I have a 25/4, should I get the 21?

Alan

Newbie
Local time
8:16 AM
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
66
Location
Vancouver
I got a deal from Adorama since i sent them a camera that was broken before I sent it in. They decided to give me a discount on the 21 skopar. but I already own a 25/4/ Should i spend 334USD to get another wide angle? I wouldn't save much, probably just the shipping.
 
Well, I don't know about "should". The question probably are more like "Can you live without one?", "Can you afford it (or at least justify it)?", or something similar. The 21 has RF coupling, which might be useful, but the 21 and 25 are IMO so close to each other when it comes to FoV that I would find it folly to have both. But that's just my opinion!

Did you check Cameraquest already for the price of the 21?
 
The 21 at Cameraquest is $329.

Besides that...

If you are happy with the 25 I would say no to the 21. See if they have a deal on some other lens.

Interestingly, I find that Adorama and B&H have some prices on CV stuff that is lower than Cameraquest, and some that are higher. See if you can find something that they are low on and ask for a deal on that.
 
I recently got the 25mm, but found it too close to my 35mm's and too far away from the 15mm. Also the 25mm isn't such sharp as the 15mm (this to say, the 15mm is one of my sharpest lenses!)
So I also think about the 21mm. Some say the 21mm is one of the best VL lenses.
A picture taken with the 15mm covers 11x the area of the 50mm
A 21mm 5,7x
A 25mm 4x
A 35mm 2x
 
Well, I'm glad to hear the 25 is a lousy lens. Further, that it 's "too close to my 35mm's..."

Glad because I was seriously thinking of buying one. (I've got a Bessa R on order along with he 35/2.5.

Ted
 
The 25 is a very nice lens and a bargain to boot - would make an excellent wide-angle addition to your R.

If you currently have a 35 as your sole lens, the 25 might not be the next step most people would make, but you would enjoy the lens and its performance. (I think most would go for something longer, like a 75 as their second lens.)
 
John:

Thanks for the tip. I neglected to mention that I was thinking about the 75. The R has 75 on its lens selection lever, and the 75 would certainly be in the ballpark in terms of a portrait lens.

However, I've tended to use 28mm or 24mm lenses in street shooting, so I'm a bit anxious about having to learn to live with just a 35mm. On the othe hand I tell my students, who have SLR's with several lenses, to pick a lens - only one - leave the rest at home and learn to live with it for a week. Perhap I should follow my own advice.

Also, if I should get a 25mm, assuming it's rangefinder coupled, and I'm sure the CV would be so, as there is no lens setting for it, how do I know what I'm seeing and what the camera's seeing?

Ted
 
The 25 is not rangefinder-coupled - it's a scale-focus lens. It takes a little practice, but you use the scale markings on the lens to 'guesstimate' focus and the lens' large depth of field does the rest. (The 21 is rangefinder coupled).

Lenses wider than 35 are not served by framelines in the R's viewfinder. You can use the very outside of the field of view to approximate the 28mm lens, but with anything wider, you will need an external viewfinder.

Fortunately, the Voigtlander wides are sold with viewfinders - very bright, very easy to use.

On the longer side, the 75 and the 90 are both great lenses. Can't go wrong.
 
Yes, and that's why the 25mm is called "Snapshot Skopar". 🙂 It also has very nice focusing click-stops to help zeroing in on certain distances quickly by feel. The lens has lots of depth of field, is very sharp, and is, I think, a good companion for a 35mm focal length.
 
Well, I like my 25mm; it is sharp enough for me, it is wide enough fore me (for street-style shooting, which I use my RFs for - for landscape, where something wider might be helpful, I use MF gear), perfect next wider focal length after the 35mm. Also, since mine lives on the Bessa L, I don't need RF coupling, the click stops are quite practical, along with the L's external meter readings, for hip-shooting (see my 'Naschmarkt' series in the gallery for some results!)

Roman
 
What film do you guys use for street? I've been shooting Kodak Ultra Color. I love the color saturation and I couldn't find the Agfa ultra 100. I want to start shooting black and white again. I'm looking for something with alot of contrast and a nice tone. and actually start to learn how to develope the film myself once i get enough money to get a changing bag dark room.
Sorry if it's a bit out of topic but I didn't want to make a whole new topic about it.
Thanks 😕
 
Alan,
a lot of people her (including myself) like Fuji Neopan 400, but you should get good results from any conventional 400 ASA B&W film like Kodak TriX (the traditional choice), Ilford HP5+ and Agfa APX400; if you shoot a lot in bright light, you might also consider APX100, or Ilford FP4+, or one of the budget films from Eastern European makers, like Fomapan 100 or Efke KB100 (eg. from JandCPhotography). For low light, I like Fuji Neopan 1600, and for 'available darkness' (indoor shooting with artificial light), Kodak TMax 3200.
If you are still new to film developing, you might want to stay away from the flat-crystal/T-grain types of B&W films (Kodak TMax and Ilford Delta), because they are much more finicky when it comes to exposing (esp. with street shooting, where you don't always have time for a perfect light-reading) and development; these are more fine-grained, so you don't get the traditional gritty street look, either.
Until you are starting to develop yourself, you might want to try the so-called C41 B&W films (which are, essentially, color negative films that produce monochrome pics), like Ilford XP2, Kodak 400BW (or whatever it is called these days), and Konica VX400 Monochrome - these can be developed by any color lab; they don't give as high apparent sharpness (esp. edge sharpness and accutance) as traditional B&W films), but on the other hand, skin-tones will be very smooth, results will be fine-grained, and the great plus: you can expose them from around 100 to 800 ASA on the same roll without changing development (can't be doen w/ traditional films!)

Roman
 
tedwhite said:
Well, I'm glad to hear the 25 is a lousy lens. Further, that it 's "too close to my 35mm's..."

Glad because I was seriously thinking of buying one. (I've got a Bessa R on order along with he 35/2.5.


This is probably the first time I hear someone say the the CV 25/4 is a lousy lens! And it is pertinently untrue. I think most-if-not-all 25-owners will agree with me on this.

The CV 25 is great lens, cheap, sharp, and with not a lot of distortion.

For it being too close to a 35mm... for me it isn't. I don't have a 28 or 21, and the 25 fills the gap perfectly. It's my widest lens and I have yet to get a craving for anything wider. Stick it on the Bessa L and you have IMO the ultimate street shooting kit. I stuck it semi-permanently on my Leitz Minolta CL, and that combo is one of my regular outfits (together with a Bessa R + J8 combo).
 
Thanks Roman for your recommandation. I'm going to try the Ilford Xp2 since I really want to save some money when developing it. color negative cost half as much as the b&w film to develope in a lab.
Thanks alot!
 
I didn't say its lousy. It's less than excellent (my 15mm is). I have the 25mm, the 35mm Ultron, the 75mm Voigtlander: all of them very good, but less sharp (for landscapes) than the 15mm... the 15mm will squeeze the corn out of every film.

The 35mm Ultron isn't lousy either. But for everday use I prefer my old Canon 2/35. More compact, more contrast, better color saturation at smaller apertures. At f/1.7-2.8 the Voigtlander is a bit sharper, but who cares?

If taking only a few lenses with me; I like broad range. A 21mm, a 35mm and a 75-85 - fine. 25, 50mm and 100 - fine as well. But 25, 35 and 50 are too close for my feeling (for B&W and cutting enlargements in particular). Between 15 and 25, there is a big gap. Yes I often take my 15mm with me (who asks for weight?) but it's a bit extreme. The 25mm on the other hand isn't true ultrawide. The 21mm exists with a reason. it's on my wishlist. I'm more a wideangle guy. Maybe then I will give away the 25mm then - maybe not. The 25mm was initially designed for the RF-less Bessa-L. Great idea to use it in streets hip-shooting! At a Bessa-R it drives you nuts, when all your RF-lenses are coupled except one.
 
Sonnar2 said:
At a Bessa-R it drives you nuts, when all your RF-lenses are coupled except one.

🙂
I know the feeling. Another reason why it's permanently on the CL (or else on the L).
 
Back
Top Bottom