rpilottx
Established
I am getting ready to add either a 21mm or 25mm lens to my collection. I am leaning toward the 25 as I have a 15mm and the 24mm is one of my favorite focal lengths for my Nikon F. The next longest lens in my M mount battery is the 35 and I think the 28 would be too close.
I know the Voigtlander lenses are f4 while the Zeiss are f2.8. However, I don't think that justifies prices almost 3 times as much for the Zeiss. And there is actually very little written on this board about the 21 and 24 mm focal length lenses from either manufacture.
I am leaning toward the Voigtlander lenses primarily as I don't expect to use the lens a whole lot as I prefer 35mm. Thanks for comments.
I know the Voigtlander lenses are f4 while the Zeiss are f2.8. However, I don't think that justifies prices almost 3 times as much for the Zeiss. And there is actually very little written on this board about the 21 and 24 mm focal length lenses from either manufacture.
I am leaning toward the Voigtlander lenses primarily as I don't expect to use the lens a whole lot as I prefer 35mm. Thanks for comments.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The 25mm Zeiss has gained a reputation as being one of the best lenses available to Leica M shooters today. I personally use the 21mm f/2.8 ZM and it's fantastic. If you're going for a few millimeters longer, the 25mm ZM is the one to get in my opinion. The 25mm Skopar is nice, quite a bit smaller and a full stop slower but the images that come out of the Zeiss are outstanding. many people will say that the Biogon offerings are better than the Leica equivalents, Erwin Puts included. Not having used the Leica 21 or 24 Elmarits I can't say for myself. (I have used the Super Angulon though and it is without peers).
The Zeiss lenses are fantastic, but a bit more expensive. Both your choices are good ones, ZM or Voigtlander.
Phil Forrest
The Zeiss lenses are fantastic, but a bit more expensive. Both your choices are good ones, ZM or Voigtlander.
Phil Forrest
Krosya
Konicaze
Actually, I think thee was alot said about most of these lenses.
I've had them all. In short:
CV 25 - good, but didnt really impress me. In part because 25mm is not my favorite FL for a RF.
CV 21 - very very very good. Bettered by ZM 21/2.8, of course, but still is very good.
ZM 25 - great lens. I liked everything about it other than 25mm FL.
ZM 21/2.8 - best 21mm lens I have used in any system. Very sharp, but can have nice bokeh too when wide open. I kind miss it.
Out of all these I own CV 21 now as the best lens for the money.
Side note - I do like 24//25 on SLR cameras, but not RF - have no idea why, but thats how it is for me.
I'd recommend to search on Google for more RFF info on these, as well as check Flickr for pics.
I've had them all. In short:
CV 25 - good, but didnt really impress me. In part because 25mm is not my favorite FL for a RF.
CV 21 - very very very good. Bettered by ZM 21/2.8, of course, but still is very good.
ZM 25 - great lens. I liked everything about it other than 25mm FL.
ZM 21/2.8 - best 21mm lens I have used in any system. Very sharp, but can have nice bokeh too when wide open. I kind miss it.
Out of all these I own CV 21 now as the best lens for the money.
Side note - I do like 24//25 on SLR cameras, but not RF - have no idea why, but thats how it is for me.
I'd recommend to search on Google for more RFF info on these, as well as check Flickr for pics.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have or have used most of the wides made by Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander/ Koablux/Ricoh etc.
The Zeiss 25f2.8 is the best offering in the 24/25mm focal length. Its reputation is justified.
The VC 25f4 is extremely good, particularly when you take the price in consideration- and it is actually very close to either 24f2.8 Elmarit and the ZM 25f2.8. Another advantage is that it takes 39 mm filters too.
The ZM 21f2.8 is on par with the 21f2.8 Leica Elmarit - not as "snappy" as the Asph version though. Some distorsion - though not disturbing in any way.
The VC 21f4 is a bit of a "killer" lens - slower than the 2.8's - but extremely good and virtually no distorsion (better than Leica Elmarit Asph 21!!!!!)
The "king of the hill" is in my estimation the ZM 21f4.5 - 0 distorsion and tack sharp!
It all depends what you are going to use it for:
Architecture/Interiors: The ZM 21f4.5
Street/people in decent light: either the VC 21 or VC 25 will serve you well - and leave lots of money left in tour pocket!
Low light- wide open: either the 21f2.8 or 25f2.8 ZM is more than adequate.
Money no object "21mm f1.4 or 24f1.4 Asph Summilux - but only for its wide open performance - by the time you hit f2.8 and f4 - the others are just as good.
The Zeiss 25f2.8 is the best offering in the 24/25mm focal length. Its reputation is justified.
The VC 25f4 is extremely good, particularly when you take the price in consideration- and it is actually very close to either 24f2.8 Elmarit and the ZM 25f2.8. Another advantage is that it takes 39 mm filters too.
The ZM 21f2.8 is on par with the 21f2.8 Leica Elmarit - not as "snappy" as the Asph version though. Some distorsion - though not disturbing in any way.
The VC 21f4 is a bit of a "killer" lens - slower than the 2.8's - but extremely good and virtually no distorsion (better than Leica Elmarit Asph 21!!!!!)
The "king of the hill" is in my estimation the ZM 21f4.5 - 0 distorsion and tack sharp!
It all depends what you are going to use it for:
Architecture/Interiors: The ZM 21f4.5
Street/people in decent light: either the VC 21 or VC 25 will serve you well - and leave lots of money left in tour pocket!
Low light- wide open: either the 21f2.8 or 25f2.8 ZM is more than adequate.
Money no object "21mm f1.4 or 24f1.4 Asph Summilux - but only for its wide open performance - by the time you hit f2.8 and f4 - the others are just as good.
rpilottx
Established
Thanks for Info
Thanks for Info
Thanks for the replies. I am still not sure which focal length I want or how much I will actually use it. Both brands certainly have their advantages as does the different focal lengths.
Of course, I can get along without either one. I think I am leaning toward the 21f4.5 but I have time to think it over. And actually if you go through all six pages of the Voigtlander posts, there really is very little written about these lenses. Or should I be looking elsewhere on RFF.
And Tom, I just got a very nice M2. Do you have any rapidwinders available?
Thanks for Info
Thanks for the replies. I am still not sure which focal length I want or how much I will actually use it. Both brands certainly have their advantages as does the different focal lengths.
Of course, I can get along without either one. I think I am leaning toward the 21f4.5 but I have time to think it over. And actually if you go through all six pages of the Voigtlander posts, there really is very little written about these lenses. Or should I be looking elsewhere on RFF.
And Tom, I just got a very nice M2. Do you have any rapidwinders available?
Richard G
Veteran
I have the ZM and the Voigtländer 25. I love this focal length and have quickly learned to use it. I went to Queensland on holiday and the compactness of the Voigtländer was very convenient. It felt a little ridiculous pasted onto the front of an M5. I can't part with the Zeiss but if starting again I would be happy for most things I use them for to just have the Voigtländer. Also, if starting again I might have been braver and gone one FL wider to 21 for my wider-than-35, but I'm glad I didn't. Soon I'll get a 21 as well.
Turtle
Veteran
Litte CVs are not as sharp at f4 and have more vignetting. The ZMs are better technically, but if you tend to shoot at f8 then get the CV. I use my CV 21P as a super little 'take it anyway' lens bec it is so light - half the weight and size of my 21 ZM. For out and out performance tho the Zeiss images have more sparkle and are better int the corners when that matters.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I don't have and have not used any of these lenses but the ZM 21/4.5. The 21/4.5 is so much fun. I'm not too worried about the slow speed because when I need more speed I just switch to my 28 Summicron.
I suppose if I had the 21/1.4 or some other fast 21, I wouldn't need both, but oh well. I find the distinction in the two lenses helps me decide when to use them. The 28 is my indoor, all purpose, low light, one lens setup. I went out the other night with some P3200TMZ and the 28/2 and didn't feel the need for anything else. The 21 is for when I go out in good light, travel, 'architecture' lens. I'm usually packing at least a second lens and/or camera when I'm using the 21, as 21 isn't as much of an all purpose focal length (for me).
The 21/4.5 is really great. No distortion, very sharp, pretty small, and it has a nice look. The vignette is interesting, and it has a touch of flare with highlights that gives it a bit of an old school look to me. Again, I don't know how this compares to the other 21s.
I suppose if I had the 21/1.4 or some other fast 21, I wouldn't need both, but oh well. I find the distinction in the two lenses helps me decide when to use them. The 28 is my indoor, all purpose, low light, one lens setup. I went out the other night with some P3200TMZ and the 28/2 and didn't feel the need for anything else. The 21 is for when I go out in good light, travel, 'architecture' lens. I'm usually packing at least a second lens and/or camera when I'm using the 21, as 21 isn't as much of an all purpose focal length (for me).
The 21/4.5 is really great. No distortion, very sharp, pretty small, and it has a nice look. The vignette is interesting, and it has a touch of flare with highlights that gives it a bit of an old school look to me. Again, I don't know how this compares to the other 21s.
SteveM
Established
The choice depends on what you already have and whether you need the speed. Before I made this choice I had a 28mm Zeiss. Since I didn't know how much I would use a 21mm lens I got the CV 21P. Advantages of this lens, in addition to price, are small size and 39mm filter which is shared by some of my other lenses. I'm very happy with this choice. With its small size and weight I always carry it, and therefore it gets used quite a bit.
Steve
Steve
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Hard to make a bad choice among this lot. It really is a great time to be a Leica M or LTM shooter. I found that the 21mm focal length took some learning to use well. My advice would be to start with the C/V offerings because they are a really low-cost way to see whether this FL is something that you will use. If not, sell and get most of your money back. If so, sell and get most of your money back and upgrade to the Zeiss versions.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
After reading the comments here - I think I may opt for a ZM 25mm myself - while I like the Leica 24mm Elmar, it's just a wee bit "slow" (not that f2.8 is a speed demon compared to f3.8) for me using it for weddings (specifically indoors if I want to use 400 ISO film).
Cheers,
dave
Cheers,
dave
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I agree completely with Ben in trying the CV options. Your path would be:
1) find if 21mm or 25mm focal length works for you but a minimal financial outlay.
2) if either of those focal lengths do not work for you, resell here and get most of your money back. Be happy you learned that at minimal cost.
3) if one of those focal lengths do work for you, then see if the optical quality meets your needs (and I bet it will.)
4) if the optical quality is good, be happy that you are satisfied with the lowest cost option being the CV.
5) if you think the optical quality of the CV lenses need improvement (and I think you will not), then pay the money to see if the Zeiss meets your needs. Then sell the one you decide not to use. You can be happy that you made an educated choice in the money you spent.
FWIW, I have 2 Zeiss lenses currently, a 35mm f2.0 and a 28mm f2.8. I have 3 CV lenses currently, a 28mm f3.5, 25mm f3.5 and a 21mm f4.0. Optically I can see almost no difference in my everyday shooting. I use the 25mm and 21mm very little so am happy that I did not buy the Zeiss equivalents to sit on the shelf.
Lastly, remember there are real tradeoffs between lens speed, weight & size, and cost. I do not see optical quality as one of the tradeoffs as they area all better lenses than we are photographers. Make an honest assessment which tradeoffs are really important to you. Do not automatically assume that a faster lens is better. You may use that extra speed so little that it is not worth the weight which is there all time. And cost is an ever present factor. OTOH, if you are one of those who believes the limiting factor in the overall quality of your photographs is that you only spent $350 for the lens when you could have spent $1,000; then buy the more expensive glass. Then you will have to find a new excuse.