28 versus 25

[loneranger]

Hi, I am planning on getting a wide angle VC lens for my leica cl, my choice is betwen 28/3.5 and the 25/4. I have already tried the 28 in nikon mount and was REALLY amazed at how sharp it is and I love the small size. But I would not mind going a little wider and wanted to know if the 25 has similar characteristics. thanks for your help.

 

[35mmdelux]

each is kinda slow, no?

 

[Graham Line]

25 always seems a LOT wider than 28, but I have no rational explanation why. I don't think there's any significant difference in image or build quality between the two lenses.

 

[JRG]

What's the rest of your lens kit for the CL?

If it's the (intended) 40/90 pair, then I personally would get the 25, rather than the 28. It just seems like better spacing; a 25 is about as wide as I ever use, and if I'm going to have to use an external VF, might as well get the extra width of the 25.

But if you've got, say, a 50/90 setup, then a 28 would be a nice jump in width.

The CV 25/4 is plenty sharp (and tiny). But if you're leaning toward 28mm, you might want to ponder the forthcoming CV 28/f2:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61497

 

[Tom A]

Having just shot for a couple of days with a 28 and a 25 as my main lenses, I concur with joe here. For some reason the 25 feels much wider than the paltry 3 mm suggests. It is more like a "throttled down" 21 than an opened up 28!
The 28 would be a good fit on your CL as you would have a small, compact and really good lens with the 28f3.5. It is wide, but not so wide that it cant be used as a day to day lens and even be the only lens you take "out". The 25mm fl. is more of a "I need a wide" type of lens and you will jump between the 25 and the 40.
Optical performance is not that much different. The 28f3.5 is one of my favourite 28's, not only for sharpness/contrast, but also for the tonality it shows. The 25f4 is a bit higher contrast and can be a bit harsh at times. I would be tempeted to find a 28f3.5 and get used to working with it and later add a 21f4 to the kit.
I find that it takes me at least 2-3 months of shooting with lens (and/or 50-100 rolls) to get comfortable with it.
Your best bet is to go to Flickr and tag in "Voigtlander Color Skopar 28mm f3.5" and "Voigtlander Color Skopar 25mm f4.0" and look at the stuff from the lenses. It will give you a good idea of what the images will look like.

 

[back alley]

my take might be a bit diferent.
i see a small difference between a 25 and a 28, i think the 25 offers more of a challenge to shoot well but i also think it adds a bit of an edge to a shot. the 28 is sort of a normal wide angle, images have less of an edge and i see it as easier to use.
i have a 21/25/28 that i use in the order of 25 - 21 - 28.

the reality is that it's hard to go wrong with any of them.

joe

 

[bennyng]

The M mount version of the 25mm is RF coupled. But the 28mm f/3.5 is more compact. Personally, I find the 28mm more usable in terms of the perspective. The 25mm is still a nice lens if your style requires a 'little more room'.

Cheers,

 

[Erik L]

is the rare canon 25 close to as good as the CV 25?

 

[aizan]

just get an adaptor for your canon ltm.

 

[chut]

i agree with back alley. i have a preference for the 25, as it produces a more exaggerated perspective that is very different from what we perceive with our eyes. it's useful when i want to create highly dramatic photographs that take in a lot of information and/or draw lines that converge sharply. it IS more of a challenge using it effectively though.

a 28, being closer to normal view may be more versatile. it really depends on what you like to shoot and how you like it to look. as mentioned above, flickr is a great way to see how other people use these lenses.

another factor is the external viewfinder. figure out if you're comfortable using one. i use my 25 on a Bessa R4A so i don't have to deal with one.

 

[sleepyhead]

is the rare canon 25 close to as good as the CV 25?

I currently have the canon LTM 25/3.5 and the Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 Biogon. I used to have a CV Snapshot Skopar, but found it too contrasty and although very sharp, it seemed to have more "football head" distortion of people near the edges of the frame compared to the ZM Biogon (everything I'm writing refers to 35mm film shooting). I like the ZM Biogon very much but find it too big, as I use the 35mm and 50mm focal length most, and 25mm only occasionally. Therefore, I wanted something smaller, but there aren't many choices. I wish that Zeiss made a "C" version of the Biogon, similar to their 21mm C lens.

So, I recently bought a Canon LTM 25/3.5 on Ebay (the seller thought it was an SLR lens and also spelled Canon wrong, so it only cost me about 120 pounds including the Canon finder.)

IT IS TINY TINY TINY! I've only shot with it alittle so far, but my first impression is that it is not a high contrast lens (okay with me), and that it a bit soft at the edges wide open, but by f/8 it's perfectly acceptable. There is some vignetting wide open, but it's not horrible. The Zeiss 25mm shows relatively little vignetting compared to the Canon 25mm.

I'm not obsessed with sharpness so I can live with the Canon, as my "heroes" in photography were mostly using lenses less sharp than mine and doing a perfectly good job of making great images.

The ergonomics of the Canon are not that great because it's so small, but since I mostly would scale focus at 25mm lens at f/8 anyway, it doesn't bother me much.

I specifically tested the Canon 25mm with respect to flaring by shooting several shots into the sun and "against the light", and so far my experience is that it's surprisingly flare-resistant.

So I plan to keep the Canon 25mm and shoot more with it, and hopefully keep it as my small 25mm.

 

[itf]

I like the CV 25 snapshot, I got it last year because it was cheaper than the 28 (which I was more used to, on SLR). I'm thinking of going back to 28 as my only lens, I've never compared 25 to 28 though so I'm interested in what others have to say also. The 25 is pretty well the only lens I've used in the last year and a bit.

All the photos in the link below are taken with the CV 25 snapshot, except for one in the ANZAC set which was taken with 28 on an SLR. See if you can find it.

 

[sebastel]

on 135 film, i never got familiar with the 28, but always liked the 21, 24 and 25mm FL. but i do not believe that my personal preferences need to be significant for someone else's way of taking pictures. so, i can only recommend to try it out yourself.

s.

 

[loneranger]

Vow, thanks for all your great comments. I do have one more question, I have both the 28 and 21 CV in S mount, and wide open, the 21 is really soft, but 28 is still very much usable. How is the 25 in that respect?

 

[ernesto]

As a general rule, it would be agood idea to keep in mind that there is no direct relationship between focal lenght and FOV.
In other words, 3mm of diference between a 100mm lens and an hipotetical 103 mm lens, means little change in FOB, but these same 3mm is a huge diference in FOV if you compare a 12mm with the 15mm.

I try to compare FOV angles instead. They give you a very accurate relationship between the perspectives that each lens can project to the film.

Ernesto