with the arrival of an M5 (which I now find indispensable) the Biogon has lived on it and shown its absolute supremacy. I’ve also picked up a 50mm C Sonnar for its character and your 28mm Biogon (neither yet tested on film as I’ve just moved and have yet to get all my camera kit sorted). I’m going to stick to the 90mm Summicron though – it is an exquisite lens and that extra 2 stops over the TeleTessar makes a huge difference. I continue to use Leica glass as I love its rendering, but I look upon the M5 with Zeiss glass to be a medium format camera, so great is the sharpness and detail especially with pulled film in perceptol.

    1. It’s funny how often you can read of people seeing the results from their zeiss glass on 35mm as being medium-format like… I see that too. THe shot above of the trees I took with the 35mm 1.4 is a good example

  2. The zm lenses are amazing, the build quality is superb and the focus is as smooth as butter. I am very lucky to have access to them through my societies partnership with them

  3. Craig Schroeder

    Our recent paths parallel each other… I’ve acquired a number of ZM’s in the past year (21, 28, 35 and 50) and found each to have great character and are gratifying to own and use.

  4. The Zeiss lenses are wonderful tools. Build quality is off the charts great. I own the 35/1.4 and it is my favorite lens regardless of the extra weight. It delivers on all fronts for me. Leica lenses have their own character, a softening of the sharpness that has unique appeal. The best word I can use for Zeiss lenses is “exacting”. I know it’s a small thing, but the OM lens hoods on Leicas are horrible. For a pricey lens, the plastic hood on the 35 Cron is a joke. I feel more secure using knockoff screw in vented metal hoods. Voigtlander and Zeiss hood quality and connection (notched screw) are infinitely better, at a high cost. These hoods should be included with the lenses rather than as expensive adds.

  5. In complete agreement about Zeiss glass, even though not as far as you have done.

    My 50 Sonnar ZM and 25 ZM are always in my bag with my Z6. I was worried about the 25 being a bit too wide, since I like working in 28/50, but it works out just fine. They work great too with the M8. If I want to go crazy heavy I play with the Milvus 50…

    I don’t apologize for using Zeiss exclusively and leaving the leica glass mostly on the shelf. (but the 40/2 + M8 does make a tidy package). The Zeiss glass tend to give me the “Vermeer” look that I am looking for.

  6. What a pleasure to read your well-crafted words this morning Hamish. Being a bit older, I remember well the need for sexy, fast glass. My two Nikon F100s were frequently mated to Nikon 28mm f/1.4 AF-D and Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lenses.

    But alas, with the arrival of my Nikon D1 in the Spring of 2000, the true need for speed began diminishing. Without the fixed ISO of film, DSLRs ushered in a new era. The craft of photography changed forever after that. My sexy primes were replaced with more practical 17-35mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms and a 50mm f/1.4.

    Clearly the difference in a pro kit, and a personal one allows for more creative choices, and that’s why we do it, to make photography more fun and less work. Small, optical rangefinders will always be associated with 28-35-50mm lenses to me!

    1. Thanks John! I’ve gone full primes with my pro-kit too as it goes. Zeiss Batis 18, 25 & 85mm lenses with the Zeiss brand Sony 35 and 55mm in the middle. A near faultless set for me! If only I found the cameras more compelling to use…

    1. I just don’t think I will have a need to shoot it that way… That said, keep an eye out for next weeks post, it talks a bit more around this subject

  7. I know my lens kit is “right” when I realise I am no longer thinking about lenses. I can poke my hand in the camera bag and come up with what I want without undue cogitation. Now that my pictures are just for myself, it’s a different list, but for the last decade it’s been Voigtlanders and a couple of Minoltas for RF/film work, and Nikkors for everything else.
    Sony lenses are being used for an APS-C mirrorless set, but the jury is still out on those.
    Years ago I knew a press photographer who produced absolutely top-level work with a set of three Minolta SLR lenses. He was happy and never wanted for anything else.
    I’m not sure the lens selection process can be guided by anything other than personal experimentation.

  8. About 15 years ago, I got a very good deal on a new Contax G-2 with the 50mm f/2.0Planar and was completely blown away by there saturation, sharpness and contrast. So when I went for my first Leica digital, the M8, I went straight for the ZM Planar and the 35mm Biogon and never looked back.
    You either love the Zeiss look or you don’t. I now shoot with an M240 Leica and still use the Zeiss lenses. IMO, they are superior to any other lens on the market save for the newer Summilux lenses at a far greater price.

    1. I’m not sure about the very new Leica Lenses – they are great I’m sure, but they don’t hold appeal to me really.

      1. I’m glad they make them, and I’m glad others can afford them, but at multiples of the Zeiss lens cost, they aren’t ever going to be on my menu. The older Leica lenses are lovely and just about within reach. But I use them for different things.

  9. Landscape shot is stunning! Love it! I, too, am in love with the ZM range. I find them incredibly comfortable and change the ergonomics entirely (for the Sony series). The 25 biogon is absolutely exceptional. I’m debating which others I can justify and at times feel I should sell most other lenses to let these take over. For Sony the wides really some help from an appropriate front end filter to correct ray angles that otherwise smudge color and focus.

  10. This is interesting, am I surprised you’ve gone in this direction…no. Apart from the 50 planar as I think I read previously you weren’t a fan, preferring the sonnar over it. I can only compare the planar to the summicron, whist I felt cooler using the summicron and it was a bit of a talking point, I preferred the look of the planar images.

  11. Thanks for your nice article. Like you, I love the 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar. And my first 35mm lens for my M6 was the Biogon. Super, but I succumbed to the lure of the Summicron and so don’t use the Zeiss much anymore. (It’s so good, though, that I can’t bring myself to sell it.) In any case, I’m writing to plug the 21mm f/4.5 Biogon, which I very recently bought and find just fantastic. If you want to go really wide, I think you’d be impressed. — It’s also designated “C”, like the Sonnar, meaning that it is a relatively small lens.

  12. Pingback: Zeiss ZM M-Mount Lenes – The Lenses I “Need”, and not just “Want” – 35mmc – Meade Photography

  13. Hamish, isn’t it the “Welsh Borders”, not the Welsh Boarders, as you’ve written above. Unless you have Welsh boarders in the basement.

  14. Hi Hamish. Thanks for another great and informative article. I currently have two 50s for my M6 – a Summicron V4 (my fit and forget) and a Summarit f1.5 for when I want more classic rendering. I have a major case of GAS so am trying to convince myself that I need the Sonnar as well! Any thoughts on what type of circumstances that the Sonnar would cover better than either of those lenses would be very helpful and greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    1. Have you read my review – it’s all about the way it renders light, colour and contrast. It captures the “atmosphere” in my opinion… does that answer the question…?

  15. Yes I have read your thorough and incredible review multiple times! Perhaps it would be helpful if you could tell me how you would define the difference between a go to lens versus a fit and forget lens? Thanks so much again.

    1. Fit and forget for me is a lens that I can pick up and use without having to think about the outcome. The Sonnar isn’t that. It takes work and thought to use, but the results are worth the effort. It becomes a go to for the things that the effort is worth taking. I’m not sure if that helps…?

      1. Definitely makes sense. I also noticed in one of your reviews that you mentioned that you used to use the Summarit 50mm 1.5. What are your opinions of that lens? Also any thoughts on the Zeiss 50mm Planar vs the Summicron v4? Thanks again!

        1. The old summarit is a very different beast. It has an more pastel pallet, is crazy and soft wide open, but is quite fun. It’s basically a slightly nuts vintage lens.
          The ZM plannar is to my eye as high resolution as the summicron (though apparently it actually isn’t. It’s higher contrast though. It also suffers more distortion. The v4 cron is a superb well rounded lens.

  16. Pingback: The Most Read and Commented upon Posts Published on 35mmc in 2019 - 35mmc

  17. Pingback: Five frames in Winter Wonderland with a Leica 111F - by Michael Scott - 35mmc

  18. Hi! I’ve been contemplating on selling my digital Fujifilm set and Hasselblad 500CM to afford a used digital Leica rangefinder for my Zeiss ZM lenses (50/1.5 and 35/2.8 that I use on my Leica M6). I love the Zeiss look, too and would be nice it I could use them on both film and digital. I’ve never tried a digital rangefinder and it’s hard for me to stomach the price. I was thinking maybe a used Sony A7ii with an adapter will do? I don’t think the experience will be as good but is the quality a lot different, too? Any thoughts on that?

    I don’t know anyone around me who still shoots film and I use it mostly on ordinary everyday life but thanks to your website, there’s a film community at reach out there! 🙂

    1. Hi Anne, Yes, unfortunately the Zeiss ZM lenses don’t perform as well on the sonys – the think filter stack on the sensor increases smearing and colour shifts into the corners and they just generally don’t render as nice. There are a couple of companies that will modify the sony cameras to work better (Kolari for one), but once you have spent that cash – in my opinion – you are better of just going for a Leica. Maybe have a look at the M262 it’s a great camera and can be found for ok money these days. Nicer to handle/use than the 240 often for less money and it has a better screen. Is that helpful…?

  19. I’m considering the 50mm Planar ZM vs the Voigtlander 50mm Heliar 3.5 (the slower f stop doesn’t bother me ).

    You were very positive about the Heliar, so I wonder which you would choose if you didn’t take the ergonomics into account, just image rendering. I’m not a fan of laser-etched sharpness, and I can definitely see the three dimensional quality of the Heliar, it looks quite remarkable and at the same time the sharpness does seem fairly extreme in some images I’ve seen online (I realise this could be down to people increasing it in post I guess). I know the Planar f2 is considered a crazy sharp lens and doesn’t appear to have the same level of three dimensional properties (I might be wrong), but does have a less ‘biting’ look to the sharpness. This may sound convulted and ridiculous as its based on viewing examples online, but it’s all I have at my disposable so it would be great to hear your thoughts on the two lenses compared.

    I shoot digitally, apart from an XA so would be using either exclusively on digital. And currently I use an X-Pro1 and I have the 32mm Zeiss Touit which I like. The reason I chose that over the revered XF35mm 1.4 was the more 3D look to the images, despite it being nowhere near the level of the biogon shot in this article, which is crazy 3D.

    1. I would say the heliar – were it not for the ergonomics, I would definitely own one. Have you seen that voigtlander are bringing out the APO in m-mount – that is going to be the lens to challenge these I think. If it’s not too big…

      1. Hi,

        Many thanks for replying, much appreciated. I tend to set aperture and leave it so I’m not sure the ergonomics will be too much of an issue. I actually don’t like the look of the Heliar, and think it looks a bit silly on all but the older Leica bodies tbh but is not a deal breaker if the results are worth it.

        I’ve not seen the news about the APO but if it costs the same as the e mount, which I assume it will, it is far out of my price bracket. A shame as I really like the styling of the lens and the sample images on the cosina website look very nice. The images almost look like a perfect marriage of the slightly smoother sharpness of the 1.5 and the fantastic 3D trait of the 3.5…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top