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 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
EdwardKaraa said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...
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.

18639067-orig.jpg

Leica M-P 240
25mm Ziess Biogon ZM (6-bit coded as a 24mm Leica Elmar)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom