visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I know, I know what some will say. But I've searched and read every post on this subject and I still can't make up my mind. I really only want one wide to go with my 50 (a two lens kit and that's all). So, since the Leica alternatives are insanely expensive (even used version IV Elmarits are typically more money than the new Zeiss 28mm), and the Zeiss are very well thought of, which will it be?
Here are some of my concerns:
The 28 is attractive because I've never used anything wider and, quite frankly, I'm a bit apprehensive of going wider (must be the agoraphobia talking). I'm not sure what I'll do with all that extra "space", though it could be a great adventure.
The 28 framelines in my .72 MP will be just adequate (I don't wear glasses). But, the 28 Biogon doesn't seem to be as highly thought of as the 25mm Biogon. It seems to be softer in the periphery than other 28mm lenses. BTW, why is this?
The 25mm Biogon is considered to be a fantastic lens (even devoted Leicaphiles will readily admit this). But, then there's the framing issue with a lens I don't have framelines for. Can I really get away with this lens without an external finder?
The 25mm is $100 more than the 28mm (not a big issue as this will be my only wide lens). However, that difference grows dramatically if I have to buy a finder for the 25.
I really need help on this one. I'm about to make a buy. Just can't decide.
Ron
Here are some of my concerns:
The 28 is attractive because I've never used anything wider and, quite frankly, I'm a bit apprehensive of going wider (must be the agoraphobia talking). I'm not sure what I'll do with all that extra "space", though it could be a great adventure.
The 28 framelines in my .72 MP will be just adequate (I don't wear glasses). But, the 28 Biogon doesn't seem to be as highly thought of as the 25mm Biogon. It seems to be softer in the periphery than other 28mm lenses. BTW, why is this?
The 25mm Biogon is considered to be a fantastic lens (even devoted Leicaphiles will readily admit this). But, then there's the framing issue with a lens I don't have framelines for. Can I really get away with this lens without an external finder?
The 25mm is $100 more than the 28mm (not a big issue as this will be my only wide lens). However, that difference grows dramatically if I have to buy a finder for the 25.
I really need help on this one. I'm about to make a buy. Just can't decide.
Ron
back alley
IMAGES
what would you have us say?
get the 28, i have read that it's great but all the glory goes to the 25 and so there is less chatter about the 28. the 28 will make life easier in terms of using the framelines in your camera. 28 is very popular as a focal length.
get the 25, it IS fantastic an surprisingly easy to use as a wide angle lens. i never had much luck with the 24's i've had in the past on different slr's but a 25 on a rangefinder seems like water to ducks.
i love it and i love a 2 lens kit of 25/50, i often use it at the expense of my beautiful 35/2.
hard to make this sort of decision for another. i did much the same as you are doing now and finally just took a deep breath and went for the 25.
best wide move i have EVER made.
joe
get the 28, i have read that it's great but all the glory goes to the 25 and so there is less chatter about the 28. the 28 will make life easier in terms of using the framelines in your camera. 28 is very popular as a focal length.
get the 25, it IS fantastic an surprisingly easy to use as a wide angle lens. i never had much luck with the 24's i've had in the past on different slr's but a 25 on a rangefinder seems like water to ducks.
i love it and i love a 2 lens kit of 25/50, i often use it at the expense of my beautiful 35/2.
hard to make this sort of decision for another. i did much the same as you are doing now and finally just took a deep breath and went for the 25.
best wide move i have EVER made.
joe
Turtle
Veteran
go with the FL you prefer. I also know the 25 is better on MTF and I am sure it is in pratice if you print big enough on fine enough film, used a tripod etc.
However..........
I have a 28 (I ordered the 25 and they mailed the wrong one). I decided to keep the 28 due to the framelines being in camera and its greater compactness. (My M bodywas bought at the same time so only upon delivery of both did I see how tight the 28 lines were and how much I needed teh external finder for teh 25)
Do I regret it? No. It is very sharp edge to edge (please note that the ZMs are generally uncharacteristically good in the outer field) and will be very unlikely to disappoint. Yes, the 25 MTF may be better in the outer zones but will you notice on print? I doubt it, or the difference is likely to be very minor on huge prints on very fine grain film etc and not realy that important.
Doies teh 28 leave me with excuses, NO.
Is a 28 a better compliment to a 50, IMO, YES, by far. BUt thats your call.
You cannot go wrong, unless you make your decision on the assumption that the 28 is not a very goopd lens indeed. It is superb. The 25 will become a legend....
Tom
However..........
I have a 28 (I ordered the 25 and they mailed the wrong one). I decided to keep the 28 due to the framelines being in camera and its greater compactness. (My M bodywas bought at the same time so only upon delivery of both did I see how tight the 28 lines were and how much I needed teh external finder for teh 25)
Do I regret it? No. It is very sharp edge to edge (please note that the ZMs are generally uncharacteristically good in the outer field) and will be very unlikely to disappoint. Yes, the 25 MTF may be better in the outer zones but will you notice on print? I doubt it, or the difference is likely to be very minor on huge prints on very fine grain film etc and not realy that important.
Doies teh 28 leave me with excuses, NO.
Is a 28 a better compliment to a 50, IMO, YES, by far. BUt thats your call.
You cannot go wrong, unless you make your decision on the assumption that the 28 is not a very goopd lens indeed. It is superb. The 25 will become a legend....
Tom
Nachkebia
Well-known
even though I own 25 biogon and 28 asph elmarit I am still thinking of 28 biogon, biogons have that special touch for color, Leica also has but it is much much wormer, I love zeiss`s cold and cyan touch 
I have a 25 that was really in its element as I did the tourist thing in southern Spain. Perfect. But when I started a project of short-range indoor environmental portraits, the 28 was more practical in matching the parallax-corrected camera framelines. I like the 28 a lot, and I like the 25 a lot... further, I keep thinking of RFF member Bertram's lovely B&W cityscapes with his 25 in his urban French and German travels. So maybe the choice will depend on what kind of shooting you'll be doing with it.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Sensible replies all. Thank you.
Does anyone else care to comment?
Ron
Does anyone else care to comment?
Ron
Huck Finn
Well-known
Call me agoraphobic too, but I would much rather work with the camera's built-in frame lines than switch to an auxiliary finder. This was my thinking when I chose a 28 (although I don't have either of the two Biogons in question). I mostly shoot people, but if I were shooting landscapes, or buildings, or soething where I could be more deliberate in setting up my shots, then I might feel differently about it.
ronnie_retro
Established
Hmmm....
You don't indicate the type film you shoot - color transparency, print, or B&W, ISO, or the light levels you shoot at - expected aperatures, shutter speed.
The Biogon 2.8/28 is reportedly as sharp as the El-Marit 2.8/28, so it's a draw there.
The 25 on paper appears better in this regard (maybe because 25mm is the "normal" lens for 35mm motion picture cameras, the product line the ZMs are derived from?) but unless you're shooting ISO 100 or slower I doubt you'd see any difference wide open - and certainly not by f/4.
Currently I have the Voigtlander 28 and am delighted with it, but I like to shoot architecture and would like a lens that's a bit wider sometimes, so my next Zeiss lens will be the 25.
Myself, I think the only reason to go with the 25 is for the extra field of view. Your mileage may vary.
You don't indicate the type film you shoot - color transparency, print, or B&W, ISO, or the light levels you shoot at - expected aperatures, shutter speed.
The Biogon 2.8/28 is reportedly as sharp as the El-Marit 2.8/28, so it's a draw there.
The 25 on paper appears better in this regard (maybe because 25mm is the "normal" lens for 35mm motion picture cameras, the product line the ZMs are derived from?) but unless you're shooting ISO 100 or slower I doubt you'd see any difference wide open - and certainly not by f/4.
Currently I have the Voigtlander 28 and am delighted with it, but I like to shoot architecture and would like a lens that's a bit wider sometimes, so my next Zeiss lens will be the 25.
Myself, I think the only reason to go with the 25 is for the extra field of view. Your mileage may vary.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I choosed the 25mm over the 28 mm (due to crop factor the R-1Ds and I had a chance to buy it for ~ 400 euro in mint condition) but without external finder framing is try and error ...
Graham Line
Well-known
visiondr said:
You told us everything but what you intend to use it for. For a silly three mil difference, 25 has always felt significantly wider than 28; more real estate on the negative and more pronounced changes in angle when the framing is not quite square and level.
If you're landscaping and streetscaping maybe the 28; if you like to get in closer, probably the 25.
You might be able to learn to use it without an auxiliary finder, but my M4-P has essentially the same frame lines and there isn't much area outside of the 28 frame.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
ronnie_retro said:
I tend to shoot 400 ASA black & white negative film (usually Neopan 400 shot at 320) virtually all light levels and I tend to shoot wide open a lot.
Joe, I am mostly a street shooter. So, I think either lens would be fine. Your comments about the greater possibility of error due to wide angle lens effects may make the 25mm a more difficult lens to handle.
Ron
Last edited:
Grober
Well-known
If you are content with film OR wear glasses when shooting, buy the ZM 28.
If you think there is a M8 in your future (but you'll also continue to shoot film), the ZM 25 may be a better choice.
Zeiss (Germany only) can solve the "M8 lens mount dliemma" here by changing the ZM 25's mount to that normally sold on their ZM 35 for a fee of 40 Euros. The ZM 35 mount invokes a more-usable 24/35 frame in the M8. Purists please note: I don't really care that it now will invoke the "wrong" frame on any film body because when using the ZM 25 on any film camera I'd be using a separate viewfinder anyway.
I dislike using the auxilliary viewfinders most of the time just because of the added clutter they bring to any camera. On a .72 MP, you could use the 28mm with no aux. v/f.
If you elect to buy the ZM 25, suck it up and buy their dearly-priced v/f too. It's worth it. (I also use it with my 21mm Elmarit on the M8.)
-g
If you think there is a M8 in your future (but you'll also continue to shoot film), the ZM 25 may be a better choice.
Zeiss (Germany only) can solve the "M8 lens mount dliemma" here by changing the ZM 25's mount to that normally sold on their ZM 35 for a fee of 40 Euros. The ZM 35 mount invokes a more-usable 24/35 frame in the M8. Purists please note: I don't really care that it now will invoke the "wrong" frame on any film body because when using the ZM 25 on any film camera I'd be using a separate viewfinder anyway.
I dislike using the auxilliary viewfinders most of the time just because of the added clutter they bring to any camera. On a .72 MP, you could use the 28mm with no aux. v/f.
If you elect to buy the ZM 25, suck it up and buy their dearly-priced v/f too. It's worth it. (I also use it with my 21mm Elmarit on the M8.)
-g
back alley
IMAGES
...I am mostly a street shooter. So, I think either lens would be fine. Your comments about the greater possibility of error due to wide angle lens effects may make the 25mm a more difficult lens to handle...
not necessarily so, i find the 25 very easy to use with little of that 'wide angle effect' and great for hyper focal distance use.
i was surprised that the 25 didn't really look all that different from the 28 fov, except for 'more' being in the photo but not with that 'wow, what a wide shot' effect.
hard for me to explain.
not necessarily so, i find the 25 very easy to use with little of that 'wide angle effect' and great for hyper focal distance use.
i was surprised that the 25 didn't really look all that different from the 28 fov, except for 'more' being in the photo but not with that 'wow, what a wide shot' effect.
hard for me to explain.
LazyHammock
Well-known
I use the 28mm with a 0.72 MP. I find it a very nice combination. The lens partially blocks the framelines but this is a minor issue for me. The lens is quite compact, is very well built and is quite flare resistant. It is also a very sharp lens. I prefer not using an external viewfinder and this lens pairs very nicely with my 50mm.
Cheers,
Nick
Cheers,
Nick
shg005
Established
Your choice between 25mm or 28mm it's not a question about which lens better technicly. It'a a question - What do you what from yours pictures?
What does it mean:
- Do you want "immediate wide effect" from a picture (25mm)
- Do you want take a pictures that will be interesting after 20 years (28mm, but 35mm better)
- How tall are you (It's not a joke, It's real angle for a camera during shoting). More tall, more sharp angle of camera for the same lens. Othervise you will take a lot of empty space outside of main subject of a picture.
For me 25, 21mm lenses more boring then 35mm because I saw so many pictures that taked by WA lenses... But 35mm pictures still interesting after many and many years.
.
Sorry for the post, but this is a little bit another point of view to focal lenght
What does it mean:
- Do you want "immediate wide effect" from a picture (25mm)
- Do you want take a pictures that will be interesting after 20 years (28mm, but 35mm better)
- How tall are you (It's not a joke, It's real angle for a camera during shoting). More tall, more sharp angle of camera for the same lens. Othervise you will take a lot of empty space outside of main subject of a picture.
For me 25, 21mm lenses more boring then 35mm because I saw so many pictures that taked by WA lenses... But 35mm pictures still interesting after many and many years.
.
Sorry for the post, but this is a little bit another point of view to focal lenght
steve garza
Well-known
I just picked up a 25mm (Skopar) and find it slightly wide for street shooting, but still great fun to use. It may a matter of learning the focal length, i.e., distance to subject. Also, If you choose the 25mm, you can buy a cheapo VC 25mm finder from Gandy. You may want to check his stock. If I really enjoy this FL, I will at some point buy the Zeiss. I used to own a 21mm Biogon and found it to be fantastic.
S
Socke
Guest
If the 28mm ZM Biogon is as good as the 28mm G-Mount Biogon, and I have no reason to doubt that, it is a fantastic lens!
Ok, problably not at it´s best at f2.8 but at f4 it is a real gem and even wide open it is one of the best lenses I own, only second to the 45 planar.
Ok, problably not at it´s best at f2.8 but at f4 it is a real gem and even wide open it is one of the best lenses I own, only second to the 45 planar.
ian_w
Member
Not sure if I can answer your question directly, but I was using just a 50 (summicron, now elmar-M) and wanted a 25mm or thereabouts. Got a VC28 and 21 as I didn't like the idea of no RF coupling with the VC25 (there wasn't a ZM25 at that time).
I now have a 35 and am selling the 28 and thinking about dropping the 21 for the ZM25. The reasoning being that I hate viewing 28mm with the perspective of a 50mm. The 0.72x viewfinder does give you the scope of the 28mm but not the perspective. Using the external viewfinders is a small pain but at least you know more what the image elements will looks like. The 35mm framelines and perspective are far more usable. I'm thinking of ditching the 21mm just because I find it a little too wide most of the time. It seems a shame that it took me two years to work all this out! Having said that, I don't think I could have worked it out without spending the time. So, it's a three lens kit, but if I reduced to two, yeah I'd go for 50 and 25 with an external viewfinder. If you do go 25, get the Zeiss finder, the VC ones are wonderful optically, but seem pretty flimsy, especially the hotshoe mount foot.
Ian
I now have a 35 and am selling the 28 and thinking about dropping the 21 for the ZM25. The reasoning being that I hate viewing 28mm with the perspective of a 50mm. The 0.72x viewfinder does give you the scope of the 28mm but not the perspective. Using the external viewfinders is a small pain but at least you know more what the image elements will looks like. The 35mm framelines and perspective are far more usable. I'm thinking of ditching the 21mm just because I find it a little too wide most of the time. It seems a shame that it took me two years to work all this out! Having said that, I don't think I could have worked it out without spending the time. So, it's a three lens kit, but if I reduced to two, yeah I'd go for 50 and 25 with an external viewfinder. If you do go 25, get the Zeiss finder, the VC ones are wonderful optically, but seem pretty flimsy, especially the hotshoe mount foot.
Ian
fuwen
Well-known
I do not own a ZM25. I do have a ZM28 and the main reason is I felt that this focal length can mostly be used to take fast shot so external finder is not as ideal as framing straight from the view finder.
I have used the Zeiss Rolleiflex SLR version of the 25mm distagon for many many years. When I convert to Contax SLR recently I choose the 28mm Distagon instead of the 25mm Distagon. The Rolleiflex 25mm has a very strong character in terms of perspective presentation, and I can almost always able to tell a photo taken by a 25mm.
With 28mm your chance of running into perspective distorsion especially with human face at the corners will be less.
I have used the Zeiss Rolleiflex SLR version of the 25mm distagon for many many years. When I convert to Contax SLR recently I choose the 28mm Distagon instead of the 25mm Distagon. The Rolleiflex 25mm has a very strong character in terms of perspective presentation, and I can almost always able to tell a photo taken by a 25mm.
With 28mm your chance of running into perspective distorsion especially with human face at the corners will be less.
Olsen
Well-known
Ron,
The Carl Zeiss 25 mm 2,8 is possibly One of the Sharpest Lenses in the World. It's ancester is the legendary lense used in the photo recce Dorniers used over Europe during WWII. It's a 'must have' for anyone with a Leica M bayonet compatible camera.
The Biogon 25 mm 2,8 - relates directly to the Hasselblad SWC which again is related to a designed Carl Zeiss lens for a airborn spy camera and was a equipped with multi coating, a military secret patent back in the 30'.
During the winter of 1939-40 - before Norway and Denmark was attacked in April 1940, German Dorniers flew regularly up the west coast of Norway as far as Trondheim and then down to Oslo, along the swedish west coast and over the dansih streights before returning to bases in Northern Germany. They would photograph all the shipping lying in the harbours. This would be vital intelligence for the german u-boat fleet. To be able to identify the different ships they needed a lense with very good resolution and no distortion,- no little job since the Dorniers were - most of the time - flying slightly above 30.000 ft - higher than any norwegian fighter could fly back then. Nor did any of the scandinavian countries have radar. The Dorniers were impossible to intercept. The lense was the legendary Biogon of Carl Zeiss.
The germans attacked Norway the 9.th of April 1940. A few days after the attack a norwegian fighter managed to shoot at one of these Dorniers flying lower than usual, probably due to the weather. Nothing more happened than that the Dornier set course southwards trailing a thin line of white smoke. It later made a forced landing in Småland, Sweden, just south east of Gothenburg. Two crew members were killed, two survived. The swedes were neutral in WWII and would rather not be pulled into the conflict. On german insistance they duly returned all papers on board like code books and order of battle, and the crew - although the swedes had the right to intern them according to international law. But they kept the camera, - the germans forgot to ask for it.
Swedish military soon understood that the Dornier wreak contained a remarkable camera. They showed it to the, then, swedish Kodak importer, Victor Hasselblad, and asked if he could make them a copy. According to tradition he answered; 'Not only that, I can even make you an even better one'.
So, when you buy a Carl Zeiss 25 mm 2,8 you buy a piece of history.
Surely, the 28 mm 2,8 is a good lense, - but not that remarkable in relation to the picture angle. - Many makes good 28 mm. Carl Zeiss makes a remarkable 25 mm.
As for how practical usability goes, I can confirm that I use my ZI 25 mm 2,8 with both my Zeiss Ikon camera, occationally with a dedicated viewfinder, but also without, as I use it with my Leica MP with a 0,72 viewfinder. Not perfect, but compact.
The Carl Zeiss 25 mm 2,8 is possibly One of the Sharpest Lenses in the World. It's ancester is the legendary lense used in the photo recce Dorniers used over Europe during WWII. It's a 'must have' for anyone with a Leica M bayonet compatible camera.
The Biogon 25 mm 2,8 - relates directly to the Hasselblad SWC which again is related to a designed Carl Zeiss lens for a airborn spy camera and was a equipped with multi coating, a military secret patent back in the 30'.
During the winter of 1939-40 - before Norway and Denmark was attacked in April 1940, German Dorniers flew regularly up the west coast of Norway as far as Trondheim and then down to Oslo, along the swedish west coast and over the dansih streights before returning to bases in Northern Germany. They would photograph all the shipping lying in the harbours. This would be vital intelligence for the german u-boat fleet. To be able to identify the different ships they needed a lense with very good resolution and no distortion,- no little job since the Dorniers were - most of the time - flying slightly above 30.000 ft - higher than any norwegian fighter could fly back then. Nor did any of the scandinavian countries have radar. The Dorniers were impossible to intercept. The lense was the legendary Biogon of Carl Zeiss.
The germans attacked Norway the 9.th of April 1940. A few days after the attack a norwegian fighter managed to shoot at one of these Dorniers flying lower than usual, probably due to the weather. Nothing more happened than that the Dornier set course southwards trailing a thin line of white smoke. It later made a forced landing in Småland, Sweden, just south east of Gothenburg. Two crew members were killed, two survived. The swedes were neutral in WWII and would rather not be pulled into the conflict. On german insistance they duly returned all papers on board like code books and order of battle, and the crew - although the swedes had the right to intern them according to international law. But they kept the camera, - the germans forgot to ask for it.
Swedish military soon understood that the Dornier wreak contained a remarkable camera. They showed it to the, then, swedish Kodak importer, Victor Hasselblad, and asked if he could make them a copy. According to tradition he answered; 'Not only that, I can even make you an even better one'.
So, when you buy a Carl Zeiss 25 mm 2,8 you buy a piece of history.
Surely, the 28 mm 2,8 is a good lense, - but not that remarkable in relation to the picture angle. - Many makes good 28 mm. Carl Zeiss makes a remarkable 25 mm.
As for how practical usability goes, I can confirm that I use my ZI 25 mm 2,8 with both my Zeiss Ikon camera, occationally with a dedicated viewfinder, but also without, as I use it with my Leica MP with a 0,72 viewfinder. Not perfect, but compact.