jackal2513
richbroadbent
finally got one
just an astonishing lens
possibly the finest I have ever used (and that includes illustrious company such as
35 lux pre-asph, Zeiss 25mm, Noctilux, 75 lux, 21 Elmarit APSH, 28mm ultron)
wide open its simply gorgeous and whilst I don't intend to bash any other brand, I have to say that from inital results it really produces images that are a million miles prettier and satisfying than the 25mm biogon (I owned one for 2 months).
love the focal length on the M8 as well .. works so well imo
just an astonishing lens
possibly the finest I have ever used (and that includes illustrious company such as
35 lux pre-asph, Zeiss 25mm, Noctilux, 75 lux, 21 Elmarit APSH, 28mm ultron)
wide open its simply gorgeous and whilst I don't intend to bash any other brand, I have to say that from inital results it really produces images that are a million miles prettier and satisfying than the 25mm biogon (I owned one for 2 months).
love the focal length on the M8 as well .. works so well imo
pfoto
Well-known
Agreed. I have used two and both were outstanding. You are lucky to get one. I would imagine they are in short supply at the moment because it is so suitable for the M8.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
jackal2513 said:
Was your ZM 25 coded? If not this would account for the difference in images. I have found my ZM 25 (coded to match the Leica 24) to be flawless
jackal2513
richbroadbent
BillBlackwell said:
hmmm, you could code the zeiss fifty times, it still wouldn't make images that look like the 24 elmarit
without wishing to be rude, you've either totally misread my post or have a very disturbing view of how lenses work and make images.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Rich is right. The lens is really amazing, with a subtelity of microcontrast and resolution that no other lens in its focal length matches. The only reason I sold mine is because the focal length does not suit me, nor on film nor on the M8 
There are some lenses with similar high specs, like the 135 apo, 90 Apo-asph or 280/4.0 apo-R, but obviously those are totally different because of focal length.
There are some lenses with similar high specs, like the 135 apo, 90 Apo-asph or 280/4.0 apo-R, but obviously those are totally different because of focal length.
Last edited:
gberger
Member
The 24mm has been my day-to-day salvation. I have macular degeneration that even in its moderate form, inhibits me from focusing correctly using my .72 M7.
I can set DOF on the 24mm, and then shoot. I can still see enough to compose, and the 24mm DOF lets me get decent shots.
Given that, when I examine my slides on a light table (6x Loupe), I'm amazed at the capablility of this lens.
As the old cliche says: "You'll have to pry this one out of my dead hands!"
I can set DOF on the 24mm, and then shoot. I can still see enough to compose, and the 24mm DOF lets me get decent shots.
Given that, when I examine my slides on a light table (6x Loupe), I'm amazed at the capablility of this lens.
As the old cliche says: "You'll have to pry this one out of my dead hands!"
Turtle
Veteran
jackal2513 said:
Of course they would look different, but as always there is the matter of preference/opinion.....
jackal2513
richbroadbent
Turtle said:
yes, obviously
life is subjectivity
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;
I lift my eyes and all is born again.
blah, blah, etc..
thats a given EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone on this planet states any opinion about ANYTHING
Turtle
Veteran
jackal2513 said:
Yes, of course, but merely a response to your (IMO) somewhat rude post below:
hmmm, you could code the zeiss fifty times, it still wouldn't make images that look like the 24 elmarit
without wishing to be rude, you've either totally misread my post or have a very disturbing view of how lenses work and make images.
without wishing to be rude, you've either totally misread my post or have a very disturbing view of how lenses work and make images.
Turtle
Veteran
jackal2513 said:
Yes, of course, but merely a response to your (IMO) somewhat rude post below. You do realise that caps indicate shouting/a raised voice do you?
hmmm, you could code the zeiss fifty times, it still wouldn't make images that look like the 24 elmarit
without wishing to be rude, you've either totally misread my post or have a very disturbing view of how lenses work and make images.
without wishing to be rude, you've either totally misread my post or have a very disturbing view of how lenses work and make images.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The 24mm Elmarit-ASPH is indeed one of my favorites as well. I don't have the 25mm Zeiss to compare. I have often found 24mm to be a "goldilocks" focal length in wide angle lenses: not too wide, not too long; just right! And the rendering of this lens is just right, too!
If the 24mm Elmarit-Asph meets the qualities of the 21mm Elmarit-Aspt and the 28mm Summicron-Asph -and I would hope and expect it does- then it's a truly outstanding lens. I like Zeiss lenses too, and have the 25mm Biogon-ZM. It also is a truly excellent lens, though surely in a different way, with the Zeiss rather than Leica "look." I would resist the contention that the Elmarit overwhelms the Biogon in the objective quality of the results... One might overwhelmingly prefer the Leica "look" but that's a subjective matter.
Last edited:
Thanks to your sacrifice, Aaron, I'm enjoying it a lot and treating it with care! It will surely get even more usage in future. The WATE must be a happy choice too.
It will surely get even more usage in future. The WATE must be a happy choice too.Turtle
Veteran
Doug,
How would you describe the character difference btwn the two and what is your subjective preference - do you use them under different circumstances or mostly use one over the other. Comments on handling issues would be interesting too as they are quite different I assume?
I would love Zeiss to make a 25 f4 like the 21 4.5. now that would tempt me in a BIG way. A 24 Elmarit asph would be reather nice too, but seeing as I have a 28ZM and really dont need to tote 55mm filters around along with my 43 and 46s..... But, I am kinda keen to establish a 24/5 - 35 - 75 kit. I am finding the 90mm a touch longer than I need and the 75 woudl give me a nice long std/short tele. I was tempted with this 25-35-75 combo originally but went for a 28 (35) 50 - 90 combo due to price/availability and do regret it a little now....
How would you describe the character difference btwn the two and what is your subjective preference - do you use them under different circumstances or mostly use one over the other. Comments on handling issues would be interesting too as they are quite different I assume?
I would love Zeiss to make a 25 f4 like the 21 4.5. now that would tempt me in a BIG way. A 24 Elmarit asph would be reather nice too, but seeing as I have a 28ZM and really dont need to tote 55mm filters around along with my 43 and 46s..... But, I am kinda keen to establish a 24/5 - 35 - 75 kit. I am finding the 90mm a touch longer than I need and the 75 woudl give me a nice long std/short tele. I was tempted with this 25-35-75 combo originally but went for a 28 (35) 50 - 90 combo due to price/availability and do regret it a little now....
Turtle, I'm sorry that I cannot compare the two lenses, as I don't have the 24mm Elmarit-Asph, just 25mm Biogon-ZM. But comparing the Biogon to my 21 Elmarit and 28 'cron, I'd say they have the same level of finish and feel. Optically, they are all excellent, and I'll have to leave it "as an exercise for the viewer" to pick online samples and assess the look if not the ultimate sharpness given the modest sized uploads.
Have you seriously considered the 21 f4.5 Biogon as a companion to your 28, rather than replacing it with a 24/25? From what I read online, that is one sweet compact lens. One thing I can say in Zeiss' favor is that they do keep linear distortion to almost nothing, and I understand this is especially so for the C-Biogon.
Have you seriously considered the 21 f4.5 Biogon as a companion to your 28, rather than replacing it with a 24/25? From what I read online, that is one sweet compact lens. One thing I can say in Zeiss' favor is that they do keep linear distortion to almost nothing, and I understand this is especially so for the C-Biogon.
Last edited:
sleepyhead
Well-known
I have just looked at all the pictures on Flickr that I could find for the 24mm Elmarit ASPH and for the 25mm Zeiss Biogon. Unfortunately, there are not that many of a really large size so that you can PIXEL PEEP properly.
None-the-less, JUST BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, I would buy the 24mm Elmarit if money was no concern. The pictures from the 24mm Elmarit simply look better - sharper, great color rendition - than the 25mm Biogon.
I know that there are many potential confounding factors in this judgment - non-representative sampling, better scanning/post-precessing technique, better photographer to begin with, etc.
I should say that I just bought a brand new 25mm Biogon. I haven't used it much so far, only perhaps 40 pictures on my Epson R-D1, and none on film yet (the TRUE TEST as far as I'm concerned). The pictures with the R-D1 and 25mm Biogon were certainly "okay" but they didn't blow me away. The sharpness seemed good, but again, not a "revelation" (I own several other "really sharp" lenses, such as the 90mm Leica Macro Elmar-M, and the 35mm Summilux ASPH, and the 25mm Biogon seems not as sharp as those on the R-D1).
Two other things that I've noticed with the 25mm Zeiss that were surprising were some blue fringing at the edges of highlights (could be a digital thing - will have to look at film), and some flaring around bright artificial lights in a dimly-lit room (a pub, of course...). The flaring I especially did not expect.
I'm sorely tempted to get a 24mm Elmarit and try it side-by-side with the Zeiss 25mm. This is an expensive test...
None-the-less, JUST BASED ON THIS ASSESSMENT, I would buy the 24mm Elmarit if money was no concern. The pictures from the 24mm Elmarit simply look better - sharper, great color rendition - than the 25mm Biogon.
I know that there are many potential confounding factors in this judgment - non-representative sampling, better scanning/post-precessing technique, better photographer to begin with, etc.
I should say that I just bought a brand new 25mm Biogon. I haven't used it much so far, only perhaps 40 pictures on my Epson R-D1, and none on film yet (the TRUE TEST as far as I'm concerned). The pictures with the R-D1 and 25mm Biogon were certainly "okay" but they didn't blow me away. The sharpness seemed good, but again, not a "revelation" (I own several other "really sharp" lenses, such as the 90mm Leica Macro Elmar-M, and the 35mm Summilux ASPH, and the 25mm Biogon seems not as sharp as those on the R-D1).
Two other things that I've noticed with the 25mm Zeiss that were surprising were some blue fringing at the edges of highlights (could be a digital thing - will have to look at film), and some flaring around bright artificial lights in a dimly-lit room (a pub, of course...). The flaring I especially did not expect.
I'm sorely tempted to get a 24mm Elmarit and try it side-by-side with the Zeiss 25mm. This is an expensive test...
Turtle
Veteran
Doug,
I am very tempted by the 21 4.5, but that would result in a 5 lens combo (21/28/35/50/90), which shilst wonderful when using a bag is not the 'pocket kit' I am looking for. I really cannot do without the 35 FL and the 35-90 leap is too long for me, so the chances are I would not replace the 28, just add a 25/24 and later on a 75 for walkabout stuff. I sure wish a collapsible 75 was available because then I could have short teeny 75 like the 90 macro elmar permanently attached to a second body and it would still slip under a jacket discreetly.
I wonder whether a 25 f4.5C is on the cards? If so I would hope they make the price differential more generous than they did with the 21, which I thought terribly mean!
Rgds
I am very tempted by the 21 4.5, but that would result in a 5 lens combo (21/28/35/50/90), which shilst wonderful when using a bag is not the 'pocket kit' I am looking for. I really cannot do without the 35 FL and the 35-90 leap is too long for me, so the chances are I would not replace the 28, just add a 25/24 and later on a 75 for walkabout stuff. I sure wish a collapsible 75 was available because then I could have short teeny 75 like the 90 macro elmar permanently attached to a second body and it would still slip under a jacket discreetly.
I wonder whether a 25 f4.5C is on the cards? If so I would hope they make the price differential more generous than they did with the 21, which I thought terribly mean!
Rgds
Yaron, interesting observations, thanks. I've used my 25 Biogon only with film, and can't find any flaring or instances of blue fringing. Only 3 rolls of film so far, though.