M8 (crop) - what did you choose to get 35mm?

[brbo]

24/25 or 28?

Why?

I'm considering Zeiss Biogon 2,8/25 vs. Zeiss Biogon 2,8/28 or CV Ultron 28/2. Currently I have 35mm, 40mm (will sell) and 50mm lenses.

My 25 pro/cons:

+ wider (you can always crop)
+ not so close to 35mm that I have
+ people seem to find it just a bit better than 2,8/28
- no frame lines on film bodies (I won't use external viewfinder)
- more viewfinder blocking

28 pro/cons:

+ closer to 35mm that I have so maybe I could just sell 35mm and use 28mm + 50mm (on digital and film)
+ a bit more selection (m-hexanon 28, ultron 28/1.9, ultron 28/2 - I'm not listing Leicas that are more than I wan't to spend)
- maybe just a bit too narrow on crop


Now, I know you can't tell me what focal length I prefer. I'm just looking for some additional points that maybe I haven't thought of.

Thanks!

 

[LCT]

24 and 25 are too wide for me. Too much DoF. The equiv 35 for me is 28, nothing else.

 

[segedi]

The 25mm isn't that far from a 28mm frameline. You should be able to estimate this pretty easily on a film body that has the 28mm frameline. Or get a Bessa R4A (or M) and you'll have the frameline builtin. Since you already have 35mm - I'd opt for the 25mm if in your shoes.

I have the Zeiss 25mm and it is a very nice lens. But the CV 25mm has one plus, in my book and one minus. It's smaller and lighter - considerably so, but you have to live with f/4.

 

[KarlG]

I recently had the same decision to make and was looking at the two Biogons (25/28) & the 28/2 Ultron as well. What helped me in my decision was looking at the difference in framelines (using the preview lever) between 35mm and 28/25mm - once I saw how close 28mm was, it strengthened my resolve to go with the 25mm due to the greater spread in focal lengths.

I only got the 25 Biogon this week, but so far the performance of this lens is pretty mind blowing - bitingly sharp across the frame, minimal distortion, lovely rendering...

Only comment I will make is that, if you're used to a 35mm on your M8, using the correct framelines may take a bit of getting used to, as the 24mm frame is paired with the 35mm and I've caught myself framing with the wrong lines if I haven't been fully mindful if it.

Other than that (extremely minor) consideration, it's a very special lens!

 

[Stephen G]

On the M8, the ZM25 is fantastic.
It is a universally lauded lens. Not one that you hear hit-and-miss stories about. Some even find it to make better images than the much pricier Leica 24/2.8.
It is certainly one of the tops in the ZM line and tops in the wider-than-35 range.
On the M8 you get the 24mm framelines which are about right.

I find it really shines in B&W, but its color rendition is flawless.

My M8+ZM25 shots are here

Some of my particular faves..
Note I tend to add vignette, particularly on the B&W in post process.

 

[LCT]

...you can always open up to f/2.8 or get closer...

Hardly makes an ultra-wide more equivalent to a wide this.

 

[thegman]

I don't shoot digital, but I'd go 28mm, more choice, and you can get fast 28mm lenses easier than 25mm.

 

[Tom Niblick]

I went for a 21 Zeiss Biogon together with my 35 Summicron IV and 90 Elmarit M as a M8 kit. But I found the 21 too wide most of the time and occasionally not wide enough. So much so that it became the least used lens. I really missed the 35 EOV.

I was debating on trading the Biogon for a 28 Elmarit type IV or just biting the bullet and getting a M9. Well I bit the bullet. Cost me nearly all of my Nikon and Leica gear (except the 35 and 90).

Were I to put a M8 kit together now, the 28 Elmarit type IV would be at the top of my list. Followed by the 25 or 28 Biogons. The 28 CV Ultron would be last - not because it is a bad lens but rather because the others are so good.

The Biogons are outstanding lenses. Crisp with a beautiful color rendition. They take a different kind of photograph. I always felt the captures looked like something out of the pages of Architectural Digest - which is a very good look indeed.

The 28 Elmarit Type IV is special because it performs very closely to the 28 Summicron and has the same endearing image quality as the 35 Summicron type IV. Comparing this lens to a Biogon would like be comparing Kodachrome to Ektachrome. The results just look different. A 28 Elmarit type IV can be found for $1,100 to $1,500 used.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

I ended up with the 28 cron -- but I also like using the g-Rokkor 28 because of it's compact size. I had focussing issues with the hexanon 28 and didn't find the w
28 elmarit asph and 28 v4 as emotionally appealing as the draw of the f2 cron I think because of the increased depth of field.

 

[Rob-F]

I use the 28 Summicron. The 37mm equivalent is good as a general walkabout lens. I tried the 24mm. It would be good if I could see the frame lines. But I can't, with glasses. For me the 28 is the Goldilocks lens on the M8.2.

 

[jarski]

personal favorite is 50mm equiv, but had Biogon 28 on M8 and it was great pair. like said above, 28's are easier to find.

 

[Lss]

I went with the 28/1.9 Ultron. The 28 Summicron was simply too much money. In addition to M8, I have 28-mm framelines on the Epson R-D1 and my film camera, which makes this a much nicer focal length to use. I also wanted the extra stop over the 25/2.8 Biogon (which was the wider contender), since this lens and the 35/1.4 will be my most used lenses on the M8. I don't think the 28 is too close to the 35, but you may feel different.

I would still like to try the Biogon, too. If the extra stop is no issue, it is probably the better lens.


Here's one with the Ultron on M8:



And I think it was the Ultron on the R-D1 for this one:

 

[tmfabian]

i chose the 28/2.8 elmarit. relatively cheap, small, and sharp.

 

[noimmunity]

I picked up a 28 cron at a time when they could be had here for the price at which the elmarit asph nows sells.

Tried many other 28s and the ZM 25. The best was probably the ZM 28 or the CV 28/1.9, but the latter flares too easily, while the former lacks that extra stop that can be so useful on the M8. But if you're ready to switch to your fast 35 or 50 when need be, the slower aperture lenses aren't such a big deal.

 

[brbo]

Thank you all for your comments.

I'm still undecided (well, I'm leaning a bit more toward 25). It might even come down to how good a deal I can get, even though I don't think this is a way of deciding on a focal length.

Gentlemen that sold me his M8.2 told me that he knows of a guy that is selling an Elmarit 28 pre-asph for €700. How good is 28mm Elmarit pre-asph (I don't know which version)? New Zeiss seem to be €850 (2,8/28) and €950 (2,8/25) if you can find them and Ultron 28/2 around €550.

Oh, one question about Zeiss 28 and 25. They focus down to 0,5m, right? Do you find that a problem in real life? Can you feel the point when the lens is no more coupled to rangefinder? I can imagine a situation when that could be a problem when working at around 0,7m.

 

[LCT]

...How good is 28mm Elmarit pre-asph (I don't know which version)? New Zeiss seem to be €850...

There are four versions of the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 pre-asph. As far as sharpness is concerned, only the v4 # 11809 (1992-2006) is significantly better than the Zeiss 28/2.8 but it is generally more expensive than the latter. Given the price you've got, yours is probably a v2 (# 11801, 1969-1979) or a v3 (# 11804, 1979-1992).
I've used the v3 in the past. It is a very good lens but i preferred the Rokkor 28/2.8 then and putting size aside, i would hesitate to recommend both over the Zeiss 28/2.8 or the CV 28/1.9 now.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Neither focal length worked that well for me, but I was on the point of ordering a 24 Summilux (I'd had one on loan for a few weeks) when the M9 came out. After decades of using a 35 Summilux, 24 was too wide and 28 too long. To my surprise, I found I was happier with a completely different focal length, namely 50/1.5 (=67 equivalent), even though, at that time, I almost never used 50 on full-frame. The speed mattered as much as the focal length.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Austerby]

I chose the Voigtlander 28mm f2 Ultron.

Can't think why this isn't a more popular lens.

 

[RFA]

Hi
I've both the 25 and 28mm Zeiss lenses, they are both excellent performers but as a spectacle wearer I don't find the 24mm framelines all that easy to see so I tend to use the 28 more often, I also used to have the 28mm X 1.9 Ultron but found it rather large and clumsy, but it performed well.
Ron

 

[Lss]

I also used to have the 28mm X 1.9 Ultron but found it rather large and clumsy, but it performed well.

As a fairly recent 28/1.9 buyer, I agree with you. It feels big (I especially compare it against the 35/1.4 Nokton which is much smaller - and amazingly tiny for its speed) and mine does not have a focus tab. Many lenses handle better, but the performance is good. Overall, I am happy with it.