21 vs 25

[EdwardKaraa]

Regardless of the AOV and spacing with other lenses you own, 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. Can you please elaborate on your choice? Thank you!

 

[Turtle]

Both so technically comparable as to leave you with one decision only: angle of view.

Simple!

 

[helen.HH]

Have always Loved the 21 POV

Would Love to Try a 25 ... Seems a Touch More Square than Long in 'Look'

 

[back alley]

i had the 21/4.5 and the 25...too close to call...

 

[kxl]

Had the ZM 21/2.8; still have the ZM 25/2.8. Sharpness, rendering, etc... are very close, but I would subjectively give a very slight edge to the 25. But the primary reason I kept the 25 and sold the 21 was the AOV. I love the 25 AOV, while the 21 just wasn't wide enough when I want wiiiiiiide; I did eventually get a ZM 18mm for my wide angle needs.

 

[back alley]

afa aov i much prefer the 25 to the 21 and i love the 21...no lose for me!

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

You might love both 21mm or 25mm, but technically Carl Zeiss made only one superior lens compared to all the others (50, 35, 28 and 21) and that is the 25mm Biogon. It has greater resolution than the others and less distortion. But of course that is only the technical side of the story. If you love 21 take it..... I have 25 and I also took ...12!

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Well, the ZM 25 is known for being the most clinical lens in this line. Basically it has no weaknesses, the MTF are very flat, it has no CA, insignificant distortion, vignetting is quote good for this FL. OTOH, center sharpness is not sky rocketing, contrast is tame, 3D isn't as pronounced as with other Zeiss lenses. This, I know from experience since I own the lens.

How's the 21 in this respect? The MTF look more wavy with higher center sharpness, and I read somewhere it has more field curvature, causing weaker corners, and perhaps more 3D. What's the opinion of the owners? I would be very interested to hear it.

 

[kkdanamatt]

The 25mm ZM is simply the finest wide-angle lens that I've ever seen.
I've owned the 21/3.4 Super Angulon, the 21/2.8 Elmarit, the 21 Heliar and the Canon 25 LTM.
The ZM 25 beats them all.
If you don't need the 21mm FOV, get the 25 ZM.

 

[semilog]

ZM 25 > ZM 21/4.5 > ZM 21/2.8 = 21/2.8 Elmarit ASPH.

I've owned both ZM21's, used the 25. All on film.

The judgement that the Leica and ZM 21/2.8's are equivalent is per Erwin Puts, whose analysis is totally consistent with the published MTF charts.

 

[noimmunity]

Umm, I prefer the Leica Elmar Asph 24/3.8 over all of 'em.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Seeing the results of the poll is very illuminating. Almost 90% of the votes for the 25, so many knowledgeable users can't be wrong.

 

[hausen]

I loved the 21/2.8 on my M9. Superb lens, great Zeiss colours.

 

[seakayaker1]

I have used the ZM 25 and enjoyed it, truly a wonderful lens. I sold it and subsequently picked up the 24/3.8 which I love using on both film and digital.

I do wish to pick up a 21mm at some point in the future and would not hesitate to pick up the ZM 21/2.8 from the results I have seen from others photographs.

 

[sepiareverb]

The 25 is generally regarded as among the finest wides ever computed. I've seen very big prints from ATP negs shot with the 25 that are hard to believe for detail. Like "how is that possible?" detail.

I shot with the 25 for quite a while and on film I have to agree. I prefer the 24/2.8 ASPH on the M9, did a brief comparison – nothing extensive or scientific – but got a deal on the 24, had to decide quickly, and kept it. Haven't regretted it on film or sensor.

The ZM 21/2.8 is absolutely inferior to the Contax G 21/2.8 and the Leica 21/2.8 ASPH in handling. With the hood on it blocks the RF patch on an M for anything closer than 2m. The G needs no hood (really, it doesn't) and is the equal on film to the Leica Elmarit ASPH with hood. The ZM21/2.8 never really sang to me.

 

[KarlG]

Shameless plug for anyone considering the ZM 25mm, I'm selling my copy in the classifieds for $890 including shipping - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=39237

 

[tuanvinh2000]

I think the biggest difference is the focal length and how you see the world in that pov. technically we are talking a great lens and a really great lens. i dont use a hood on my 21 biogon and it never flares.

 

[semilog]

Good point. Every lens mentioned on this thread is top 10%, and the best are among the best lenses ever made for 135 format.

 

[kossi008]

... but technically Carl Zeiss made only one superior lens compared to all the others (50, 35, 28 and 21) and that is the 25mm Biogon. It has greater resolution than the others and less distortion.

Greater resolution maybe. But the ZM 21/4.5 and ZM 35/2 have zero distortion, while the ZM 25 has a still very moderate level of 1% barrel.

PS: I'm not voting because I've never had the ZM 21/2.8...

 

[EdwardKaraa]

Great replies to this thread so far. many thanks to those who responded.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who owns/owned both lenses.