21 vs 25

21 vs 25

  • ZM 2.8/21

    Votes: 27 32.9%

  • ZM 2.8/25

    Votes: 55 67.1%
  • Total voters
    82
I had a CV 21 and a vintage Canon 25 for streetshooting. The 21 was too wide so I sold it and kept the 25. It's perfect for those 6-10 ft. distance snap shots I like to take of people.
 
NazgulKing said:
I have both the ZM 21/2.8 and 25/2.8. The 25/2.8 has less vignetting and seems to produce sharper pictures but not by much.
Click to expand...

Great that you have both :)

How would you compare corner performance? Color shift?

Would you say the 21 has more 3D or the 25 too clinical?
 
EdwardKaraa said:
Great that you have both :)

How would you compare corner performance? Color shift?

Would you say the 21 has more 3D or the 25 too clinical?
Click to expand...

At least one film, the 25 seems sharper at the corners, and I believe so on the M9 as well. (Trouble is that I have forgotten which is which for the M9 thanks the near meaningless EXIF info).

Personally I don't think either is too clinical, and they render well on digital at least with the 21/2.8 setting to reduce the possibility of color shift which does happen sometimes under intense sunlight.

Either way I like either lens, and they support each other. At F8, you can't go wrong with them.

To Wit:

A 25/2.8 shot

L1101504_20130414_3 by NazgulKing, on Flickr

And a 21/2.8 shot

L1102298_20130519_27 by NazgulKing, on Flickr

and one more 21/2.8


Old and New by NazgulKing, on Flickr
 
I own the ZM 21 and can't speak to the interpretation of the charts and graphs. Further, I have no issues w/ reduced sharpness in the corners. In fact, I may actually prefer it. The 21 2.8 is one sweet lens. On film, it simply rocks...
 
I cannot imagine an instance where the technical differences would be of greater interest than the angle of view, but hey, thats just me.

Were this a discussion of 21 ZM vs Leica 21 or 24 elmar and elmarit vs. 25 biogon it would be different, but seeing as 21 and 25mm are completely different lenses, why compare apples and oranges? Both are stunning. The 25 is maybe a hair better, but its much worse than the 21 when it comes to being a 21 mm!
 
Turtle said:
I cannot imagine an instance where the technical differences would be of greater interest than the angle of view, but hey, thats just me.
Click to expand...

if you have a limited budget and high resolution photography is your style (for example, if you tend to shoot a lot of textures at high enlargements where MTF40 actually becomes relevant) AND you have the gift of being a versatile shooter then it is relevant.

as a matter of interest, I can tell you that the reason I only use 50s is because I compose with literally zero regard to focal length and that magnification happens to work well with what I shoot currently. I have actually had issues with remembering what lens I used for stuff if they had similar renderings even if the focal lengths were quite disparate.

as a FM member as well as an RF member, I have seen a good number of Edward's photos and can attest that while he doesnt have my tendency of imposing his will on his tools, he can shoot effectively with either 21 or 25.

and while I could say things like MTF40 are irrelevant to his photography because his photographs very rarely feature such fine structures as their subject, Edward disagrees. and Im not going to disagree with him there, because I am exactly the same way.

Edward, the 21 is not centrally sharper than the 25. it has higher contrast at 40 lp/mm. the 25 has a higher terminal resolution in the center; Zeiss used to have a page on their website about which was their sharpest lens; they self report the 25 as being the sharpest, the 100 MP is the sharpest SLR lens at 100 lp/mm lower (ie 300) and the 250 superapochromat the sharpest but I can't recall what it was measured at (iirc it was not far behind the 100MP which is ****ing crazy btw).

"sharpest" is a bit hard, because what you're really looking for is the highest contrast at the resolutions that are relevant to your enlargements; 40 lp/mmm only becomes relevant at 20x enlargments for ~1 foot viewing distance. and while contrast curves tend to stick together such that you can generalize as you go up the resolution ladder, in this case you would actually get a counter intuitive result if you started going to very high enlargements.

things like OoF rendering & length/style of transition, flatness of field, coarse structure contrast, coma, astigmatism, LoCA, distortion, etc. are more relevant, frankly.

the published data suggests the 25 is a better lens than the 21 in almost all of these areas. where it probably DOES exceed the 21 is in the center wide open although the 25 is still pretty good.
 
Redisburning thank you very much for the very nice words, which I greatly appreciate as coming from a fellow photographer with a great eye and extensive knowledge. You are absolutely right that I don't mean only sharpness as I mentioned in my first post. I also include rendering and all kinds of aberrations.

Turtle, the purpose of this thread is really to know how do these lenses compare in optical performance, regardless of the AOV. To me the difference is only a couple of steps forward or backward, but there are some great performance differences it seems to me in regards to the interaction with the sensor, the 25 being more sensor friendly.

Now my personal reason, other than curiosity as I really wanted to know how do these lenses compare, is that I am trying to compact my lens line up to just 4 lenses for creative reasons. In fact I want to carry as few lenses as possible in as much a small bag as possible. Not for financial reasons, but rather because I'm loosing my interest in photography and trying to simplify my life. I'm very happy with the 25 TBH, but I'm just considering if I can replace it with the slightly wider 21 if there is no loss from the 25 magic. I don't have the answer yet, but I am leaning towards keeping the 25.
 
Edward,

nothing reinvigorates my photography like looking at the work of someone truly talented. I was struggling to finish off a roll of a new film/dev combo and had let maybe 2 weeks go between taking any photographs but after two Salgado books were recommended to me in the Leica R thread on FM I had been looking at his photos and this morning just picked the camera up and snapped away.

you might try someone whose work is in a totally different genre than you usually appreciate. I can tell you that the book that got me into photography was Light Over Ancient Angkor by Kenro Izu, and I think you know by now that I dont give a damn about landscapes.

you are older than I and presumably have been photographing way longer than my ~2.5 years, but I am a habitual quitter of things and come back to hobbies cyclically and have with photography multiple times. I wouldn't worry about it, although I will warn you against buying new things as an antidote; it has never worked for me even when it wasnt my money. fwiw, some of the best and most compelling times Ive had taking photos resulted in NO good images.
 
I think technically speaking the 25 is the better lens - probably the one with highest lpm in the whole ZM lineup. I was once talking to guys from Carl Zeiss Photo and was told that the 25 was designed by their best designer and that he really 'played' with the design for a long time.

However - both of these lenses and VERY good - one would probably need at least M9 to see differences in sharpness (which of course is contrast at given lpm) or resolution and even then I would not expect a large difference.
 
redisburning said:
Edward,

nothing reinvigorates my photography like looking at the work of someone truly talented. I was struggling to finish off a roll of a new film/dev combo and had let maybe 2 weeks go between taking any photographs but after two Salgado books were recommended to me in the Leica R thread on FM I had been looking at his photos and this morning just picked the camera up and snapped away.

you might try someone whose work is in a totally different genre than you usually appreciate. I can tell you that the book that got me into photography was Light Over Ancient Angkor by Kenro Izu, and I think you know by now that I dont give a damn about landscapes.

you are older than I and presumably have been photographing way longer than my ~2.5 years, but I am a habitual quitter of things and come back to hobbies cyclically and have with photography multiple times. I wouldn't worry about it, although I will warn you against buying new things as an antidote; it has never worked for me even when it wasnt my money. fwiw, some of the best and most compelling times Ive had taking photos resulted in NO good images.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed, Red! I've been there, done that :) Definitely buying new stuff doesn't help. I recently bought the C-Sonnar thinking it would inspire me to do something new, but it didn't work. Btw, I love Salgado's work. Absolutely fantastic!
 
Matus said:
I think technically speaking the 25 is the better lens - probably the one with highest lpm in the whole ZM lineup. I was once talking to guys from Carl Zeiss Photo and was told that the 25 was designed by their best designer and that he really 'played' with the design for a long time.

However - both of these lenses and VERY good - one would probably need at least M9 to see differences in sharpness (which of course is contrast at given lpm) or resolution and even then I would not expect a large difference.
Click to expand...

Thank you Matus. This confirms my impressions as well.
 
At the expense of flogging a dead horse here...

....I understand what is being said here about MTFs and technical/optical differences between the 21 and 25, I still suggest that they don't matter in the real world unless your objective is measuring resolution in the corners of your large prints rather than worrying about what the images actually look like.

While you can 'use your feet', spatial relationships between objects, not to mention your interaction with subjects, is very different with a 21 vs 25. This has dramatically more impact on 'the image' than the optical differences between the 21 and 25 ZM. If you are taking the view that you will 'make the best lens work for you' then you are happy to relinquish a large amount of creative control in order to gain a meaningless technical dividend (seeing as its common knowledge that the 21 ZM is superb on digital and film, as is the 25.

Surely it makes much more sense to choose the focal length you actually want or need to use, then pick the best one optically (for your purposes)?

Even if you are trying to make Gurksy sized prints and worried about the corners, I suspect the angle of view when shooting inside that supermarket is going to matter a little more than how sharp the products' barcodes are in the corner of the frame!
 
I'm sure are both fine, and are capable of more than I am. However, I enjoy the 24/25mm view, so that's what I voted for.
 
The 25 is an amazing optic.

And, with the Leica 24mm and M Body, or the ZM and 25mm, you can use the viewfinder on the camera to frame. I have found with both systems there is no reason to get the auxiliary viewfinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom