Sonnar2
Well-known
I do plan to buy either the ZI 28mm or the 25mm. I had the CV 4/25mm in the past and liked this lens a lot but ended up selling it for a 4/21mm (which is also pretty good). I also have an old Canon 3.5/ 28mm lens - nice performer but not a lens for "critical" applications where sharpness and best flare-control are required, because of its age.
So I reviewed the Zeiss datagrams. Too bad there are no C/V datagrams published. It looks to me that the ZEISS 28mm isn't among the strongest lenses in the new ZI-program, whereas the 25mm looks excellent from figures. Of course the 28mm is smaller and weights less, which is an advantage for a field-photog. like me.
What next looks very interesting to me is (of course) the 2/35mm. This lens would probably fit better with a 25mm than a 28mm. This lens could replace my Canon 2/35 long-term.
cheers, Frank
So I reviewed the Zeiss datagrams. Too bad there are no C/V datagrams published. It looks to me that the ZEISS 28mm isn't among the strongest lenses in the new ZI-program, whereas the 25mm looks excellent from figures. Of course the 28mm is smaller and weights less, which is an advantage for a field-photog. like me.
What next looks very interesting to me is (of course) the 2/35mm. This lens would probably fit better with a 25mm than a 28mm. This lens could replace my Canon 2/35 long-term.
cheers, Frank
I agree the 25 promises to be particularly excellent, very tempting, and would be a fine partner for the 35, a useful combo. I'd be interested to see how this 35 Biogon compares with my 35 Planar.
Huck Finn
Well-known
When I spoke with the Zeiss & Hasselblad reps at PhtoPlus Expo in October, they told me that the 25/2.8 is optically the best lens in the ZM line-up & had the pictures to show why. I have no personal experience with it. I, too, plan on the 35/2 as my next acquisition.
Huck
Huck
awilder
Alan Wilder
Keep in mind if you get the 25 and the separate Zeiss finder for the 25, it also includes frame lines for your 21 which should be better than your current auxillary finder. You'd also be quite pleased with the 35/2 Biogon as it should easily outperform the Canon especially near the edge of the frame.
N
Nick R.
Guest
The new Zeiss 28mm is a great lens. Don't let datagraphs sway you if that's the length you would like. I haven't noticed any flare shooting without a hood and it has beautiful tonality and sharpness. Well worth having, IMO.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
The solution for me was the Leica 28mm Elmarit (2.8). For the past 12+ yrs shooting w/ 35Cron and recently added the Elmarit to my arsenal. WOW. Love the Leica glow. For a time I thought it woiuld be too difficult to use since I'd used and become accustomed to the 35/2. Now I don't know how I ever survived without the 28mm.
The 25VC was too much guess work and the separate, albeit very nice, viewfinder slowed me done too much. My other lens is a 35/1.7VC - really sweet and I didn't have to sell the house to get a new one!
The 25VC was too much guess work and the separate, albeit very nice, viewfinder slowed me done too much. My other lens is a 35/1.7VC - really sweet and I didn't have to sell the house to get a new one!
K
Kyle
Guest
Just a heads up for anyone who's ready to buy the 25 Biogon now. There's one for sale on photo.net. Not sure how much the Leica finder is worth by itself, so I don't know how great the deal is, but here it is nonetheless...
http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=637995
BTW, no relation to the seller, etc, etc, etc.
http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=637995
BTW, no relation to the seller, etc, etc, etc.
dll927
Well-known
At the wide angle end, a very few degrees makes a good bit of difference. There's a notable difference between a 28 and a 24.
When I bought my M4-2 the M4-P was also out and the store wanted $100 more for the"P". The difference was that it had finder frames for 28 and the 70mm (or is it 75???) I decided on the M4-2 and the 50mm f/2 Summicron. Later bought 90mm and 35mm lenses.
On the other hand, I now have Minolta Maxxum 7 and 7D SLRs, which no one had heard of when I bought the Leica. I bought the Maxxum 7 with the 24-105 lens and later got a 17mm Tokina. On the digital they have about a 1.5 increase, which puts the 17mm at about 25mm.
The M4-2 has all the viewing I need, and I tend to favor the 35mm. To go wider than that, I have other stuff in my arsenal.
When I bought my M4-2 the M4-P was also out and the store wanted $100 more for the"P". The difference was that it had finder frames for 28 and the 70mm (or is it 75???) I decided on the M4-2 and the 50mm f/2 Summicron. Later bought 90mm and 35mm lenses.
On the other hand, I now have Minolta Maxxum 7 and 7D SLRs, which no one had heard of when I bought the Leica. I bought the Maxxum 7 with the 24-105 lens and later got a 17mm Tokina. On the digital they have about a 1.5 increase, which puts the 17mm at about 25mm.
The M4-2 has all the viewing I need, and I tend to favor the 35mm. To go wider than that, I have other stuff in my arsenal.
Agreed... the 28 is one of my standards too, and I have that focal length or its equivalent in every camera system I own. I too have a Leica 28 and it's a wonderful lens, and yet the inexpensive and tiny Voigtlander Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 is extremely well built and a gem optically as well.35mmdelux said:
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Sonnar2 said:
The 25mm, no question !
bertram
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
The 28mm/2.8 ZM Biogon is smaller, but optically not as good as the 25mm/2.8 ZM Biogon. The 28mm Biogon is less flare resistant than the 25mm or the Leica M 28mm/2 Summicron. Both Biogons seem to have a slight edge over the Leica 28mm/2 for landscapes, as their infinity sharpness is better. The 28mm Biogon is the most compact and lightest, but none of these lenses is heavy. If you could only have one Biogon, the 25mm is the one to get. If you ccould only have one wide angle, the 28mm Summicron is the most versatile due to its speed and the ability to do avaiable light or selective focus at f/2 with the Summicron. But the 28mm Summicron costs about as much as both the 25mm and 28mm Biogons together. They are all great lenses.
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
If I had to make that choice, I'd probably go for the 25. Oh wait, I did have that choice, and I bought the 25.
Fred
Feline Great
"and yet the inexpensive and tiny Voigtlander Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 is extremely well built and a gem optically as well."
I second that. The old Skopar works a treat if low light is not its primary domain. I love this lens and it's very tiny on camera. Examples in my gallery.
I second that. The old Skopar works a treat if low light is not its primary domain. I love this lens and it's very tiny on camera. Examples in my gallery.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I think we will all agree that the Cosina Voigtlander lenses, more than anything else, changed our perception of Cosina. And the lenses, for the most part, are more highly regarded than the bodies.
And Cosina has made strides in improving the quality of the bodies with each successive model: from the L to the R to R2 and T to the R2A/R3A.
Again, in general, I can't recall that anyone has been dissatisfied with the lenses -- all seem to be excellent performers, judging from the comments left on message boards.
And Cosina has made strides in improving the quality of the bodies with each successive model: from the L to the R to R2 and T to the R2A/R3A.
Again, in general, I can't recall that anyone has been dissatisfied with the lenses -- all seem to be excellent performers, judging from the comments left on message boards.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Now, regarding the 25mm Biogon, I have been highly impressed with the lens. It's a wide field of view, although not in the superwide category. Distortion is very well controlled. And it's not a huge lens, as you might expect for a 25. Sharpness across the field is quite good.
Some day, I'll pick up the finder. In the meantime, I've found that using the entire viewfinder is a very close approximate for the 25. I don't know that rangefinder photographers are quite as precise in their framing as SLR photogs. Not to mean that RF photogs are sloppy -- just that the ability to see outside the frame influences how a photo is taken.
Some day, I'll pick up the finder. In the meantime, I've found that using the entire viewfinder is a very close approximate for the 25. I don't know that rangefinder photographers are quite as precise in their framing as SLR photogs. Not to mean that RF photogs are sloppy -- just that the ability to see outside the frame influences how a photo is taken.