WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Havent used either, considering one or the other. The Zeiss looks pretty amazing from what I have seen. Any feedback from users with some time on both?
thanks!
thanks!
24mm Elmarit vs. 25mm Biogon
- Thread starter WoolenMammoth
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 5K
jackal2513
richbroadbent
i've owned both
im sure the zeiss posse will be along to argue otherwise but in my subjective opinion, forget sharpness, resolution, macrocontrast and all that technical bobbins.... the zeiss images aren't even close to the beauty of the leica. Wide open the 24 has a serious magic. Sharp yet smooth and real/organic looking. I also found that the zeiss's contrast was way over teh top, so much so that images often look really confused. Theres no doubting its shrapness but I also found it had a certain mushy rendition, partcularly on peoples faces when they are small in frame. The general fingerprint and oof rendering was also good but as stated, couldnt hodl a candle to the look of the Elmarit. Try for yourself, you might well prefer the zeiss.
im not some sort of marque worshipper either.. i couldnt care a less who makes what, i just tell it like it is (I own zeiss, cv and leica lenses)
im sure the zeiss posse will be along to argue otherwise but in my subjective opinion, forget sharpness, resolution, macrocontrast and all that technical bobbins.... the zeiss images aren't even close to the beauty of the leica. Wide open the 24 has a serious magic. Sharp yet smooth and real/organic looking. I also found that the zeiss's contrast was way over teh top, so much so that images often look really confused. Theres no doubting its shrapness but I also found it had a certain mushy rendition, partcularly on peoples faces when they are small in frame. The general fingerprint and oof rendering was also good but as stated, couldnt hodl a candle to the look of the Elmarit. Try for yourself, you might well prefer the zeiss.
im not some sort of marque worshipper either.. i couldnt care a less who makes what, i just tell it like it is (I own zeiss, cv and leica lenses)
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I don't own the Zeiss, but I couldn't be more pleased with my 24mm Elmarit ASPH. It is one of my favorite lenses.
The difference in focal length is of course slight; but if one already has a 28mm, It would make more sense to get the 24mm than to get a 25mm.
Actually I often use my 24mm with the 25mm Zeiss finder, just because it is so bright and undistorted. Though I find the 24mm Leitz finder to be quite useable.
The difference in focal length is of course slight; but if one already has a 28mm, It would make more sense to get the 24mm than to get a 25mm.
Actually I often use my 24mm with the 25mm Zeiss finder, just because it is so bright and undistorted. Though I find the 24mm Leitz finder to be quite useable.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I wish there were more examples of the zeiss online, Im definitely leaning in that direction.
sonyleica
Member
I use Elmarit and it is the only lens for my M8. Here are some shots taken with this lens wide open
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/48351-24-elmarit-2-8-open-air.html
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/48351-24-elmarit-2-8-open-air.html
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
right on. I suppose I should mention its for film work.
waileong
Well-known
I have a theory-- both lens performance far outdistance the ability of most photographers most of the time.
Hence-- it matters not which you choose if your concern is performance.
Hence-- it matters not which you choose if your concern is performance.
back alley
IMAGES
waileong said:
i agree.
i have the zm 25, it's a great lens, greater than i am a shooter.
Turtle
Veteran
Is the 25 appreciably more contrasty than the other ZMs?
I have the 28, 35 and 50 planar and they seem well matched for contrast, it being high but not excessively so (monochrome). I have heard some mutterings that the 25 is in fact of higher contrast than the 28 but would be interested in hearing if this is in fact the case. FWIW, my 50 Summilux ASPH is of similar if not higher contrast than my 50 planar, so perhaps the 25 is especially high contrast? Certainly my other three ore of high contrast but it is not a problem. I just give a touch less development than when developing my Canon negs
I am actually interested in the Zeiss 25 (and 21s) despite having the 28 because I have found a few occassions when I need something a touch wider, but might go for the new CV 25P for financial reasons. As much as the 24 ASPH appeals, the insane price pretty well nails that option for me. I work in dodgy areas and carrying about $7K in the form of a single MP body with such a lens on it causes me some angst (might sell my 50 asph too).... I am looking fwd to getting home and doing some direct formal comparisons between the 50 planar and 50 lux asph. I will post the results of my subjective print comparison. Certainly contrast and the rendering of highlights will be top priority as this issue has come up before with ZMs, but I can't say i see it with the shooting I do. Colour might be more of an issue.
I would also be interested as to how the CV25 compares in the contrast and overall rendering sense to the lenses mentioned here as well as how the 25 ZM stacks contrast wise within the Zeiss line.
Rgds
I have the 28, 35 and 50 planar and they seem well matched for contrast, it being high but not excessively so (monochrome). I have heard some mutterings that the 25 is in fact of higher contrast than the 28 but would be interested in hearing if this is in fact the case. FWIW, my 50 Summilux ASPH is of similar if not higher contrast than my 50 planar, so perhaps the 25 is especially high contrast? Certainly my other three ore of high contrast but it is not a problem. I just give a touch less development than when developing my Canon negs
I am actually interested in the Zeiss 25 (and 21s) despite having the 28 because I have found a few occassions when I need something a touch wider, but might go for the new CV 25P for financial reasons. As much as the 24 ASPH appeals, the insane price pretty well nails that option for me. I work in dodgy areas and carrying about $7K in the form of a single MP body with such a lens on it causes me some angst (might sell my 50 asph too).... I am looking fwd to getting home and doing some direct formal comparisons between the 50 planar and 50 lux asph. I will post the results of my subjective print comparison. Certainly contrast and the rendering of highlights will be top priority as this issue has come up before with ZMs, but I can't say i see it with the shooting I do. Colour might be more of an issue.
I would also be interested as to how the CV25 compares in the contrast and overall rendering sense to the lenses mentioned here as well as how the 25 ZM stacks contrast wise within the Zeiss line.
Rgds
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
I've used both for film and digital. Both are, as already mentioned, so good that we wander into "lens character" discussion... and that's good, but... for me(and an M8) the coding was the issue, so I sold the ZM25(and kept the ZM28, btw). The ZM25 is a tad more neutral with color, but in B&W, both have great tone. Wide open, the ZM25 is a bit more "consistant" across the frame; however, this "consistancy" stopped down renders images a bit, um, "consistant"/predictable/clean/flat. I prefer the L24 rendering, and am lucky to have one to use... that's the other issue: getting one, and at near the cost of the ZM25. Happened to me, could happen to you!
I've quite a few ZM25 images that inspire... does live up to the praise.
As for the CV25... I shoot an older LTM Skopar too... but when the scene gets complex(read: includes more human created forms and less of Mother Earth, like architecture), the distortion creeps in. Color like the ZM25, but this lens is much more "expressive", rather than descriptive(as the ZM and Leica do famously).
So, you're shooting film, now. Both cost a wee bit... have you considered whether you'd "Go Digital"(TM)? If not, or for a while, I'd recommend the ZM25. And of course, if you can choose between the two, and cost is +/- 100 Euro... Leica 24 would be my suggestion.
rgds,
Dave
I've quite a few ZM25 images that inspire... does live up to the praise.
As for the CV25... I shoot an older LTM Skopar too... but when the scene gets complex(read: includes more human created forms and less of Mother Earth, like architecture), the distortion creeps in. Color like the ZM25, but this lens is much more "expressive", rather than descriptive(as the ZM and Leica do famously).
So, you're shooting film, now. Both cost a wee bit... have you considered whether you'd "Go Digital"(TM)? If not, or for a while, I'd recommend the ZM25. And of course, if you can choose between the two, and cost is +/- 100 Euro... Leica 24 would be my suggestion.
rgds,
Dave
Turtle
Veteran
Dave, thanks. I would love to see some images shot on the 24 asph to compare to the 25 ZM, but things are rarely that easy. I certainly know what people mean about the ZM clean/smooth look, but find that fine, realising this is a personal choice....and that it can easily be altered by changing film and developer if one wishes to add grit and bite seemingly taken away by image smoothness. Do you have some images shot on both available online that you feel show the differences as you see them?
Probably wont be going digital with M mount lenses - will stick to Canon for that I think, so film only and mono at that! I have not seen a mintish 24 asph for less than about $2200 and considering a new ZM25 is under $900 from Popflash, the leica is way more expensive.
no easy decisions and if only I could put a roll thru the three lenses... 🙁 I had better make my mind up as there is a scene i want to shoot here in Kabul and I need a 24/5 and a 21 would also be handy!
Probably wont be going digital with M mount lenses - will stick to Canon for that I think, so film only and mono at that! I have not seen a mintish 24 asph for less than about $2200 and considering a new ZM25 is under $900 from Popflash, the leica is way more expensive.
no easy decisions and if only I could put a roll thru the three lenses... 🙁 I had better make my mind up as there is a scene i want to shoot here in Kabul and I need a 24/5 and a 21 would also be handy!
R2-D2
Established
Is the Elmarit-M 24mm ASPH. really that prone to flare as some (including Tom A.) say? Did anyone try the Leica Universal Polarizer on the Zeiss 25mm ZM - any vignetting (on film)?
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
@Woolen... sorry, but Turtle's Qs seem in line...
@Turtle... I don't do "brick walls", nor "labled bottles and vegetables" to compare, so I haven't any pics to demonstrate my earlier post. I found a good price on a used L24--still more than a new ZM25--coded for the M8: difference in cost would have been eaten by mods to the ZM25 for coding. Had both, and could not keep both because the sale of the ZM25 was put to offset the L24 cost.
One must try both to really "know" which is better for you... I do miss the 0.5m focus of the ZM25, for example, and have got flare using both(like Icarus, a bit too close to the Sun!).
If shooting mostly film, and not an M8... I would still have the ZM25 and likely not consider the L24.
rgds,
Dave
@Turtle... I don't do "brick walls", nor "labled bottles and vegetables" to compare, so I haven't any pics to demonstrate my earlier post. I found a good price on a used L24--still more than a new ZM25--coded for the M8: difference in cost would have been eaten by mods to the ZM25 for coding. Had both, and could not keep both because the sale of the ZM25 was put to offset the L24 cost.
One must try both to really "know" which is better for you... I do miss the 0.5m focus of the ZM25, for example, and have got flare using both(like Icarus, a bit too close to the Sun!).
If shooting mostly film, and not an M8... I would still have the ZM25 and likely not consider the L24.
rgds,
Dave
