ClarkChgo
Newbie
I own a Leica M6, Leitz 35mm Summicron (version 4), and a Zeiss 50mm ZM Planar. I am interested in getting a wider lens. I am looking at the Zeiss ZM 25mm or the ZM 28mm.
Does anyone out there have both lenses (or the 25mm ZM and any M mount 28mm) and have photos of the same subject or scene with both lenses? I'm curious to see the difference that 3mm of focal length makes in terms of coverage and perspective, as well as any other input you may have about the two different focal lengths.
In this instance, I'm almost certain to go with Zeiss ZM given their "image look" and price. So I'm really looking for the difference in coverage and perspective, rather than image qualities between the different makers of M mount lenses.
Thanks for your help.
Clark Everett
www.clarkeverett.com
Does anyone out there have both lenses (or the 25mm ZM and any M mount 28mm) and have photos of the same subject or scene with both lenses? I'm curious to see the difference that 3mm of focal length makes in terms of coverage and perspective, as well as any other input you may have about the two different focal lengths.
In this instance, I'm almost certain to go with Zeiss ZM given their "image look" and price. So I'm really looking for the difference in coverage and perspective, rather than image qualities between the different makers of M mount lenses.
Thanks for your help.
Clark Everett
www.clarkeverett.com
alien8
Established
That's a very good question. I was interested in the same thing, but a zm 28 popped up here yesterday so I grabbed. I was very much leaning towards the 28 though, due to the built in frame lines for it on the m6. I have a 21 with an external viewfinder, and I don't really find it that easy to use, the popping back and forth between both finders.
I can't answer your question, but my sense of the issue is that the 25 is basically like a 24, which appears quite a bit wider than a 28.
I can't answer your question, but my sense of the issue is that the 25 is basically like a 24, which appears quite a bit wider than a 28.
Last edited:
alien8
Established
great shots on your web site, btw. I was just watching a movie called "still life" (in english), about the relocation associated with the three gorges dam, and then I hopped on here and saw your portfolio. Bit of a coincidence. very impressed by your work.
Papercut
Well-known
I'd be really interested in seeing photos of this comparison too. In the future I will certainly be adding one of these two lenses and would love to see the difference in coverage ... anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller? ;-)
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
if you have the 35/50 you may wish to go with the 25. The 28 is really close to the 35. some people say the 25 is one of Zeiss better lenses.
nksyoon
Well-known
I've found with my Canon full frame DSLR where I've used 24mm and 28mm lenses that a big difference is the amount of distortion of circular shapes near the edge of the frame. The 28mm was acceptable while the 24mm obviously distorted heads and faces.
icebear
Veteran
Hi Clark,
I don't have the comparison you asked for but I owned a 28 Elmarit which for whatever reason never started liking, so eventually I sold it when everyone owning a M8 was looking for a 28 to get the 35 fov.
I bought a ZM25 and like it quite a bit. You get an idea about the coverage difference by looking at the 28 framelines and add the remaining space around it. That gives you a sufficiently close idea about the coverage of the 25. Allthough I haven't forked out the 350 (?) bucks for the marvellous Zeiss viewfinder the cheap guessing with the full view in the M6 finder (.72) works for me.
I also second that 28 is pretty close to 35 and the 25 would give a similar difference as upward to your 50.
I don't have the comparison you asked for but I owned a 28 Elmarit which for whatever reason never started liking, so eventually I sold it when everyone owning a M8 was looking for a 28 to get the 35 fov.
I bought a ZM25 and like it quite a bit. You get an idea about the coverage difference by looking at the 28 framelines and add the remaining space around it. That gives you a sufficiently close idea about the coverage of the 25. Allthough I haven't forked out the 350 (?) bucks for the marvellous Zeiss viewfinder the cheap guessing with the full view in the M6 finder (.72) works for me.
I also second that 28 is pretty close to 35 and the 25 would give a similar difference as upward to your 50.
Turtle
Veteran
If you dont want to buy an accessory finder, I would go 28mm. the 28mm frame lines are right at the edge of the finder as you naturally look thru and so a 25 represents an appreciably wider angle unless you search the corners which is not exactly conducive to quick shooting (it might be fine with a 0.58 finder for 24/5). I personally find 28mm very different to 35mm, but some may not agree! 25mm is arguably a better spacing but it comes with penalties, such as no frame lines in the M6.
Now here is something that you may get upset with but is another option:
Sell Summicron 35 V4
Buy Zm 28 and 21 f4.5 + finder (the CV one is excellent). Now you have what rangefinders do best! The 21/28/50 combo is a good one!
My issue is that although the 25/35/50 combo seems perfect on paper, I would want a lens wider than 35mm that I could use with the camera framelines. I am loving the 21mm perspective - not for everything but when you need it, you need it:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=85598&ppuser=1543
PS the 28mm Zeiss is not as good on paper as the 25 but it is in no way deficient - a superb performer in the real world!
Now here is something that you may get upset with but is another option:
Sell Summicron 35 V4
Buy Zm 28 and 21 f4.5 + finder (the CV one is excellent). Now you have what rangefinders do best! The 21/28/50 combo is a good one!
My issue is that although the 25/35/50 combo seems perfect on paper, I would want a lens wider than 35mm that I could use with the camera framelines. I am loving the 21mm perspective - not for everything but when you need it, you need it:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=85598&ppuser=1543
PS the 28mm Zeiss is not as good on paper as the 25 but it is in no way deficient - a superb performer in the real world!
Avotius
Some guy
in my experience between 28 and 24-25 there is a huge difference in what you see, rather surprising actually. 28 is maybe a more "normal" wide where 25 is starting to creep into the range where wide becomes more exciting looking.
I have the 28, its great, a very nice and capable performer.
I have the 28, its great, a very nice and capable performer.
kshapero
South Florida Man
As you can see I went 25-35-50-90. This gives me an all around spread of the landscape. The 25 works fine on the 28mm framelines on my ZI, even with glasses on.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I Use the whole of the VF for framing with my 25, but that's with a .58, I don't think the .72 is wide enough.
Beemermark
Veteran
I have both a VC 25 and a VC 28, Leica 28 and 35. The difference between the 25 and 28 is substantial, the 28 and 35 less. I use an external VF with the 28 since the frames are difficult to see with a 0.72 magnification, however for quick framing I just use the camera VF. I rarely use the 35 or 25 anymore and should sell them both. I just don't like carrying that many lenses and generally settled on the 28 and 50. Even though I liked the 25 it was just too wide for one lens. Ditto for the 35, I liked it but either it was too wide or not wide enough. So 28 and 50 for me. On my CLE the 40 is the one and only (thought the CLE has the best VF around for the 28). You should really buy both, shoot with them for a couple of years and you'll see which ones end up on the shelve. Personal preference.
bastian a.
Well-known
I would buy a 24/25 or 21mm as a third lens.
The combination 21/25, 35, 50 (+90) is perfekt for me.
B.
The combination 21/25, 35, 50 (+90) is perfekt for me.
B.
FifthLeaf
amateur
The 28mm is more practical (no external viewfinder), cheaper, and when you fill its frame, it doesn't produce perspective distortion like those ultrawides do. I think it makes more sense, for the time being, to get the 28mm and see if you need wider later.
And if I can't convince you, maybe Ernst Haas can: "Best wide-angle lens? Two steps back and look for the "Ah ha!"
***********************
Just for math's sake, here are the numbers below:
By dropping 3mm from 28mm to 25mm, you gain a little over 9% more area of coverage (3mm / 28mm = .093).
35 to 28 = 20.0% more coverage
35 to 25 = 28.6% more coverage
50 to 35 = 30.0% more coverage [as a point of reference].
These numbers are misleading, though. As Avotius said above, there's a significant difference between the 25 and the 28 in practical use (even though the figures above might not show it).
And if I can't convince you, maybe Ernst Haas can: "Best wide-angle lens? Two steps back and look for the "Ah ha!"
***********************
Just for math's sake, here are the numbers below:
By dropping 3mm from 28mm to 25mm, you gain a little over 9% more area of coverage (3mm / 28mm = .093).
35 to 28 = 20.0% more coverage
35 to 25 = 28.6% more coverage
50 to 35 = 30.0% more coverage [as a point of reference].
These numbers are misleading, though. As Avotius said above, there's a significant difference between the 25 and the 28 in practical use (even though the figures above might not show it).
Last edited:
popobsd
Member
If you want wider, then go 21mm..
S
StuartR
Guest
The 25mm biogon is probably the best ZM lens in the system, with the possible exception of the 85mm. It is a superb lens. Hardly any visible distortion, extreme sharpness, good size and speed and a true wide angle perspective. I would agree that the 28mm is just a bit too close to the 35mm. 25mm is a real, useful step of difference.
25mm biogon:
25mm biogon:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I have both the 25f2.8 and the 28f2.8 ZM lenses. If you already have a 35/50 combination, I would go for the 25f2.8. The extra 3 mm does make a difference somehow. The 28f2.8 is more of a "wide" 35 and can in a pinch substitute for a 35, but the 25 is closer to a "short" 21.
Performance wise the 25f2.8 is extremely good! Probably the best 24/25 available now. The 28f2.8 Zm is certainly no slouch, but the 25 is better. If you go for a 28, also check out the Ultron 28f2.0 just released by Cosina. It is most likely the best 28 I have ever used!!!!! and occasionally that extra stop can pay off. Slightly different tonality than the ZM lenses, but not so different that you have to fight it (at least not in bl/w).
As always, I recommend that you check on Flickr and tag in the lenses you are interested in and see examples there (i just did a check on Zeiss Biogon 28mm f2.8 and there was 999 shots there).
Performance wise the 25f2.8 is extremely good! Probably the best 24/25 available now. The 28f2.8 Zm is certainly no slouch, but the 25 is better. If you go for a 28, also check out the Ultron 28f2.0 just released by Cosina. It is most likely the best 28 I have ever used!!!!! and occasionally that extra stop can pay off. Slightly different tonality than the ZM lenses, but not so different that you have to fight it (at least not in bl/w).
As always, I recommend that you check on Flickr and tag in the lenses you are interested in and see examples there (i just did a check on Zeiss Biogon 28mm f2.8 and there was 999 shots there).
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The difference between the two lenses isn't all that great in real life use. The choice between them may come down more to FL and handling differences. There are also a lot more good 28s by other makers than 24/25s.
Last edited: