21/4.5 or 25/2.8 - more useful focal length?

[gotium]

I have been using a ZI with a 35/2 lens for a few months, as my first rangefinder. I like it so much that I'd like to expand its use, and am thus considering another lens.

The 35/2 is fantastic, but I'd find occasion to go wider, for example for landscapes and seascapes, or sometimes indoors.

Any thoughts on which of the 21mm and 25mm might be the more useful focal length? Perhaps an unanswerable question, I know.

If anyone has used both lenses, I'd love to hear if there is any big difference in their rendering or sharpness as well.

 

[Turtle]

its very personal, but for me, 24/5 is the ideal to go with 35. I actually use 28 as I can shoot with the camera's internal finder and feel that this benefit outweighs the benefit of a more ideal spacing between 35 and 25.

A lot of people like the 21-35 combo, but I find the gulf between these two FLs pretty epic and need something more moderrate than 21 for day to day use. I regard 21 as a specialist FL on FF and when needed it is needed, but 24-28 have more regular application for most people.

As well as spacing the issue of an accessory finder is important. Whether it works for you is for you to determine. I love an accessory finder for zone focused action, but hate it for more deliberate work at wider apertures due to the annoyance of toggling between focus and external finder.

IMHO 21 is a great companion to 28 when you really need that super wide feel, but 24-28 the better buddy for 35, as it will not leave you asking for something in between quite so often. Personal thing...

 

[Austerby]

I find wider angle lenses better for urban or indoor environments than landscapes, as the wide foreground tends one to be forced to place a handy rock or sheep or other prominent feature in the frame to fill that foreground space, thus distracting from a shot where you're trying to photograph a vista. Modest telephoto lenses can be useful for landscapes so I'd encourage you to consider the use you'll put the lens to carefully, particularly if you're not familiar with the wider focal lengths.

If your other main use is indoors or interiors then the 25/2.8 is a fine lens, usefully faster than the 21/4.5 and with a wide view but without the edge stretching effect of wider angles. 25 is my favourite wide focal length. As mentioned, its also a good lens for built-up areas - whether little Greek villages or a modern metropolis.

Of course, both Zeiss lenses considered are reputedly amongst the finest made at any focal lengtjh, so it is purely a matter of personal preference.

 

[bwcolor]

I just purchased the 21mm f/4.5. My rational was that I have a 35mm and 28mm that allow for viewfinder framing. So, I'm thinking that I will only be taking my 21mm when I have an intended use. This is much the same as how I view my 90mm. I can see leaving the house with 90/50, 50/28, or 28/21.

 

[back alley]

i loved the zm 25 on my zi as it was as easy to use as a 28 but provided a bit of an edge to the look of the images compared to a 28. but then i started to want something a bit wider and got a 21/4.5 which i liked even more.
now, it becomes a near 35mm on my rd1.

 

[ZeissFan]

Personally, 25 will be more useful. 21 is very wide -- almost a specialist lens but not quite. But still very wide.

 

[bwcolor]

I question using the viewfinder for the 25mm while wearing glasses. I can barely see the 28mm and then only when changing perspective. Perhaps in a Zen sense spectacles and the 25mm work. I think that I would have skipped the 28mm and just gone for the 25mm should I have been in my pre-spectacle years.

 

[gotium]

What a great forum. I post a question as I go to bed, and by breakfast we have a slew of opinions.

Based on the above, I'm leaning to the 25 mm. I've not got really wide angle experience, so it might be easier to get a handle on. Not sure of using the built-in viewfinder, as I do have eyeglasses (unless a diopter is available?)

Austerby - I often keep a live ewe in the back seat of my car for that very reason. Makes for a distinctive flickr gallery.

 

[kxl]

This is a "world view" question so there's no right or wrong answer. Over the years, when using an RF, I've gone through just about every focal length from 12mm to 135mm, and I've found that for the vast majority of my images (on film), I use 3 focal lengths: 21mm, 35mm and 50mm.

I had the ZM 25/2.8, and sharp as it was, I just couldn't produce anything that I liked. It wasn't the lens. It was the focal length. In same cases, I re-shoot the same scene with a 21mm and in others, I would re-shoot it with a 35mm, and found that I liked all of the re-shoots.

Anyway, to make a long story short, in terms of IQ, you cannot go wrong with any of the ZM lenses in those focal lengths (25/2.8, 21/4.5, 21/2.8), but you'll have to judge for yourself if those focal lengths suit yoiu.

 

[Tom A]

I have to admit that I am biased towards the 21. Probably more as a habit as in the 60's that was my standard wide (either a Biogon 21f4.5 or the 21f3.4 Super Angulon).
I find the 21 easy to deal with and my current favorite is the ZM Biogon 21f4.5. I do have the 25f2.8 too and use it occasionally - but certainly not as much as the 21f4.5 - which I consider one of the best 21's ever made, by anyone!
The old trick was to "double" FL. 21/35/90mm - possibly a 50 for the more "indecisive" moments.
As for quality - the ZM 25f2.8 is almost absurdly sharp! I had the 24f2.8 Asph Elmarit and got rid of that when i got the ZM 25!
I find that the 25/35 combo being a bit too close for my taste - but to each his own.
One way out of your conundrum would be to pick up a used 25f2.8 and snap up a used/new Voigtlander 21f4 (it is small enough to fit comfortably in a pocket) for the difference.
As for accessory finders - it is not as bad as it sounds and you quickly get used to them.

 

[Austerby]

The old trick was to "double" FL. 21/35/90mm - possibly a 50 for the more "indecisive" moments.

Interesting. I've settled on 25/50/90 which similarly follows that rule but in a different way. I also have the 15mm VC lens and a 135mm for the extremes, but those three are my basic kit.

(Now I have only to choose between my six 50mm lenses and I'm working to reduce them to two - one vintage and one modern, but which....)

 

[ferider]

I personally find, in complement to a 35, a longer rather than a shorter lens much more useful for landscapes. 85 or 90 would be my next pick.

That very wides and landscapes go together, is a wrong stereotype, IMHO.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I double not focal length but angle of view, with rangefinder lenses... 15-40-90.

With Nikon 20-50-105, and with Hasselblad the standard 50-80-150.

By the way, I feel wide only the 15mm lens. The Nikkor 20mm, although being just 5mm from it, is to my eye a lot more "normal". Once I traveled for a month through 6 countries in Europe, plus Egypt, just with the 20 and an SLR, and didn't miss a longer lens.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Tom A]

Juan. sometimes I think we are to preoccupied with various focal lengths. Often we can get away with the "1 camera/1 lens" to no detriment to the pictures.
However, having only a 20mm would be a bit of a challenge - though not an impossible one. Would be nice if you posted some stuff from that trip as a teaching aid for the rest of us!
I once lived with a M4 and a 90f2.8 for 6 month as my only camera/lens. Taught me how to walk backwards a lot!
Every month I start out with the idea of 1 lens/1 camera but it usually takes about 3-4 days for that idea to die. I should really lock the camera cabinets and hide the keys and start it for one month. Now, which camera, which lens? Too many choices - though a M2 and a 40f1.4 would be a good candidate! Hmm, 50 rolls of XX and that kit - no meter, no shoulder bag, just big pockets with film and some change for coffee breaks.
Oh, wait, the Nokton 50 f1.1 maybe - well you see what I mean about choices!

 

[BillBingham2]

I hate to say it but it really depends upon the lens and you. I grew up on a 24/2.8 Nikkor and did not love it. Respected it as it's a great lens, but did not love it. Picked up a CV 25/4 as part of a bigger deal for next to nothing and found I love the lens. So much so as I migrated over the an S2 my kit was 25/50/105. Is one millimeter enough to make a difference, I found out no, it's the lens. I have never really liked any Nikkor 28mm lenses until I got a 28/2.8 AIs. The others were too like my 24, foot ball makers. Same thing with my Elmarit 21/2.8, never really liked it, though I loved my old CV 15/4.5.

You can not just look at the focal length and decide if you like the lens, each lens design even from the same company is different. In a perfect world you could try a roll or two through each, carry it for a day, rent it and see. I had a 50/1.4 chrome Nikkor and liked it, but my new 50/1.4 Millennium I LOVE. Some people say that the 4th version of the pre-Asph 35mm Cron was the best, but for you it might not be.

I know it's a strange idea, but perhaps a jump to 18 or 15mm might be better? The new CV 15 looks really well built.

B2 (;->

 

[uhligfd]

I prefer lens arrays in about a 1.4 to 1.5 times progression.

As you have a 35 mm lens, the one's to get are: 12 mm, 16 mm, 25 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm, 105 mm, and 135 mm. That - with the 35 mm lens you have - makes 8 lenses and a broken bank.

Any more idle questions?

 

[peter_n]

I also have a bias, I tried with a 21 for a couple years and it didn't work for me, got a 24 and instant karma, so there you go. If your definition of "useful" is "can be used in more situations" then the 25 is the choice, and I find that focal length also goes very well with the 35. YMMV. My most used two lens kit is 35/75 with the 24 for when the 35 isn't quite wide enough, which I think is your situation too.

That very wides and landscapes go together, is a wrong stereotype, IMHO.

Sometimes it can work when you have a very strong & close foreground though.

 

[gotium]

There was, for example, a fantastic pool at the bottom right here, that just wouldn't fit in my 35mm frameline.

 

[BillBingham2]

That is why God made verticals, for times like this. And to annoy my wife who thinks there is no such thing. Horizontal is all she allows, makes me wonder what she would do with a full frame 'Blad shot?

B2 (;->

 

[gotium]

That is why God made verticals, for times like this. And to annoy my wife who thinks there is no such thing. Horizontal is all she allows, makes me wonder what she would do with a full frame 'Blad shot?

B2 (;->

Bill, every time I try that I fall over and twist an ankle.

That CV 21 that Tom A refers to is waaay less expensive than the Zeiss. Hadn't noticed that. Perhaps a useful introduction to the focal length although, as some of you mentioned, the relevance of focal length is sometimes eclipsed for me by just how "special" a given lens is. I found on SLRs that the Pentax 31mm lens is my favorite for film, and probably for digital, too, despite a 1.5x crop factor. Odd.