Torn between Leica 24mm v. Zeiss 25mm

N

napoleonesq

Established
Local time
2:38 PM
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
59
I am torn between these two lenses...I know Elmarit is about twice the price...but ... I heard such rave reviews, so can't decide.

Also, Zeiss Biogon appears to be M8 modified and I heard you cant use it on the film bodies...is that true?

I have an M7 and M8 bodies...it would be nice to use it on the M8 and on M7.

Any suggestions?
 
Thanks, Double Negative, for the gallery. I've been looking for some good color examples from the ZM 2.8/25, particularly of building interiors, architecture, etc. I just ordered a used lens from Tony Rose to go with my Biogon 2/35 and Planar 2/50, and it looks as though I made the right decision if your shots are any example. I shoot about 80% color and 20% B&W so am a bit more concerned as to how the lens performs with color.
 
napoleonesq said:
I am torn between these two lenses...I know Elmarit is about twice the price...but ... I heard such rave reviews, so can't decide.

Also, Zeiss Biogon appears to be M8 modified and I heard you cant use it on the film bodies...is that true?

I have an M7 and M8 bodies...it would be nice to use it on the M8 and on M7.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...


Zeiss took a production sample biogon 25 and ZI body and recorded 400 lpmm on Spur orthopan film - the diffraction limit at f4. That's an astounding performance. The ZF 50 1.4 has recently been measured at 320lpmm, also way ahead of most competition.

These numbers make me smile when people wonder if a 1Ds3 out resolves lenses - a max resolution of 78lpmm is nowhere near. Of course, normal film won't record this, but I've got some Adox CHM to play with:)

Mike
 
I ran out of film once and was shooting a roll of expired Kodak Gold 800 that I swore I'd never shoot. Everything turned out muddy and ugly except the few frames I took with a friend's 24mm Elmarit which all had a nice glow to them. I was pretty impressed but it's way out of my price range.

2834232772_46f1b6ce61.jpg
 
I have had them both. I now use the 25 for most of that wide angle work. Fantastic lens. Ultra, super sharp. I sold the 24mm.
 
I was torn between the two lenses. I looked at around 600 photos online taken with the 24 Elmarit and 25 Biogon. It was a dizzying experience but I found that I always gravitated toward the photos taken with the Elmarit. There is something about the way this lens draws with the aperture wide-open that I just love. Despite the huge price difference, I went with the Elmarit and have no regrets. For me, it was no contest. You can't go wrong with either lens though. Even the Voigtlander 25 Skopar would be a really good choice.

Some photos:





The photo from CapitalK above was also taken with my Elmarit.
 
I briefly tested the Zeiss 25 earlier this year (film) and it was perfectly sharp with nice background blur at close distance. I cant comment on the Leitz or Cosina lenses.
 
I used the 24mm Elmarit for a day and found it to be an amazing lens. I liked everything about it (except availability/price). I recently purchased the 25mm Biogon and it's equally as good..IMHO. I think if you shoot alot with this focal length and price is not a consideration the 24mm Elmarit is the best choice. The biogon, however, is right on its heels.

Bob
 
Thanks for all the feedback....

I am beginning to lean towards Biogon considering what I read...The CV Skopar is good too, but it's a bit too slow for me.
 
I was told that on the M7 0.58 the border of the viewfinder is equivalent to the 24 mm angle of view and it is not necessary an external viewfinder. I guess should be the same with the 25. Can anyone confirm this ? or should with one of these two lenses an external viewfinder necessary ?
 
I had the 24f2.8 Asph for many years, but when I got the ZM 28f2.8 I sold it off! For bl/w I found the Asph a bit harsh, whilst the ZM 28 has a very smooth tonality.
The only competition for the ZM 25 at the moment is the new Elmar 24f3.8 Asph from Leica. I had a chance to shoot with it for a day and a bit in Louisville,KY. It is extremely good! I dont know if it outresolves the ZM, but it certainly had a "bite" to it. Quite small and compact too. It has one of the most fascinating MTF curves I have seen. It is a "flat liner" - no distorsion and the only thing you gain by stopping it down is depth of field (and being a 24 - that is still substantial at f3.8). I am seriously considering one for 2009 and as it is a "bargain" by Leica Standard's (about $2400) it is doable.
The 24f1.4 and the 21f1.4 are "tour de force" designs, but at $7000 each - they are outside of what I consider reasonable for lenses!
 
robert blu said:
I was told that on the M7 0.58 the border of the viewfinder is equivalent to the 24 mm angle of view and it is not necessary an external viewfinder. I guess should be the same with the 25. Can anyone confirm this ? or should with one of these two lenses an external viewfinder necessary ?
Click to expand...

I have a 0.58 finder and I usually shoot the 25 Zeiss without viewfinder. It depends a lot if you wear glasses (I do). With them you have to look around quite a bit, but it's usable. I do reportage photography and never had a problem with this procedure. I use the Biogon 25 as an abundant 28mm.
Anyway, if you don't wear glasses the FoV is very very close to that of the Biogon and I think you can shoot with it very comfortably.
I surely wouldn't say the external viewfinder is necessary, even if Zeiss VFs are spectacular!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom