leica 24mm 2.8 vs Zeiss 25mm 2.8

JoeMac

JoeMac

Member
Local time
3:06 PM
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
43
I need your advise. I want to get a 24/25mm lens and would like your opinions on whether the Leica is worth 3 times the price of the Zeiss. I would hate to go the cheaper way only to find that the lens wasn't worth it, I have done that too many times before.

Thanks:confused:
 
I have the 25 ZM and would not trade it for the Leitz. What difference do you think you would see between the ZM and the Leica lens? Zeiss claims it's the sharpest and best lens they produce in 35mm. I would honestly say it is. It's the sharpest wide angle that I've ever owned, ultra flare resistant and excellent tonality. Mechanics are equal or better than most current leica lenses and superior to the 80's - 90's vintage leica mounts. Finish is superb and functions are butter smooth. Even if both were the same price i would take the Zeiss.

I've shot leica professionally for nearly forty years and If I were starting today with the knowledge I have today I would select the Zeiss glass over Leica with possibly the exception of the 50 asph summilux. Price not being a factor here, I simply like the performance and build of the Zeiss over the Leica glass.
 
The Zeiss lens is smaller (46 mm vs 55 mm filter thread) but Puts says the Leica is better. I don't shoot test charts and I can't give a side by side comparson because I don't have both, but I tried the 25/2.8 once in a store, and it mounted with the most horrible grating sound on my M3. I felt the build quality was not as good as the Leica lens, and the material felt cheap. Nevertheless, handheld, I doubt you'll find any real difference in resolution between the two lenses. Other than build quality, size and weight, You might notice differences in the bokeh, contrast, colour rendition, vignetting, etc. Whether these are important to you is for you to determine. Just because the Leica has a different colour rendition from the Zeiss only means they are different, it does not mean one is better than the other.
 
Don't have the 25mm but recently ordered the 35mm Biogon and the 50mm Sonnar in silver to use with my M3.

They are beautifully made and look great on the camera. Operation of the lenses is terrific. The 50 does not mount as smoothly on the M3 as the 35 does but it's not a big deal.

Too soon to make comment on the image quality but frankly I doubt that in most cases that most people (myself included) could tell the differnence between photographs made with ZI and Leica lenses. Maybe not even between ZI and CV lenses.
 
Last edited:
I also have the Leica 24mm and love it, but I might well have bought the Zeiss had it been around when I bought my first 24 (I am now on my second). If the Zeiss lens is 1/3 of the price of the 24 I would say get the Zeiss, it sounds like it is optically almost indistinguishable from the Leica. The reports of somewhat dodgy construction of Zeiss products by Cosina do give me pause, if you buy the Zeiss make absolutely sure you are satisfied with the fit & finish and build quality.
 
The only problems I've ever experienced in 38 years with any M series lens has been with Leica lenses. MY 50 tabbed summicron had focusing helix issues, binding, and so does my 35 v4 summicron, sloppy cut helix. They were very poorly constructed and not built to the same standards of the earlier lenses. I've learned this is not uncommon in this generation of leica lenses. My 90 apo asph summicron has had to have service due to binding too. I'm not at all pleased with the construction of leica lenses since the mid 70's.

If you can't make excellent images with the Zeiss or any other modern lens it's not the fault of the lens.
 
I've owned 4 ZM lenses and each of them has been fantastic and function smoothly and perfectly.

Anyways, that 25 ZM is a great lens.
 
the aperture clicks of the Zeiss ZM lens feels more solid than those Leica ones. Several years ago, when the Zeiss Planar 50 was out, I handled it, the impession was poor, it felt very light, the letters were printed on the body etc.

this year, well, it should be last year now, I handled them again, (have not examined the 50 planar yet), they feel wonder, the letters are inscripted on the body, body is of excellent weight, smooth focus movement, the hood mount is impressive, shadow of contarex lens, fond memory. standarized filter thread of E43 or E46 for most of them.

as to performance, it is different from modern leica asph lens, they are top of "analogue" lens, not excessively sharp or contrasty.

I currently have c sonnar 50 and biogon 25, planning to add biogon 35 this year.

the Leica might very well be the top either on test chart and A/B comparison, but I doubt very much whether you will see the difference in real life, and in any event, the Leica better be good for their selling price.

the only advantage for Leica optics is the large aperture lens, the 35 asph summilux and 50 asph summilux, they have no competition in sight at any price range (have to mention the cv nokton 35/1.2 and c sonnar 50 mention as being the very good ones), others have seen their territory encroached upon by voigtlander and zeiss lens.
 
the sharpness and PUNCH of the ZM 25 are unsurpassed, ALSO I think the planar is fantastic and the 35 biogon also excellent. I own all 3 and have had their leica counterparts. only the zeiss remain in my stable of lenses.
 
Last edited:
JoeMac, If you are going to shoot Leica film cameras only, the Zeiss 25mm/2.8 Biogon ZM is a great deal, and mine is perfectly made just like X-Ray's and Kyle's. The image quality is superlative, with very high resolution and contrast, yet a smooth tonality that makes negatives from fine grained 35mm film resemble medium format quality.

One issue with the M8 is that the 25mm Biogons bring up a different frameset than the Leica 24mm lenses, and not the right one on the M8. Hopefully Zeiss will fix this on future 25mm ZM lenses.
 
Last edited:
Wondering about the finder....
any apprecialable difference between the Zeiss v the CV finder....I was thinking of the purchasing the Zeiss lens and the CV finder for use with it. I'd save a little $$....
 
I use the CV 25mm finder with my Leica 24 and that combo works just fine. Later this year I'll be considering the best wide-angle finder of them all - the Bessa R4A. :D
 
I use the CV finder with the Zeiss 25. I have a 25 CV for my Nikon S3-2000 which I rarely use so I just carry the finder in the Leica bag.
 
The Voigtländer 25mm brightline finders are great, though a 0.58x finder M body will also give a decent indication of lens view if you use the whole finder area. I have a Zeiss 21mm finder for that Biogon, and it is slightly nicer than the Voigtländer 25mm optically, but much better made physically.
 
I'm in the same boat. I've tried the Leica 24mm and love the pics that I got from it.
Here's my sample pic with the Leica 24mm.

However, the price tag of the 24mm is too steep for me...unless I find a good second hand one at half or less than half actual price. But the ZM 25MM is very tempting, having seen very good pictures taken with it in this forum and the smaller size is appealing too. I'm leaning towards the ZM 25MM at this point because of the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom