21 vs 25

[Peter_S]

I shot the 2.8/21mm G-Biogon on the Contax G2. After switching to the M-system I chose the 25mm over the 21mm because if its reputation as a perfect lens and the ability to shoot without external VF. Well...not matter how good the lens, 25mm just did not work for me at all. I tried hard to like the lens though.
I only shot those lenses on film, mind you.

Still, 25mm and 21mm are too different to base the decision on the technical performance.

 

[Tony Whitney]

I use both and they're both excellent and affordable CV lenses - a 21 mm on my Leica M6 and a 25 mm on my Nikon S3 2000. I never use either of them on my Ricoh GXR M-mount as the CV 15 mm gets you into that focal length bracket and again, is outstanding...TW

 

[Mark Schretlen]

I used to have a strong preference, but now I just let biogons be biogons.

 

[swoop]

I haven't used a 21mm in awhile. Mine was stolen about 2 years ago and never bothered replacing it but I'm starting to kinda miss it. I have a 25mm but I'm finding that when I want to go wide the 25mm just isn't wide enough so I'm considering selling it for a 21mm.

 

[raid]

Both lenses are most likely equally good for their focal length. The 35mm les usually shows less distortion and is close to a modestly wide 28mm lens while the 21mm is very wide. Digital sensors may do better with lenses that are not very wide.

Choose the lens you like more.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... which of the f/2.8 wides, 21 and 25, would you consider as the "better" lens, in terms of sharpness, drawing style, correction for aberrations... etc. ...

I've owned both and compared them side-by-side. The 25mm Biogon is technically better compared to the 21, but the 21 renders no color shift when 6-bit coded as a 21mm pre-Asph Elmarit-M.

6-bit coding the 25mm Biogon as a 24mm Elmarit-M causes purple cast in the corners, but this is solved when the 25 is coded as a 24mm Elmar f/3.8 - it works perfectly. I have no idea why this is the case.

My favorite FL is the 21, but I could never get along with the 21mm Biogon ZM (I've owned two or three samples over the years). Although I believe the 21's color renderings are more consistent throughout the frame (when 6-bit coded to match their Leica f/2.8 counterparts) compared to the 25, it renders too much contrast on a digital M and can tend to blow out highlights. I could never get along with any of the samples I had.

Leica M-P 240
25mm Ziess Biogon ZM (6-bit coded as a 24mm Leica Elmar)

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I just realized this thread is nearly 8-years old. I seriously doubt the OP cares any longer.

 

[Doug]

I just realized this thread is nearly 8-years old. I seriously doubt the OP cares any longer.

The OP is surely not the only one to find the thread interesting and useful... 🙂

 

[Archiver]

I have both, and have different uses for them. The 21 is a fantastic travel lens, allowing me to take in lots of context and scenery with heaps of contrast and detail. The 25 is more of an everyday walkaround lens for when I don't necessarily need/want all the context that 21 gives. 21mm is my preferred travel focal length as it shows as much as possible without being overly distorted - 25 is a bit sharper, still shows context, but isn't as expansive as 21. Sure, I could shoot a panorama with the 25mm, but do I really want to?


I'd use my 25 a lot more, but it has the scuffy wobble and needs to be fixed. The 21 is still smooth and wonderful.

 

[WJJ3]

I used to have a strong preference, but now I just let biogons be biogons.

This!——-😂😂😂