[Klaus]

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de...a2821.html

[Rover]

Is that a sliding hood? Or did they just use a fixed one for no reason whatsoever, just like in some of Pentax and Voigtländer lenses?

[Brightcolours]

Not a fixed hood nor a sliding hood. Just a detachable lens hood. The Loxia 35mm f2 such a hood too. Just does not look that striking because it is not UWA "petal" design. Same with the 50mm f2.

[Rover]

Ah, I stand corrected. It was just because all the pics in the first wave - including the block diagram - showed the lens with the hood that I thought it's non-removable. The lens looks remarkably compact, by the way.

[Brightcolours]

It is a lens for 18mm flange distance. That means it can be made small. For DSLRs. 21mm needs to be a (more?) retrofocus design, because of the bigger flange distance. It is only 21mm and f2.8, this lens is not remarkably small after all. They can be much smaller, but Zeiss lately is designing all kinds of corrections in their lenses, so they become complex with a lot of elements, and I think that forces this lens to be a retrofocus design as well.

 

For real compactness, look at the Voigtlander 20mm f4:

http://voigtlaender.com/21-mm-f-4%2c0-color-skopar-p-typ.html

The pancake 20mm for SLRs is very compact too, by the way.

[Rover]

It is a lens for 18mm flange distance. That means it can be made small. For DSLRs. 21mm needs to be a (more?) retrofocus design, because of the bigger flange distance. It is only 21mm and f2.8, this lens is not remarkably small after all. They can be much smaller, but Zeiss lately is designing all kinds of corrections in their lenses, so they become complex with a lot of elements, and I think that forces this lens to be a retrofocus design as well.

 

For real compactness, look at the Voigtlander 20mm f4:

http://voigtlaender.com/21-mm-f-4%2c0-color-skopar-p-typ.html

The pancake 20mm for SLRs is very compact too, by the way.

"Only" 21mm f/2.8? Sounds pretty good by me. Besides, it's probably optimized for IQ, and outright compactness was probably not on the agenda. Compare the performance of the ZF 21mm and the Color-Skopar 20mm - they were both tested here in the Zone - and you'll see why. But I'm sure you already know it all.

[Brightcolours]

"Only" 21mm f/2.8? Sounds pretty good by me. Besides, it's probably optimized for IQ, and outright compactness was probably not on the agenda. Compare the performance of the ZF 21mm and the Color-Skopar 20mm - they were both tested here in the Zone - and you'll see why. But I'm sure you already know it all.

The 20mm f3.5 tests badly at PZ MFT distances, but performs better at normal "infinity" distances. And you are right, corrections make a lens bigger.

I meant the "only" as in 21mm f2.8 is not spectacular, so the lens is not remarkably small. But the lens sounds good to me too.  B)

[Rover]

Oh, you're spoiled! Of course there are a few 20/21mm f/1.8 lenses out there but they're rather exotic anyway, and the Sigma isn't exactly a stellar performer (the performance of Nikon and the Voigtländer is still an unknown value, at least I don't remember any Voigt tests, and the Nikkor hasn't been tested here yet; Lenstip and SLRgear have tested it and it looks like it has its share of issues as well).