CDL
Member
Hello,
In the next few days I plan to put an order in for a new Zeiss Ikon and either, the Zeiss 25mm or the 28mm. Without worrying about the cost/size/ex viewfinder issues, does anyone have any comment on which would be better for street/documentary stuff?
I know that there are a lot of guys on here who say that the 25 is so, so good and their pictures prove it but I haven't heard from many users of the 28mm lens. What I really want to know is, would I be an idiot not to buy the 25mm just becasue 28mm is the focal length that I'm after style-wise, and are the wide-angle effects that different?
thanks
Chris
In the next few days I plan to put an order in for a new Zeiss Ikon and either, the Zeiss 25mm or the 28mm. Without worrying about the cost/size/ex viewfinder issues, does anyone have any comment on which would be better for street/documentary stuff?
I know that there are a lot of guys on here who say that the 25 is so, so good and their pictures prove it but I haven't heard from many users of the 28mm lens. What I really want to know is, would I be an idiot not to buy the 25mm just becasue 28mm is the focal length that I'm after style-wise, and are the wide-angle effects that different?
thanks
Chris
back alley
IMAGES
i think sdk has the 28...i might be wrong.
have you done a search here?
from the little i remember reading, the 28 is a fine lens but the 25 gets all the glory. i bought the zm 25 because i wanted to go a bit wider but wound up with the cv 28/1.9 also. if i had to pick one i would go with the 25.
very little wide angle effect/distortion. it's harder to use or at least more thought is required than with the 28 but nothing too strenuous.
i think you would be pleased with either and you need to choose based on your style of use more than anything.
joe
have you done a search here?
from the little i remember reading, the 28 is a fine lens but the 25 gets all the glory. i bought the zm 25 because i wanted to go a bit wider but wound up with the cv 28/1.9 also. if i had to pick one i would go with the 25.
very little wide angle effect/distortion. it's harder to use or at least more thought is required than with the 28 but nothing too strenuous.
i think you would be pleased with either and you need to choose based on your style of use more than anything.
joe
Avotius
Some guy
that 25 lens is a real jewl and the one I would go for, im not all so up on using those confounded external viewfinders but I hear with the ZI vf you can pretty much get the 25 view
K
Kyle
Guest
I have nothing to say in regards to 25 vs 28. I went with the ZM 25 because IMO it fits better with a 35, 50, 90 combo. I really love the lens, I don't think you can regret the purchase either way, so I think just pick the perspective you want.
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
Both the 25mm and 28mm ZM Biogons are great, sharp, smooth tonality lenses. Both lenses resist flare and resolve infinity landscapes clearly. Their negatives almost have a medium format quality with low ISO speed films.
Compared to the 28mm Summicron ASPH, the Biogon 28mm has better flare resistance and infinity sharpness, but is a bit softer close up and in the corners at wide apertures (f/2.8 and f/4). Of course, the Summicron has f/2, great for available light and it has more sketchy and exaggerated out of focus character. The negatives of the Summicron are wicked sharp, but not smooth, and look distinctly 35mm. The new Leica 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH is amazingly small and light. I may trade the 28mm Biogon for it.
The 25mm Biogon is quite a bit larger in length than the 28mms, but not huge, and actually smaller than the Leitz Canada 28mm with its 49mm filter thread and narrower than the Leica 24mm ASPH. The wide angle perspective is more pronounced with the 25mm which is great sometimes. The 25mm is hard to beat optically. Mine has a butter smooth focus ring and a nice slightly stiff aperture ring with positive detents. It's a great mate for the whole field view of Hexar RF 0.6X or Leica 0.58X finders.
Compared to the 28mm Summicron ASPH, the Biogon 28mm has better flare resistance and infinity sharpness, but is a bit softer close up and in the corners at wide apertures (f/2.8 and f/4). Of course, the Summicron has f/2, great for available light and it has more sketchy and exaggerated out of focus character. The negatives of the Summicron are wicked sharp, but not smooth, and look distinctly 35mm. The new Leica 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH is amazingly small and light. I may trade the 28mm Biogon for it.
The 25mm Biogon is quite a bit larger in length than the 28mms, but not huge, and actually smaller than the Leitz Canada 28mm with its 49mm filter thread and narrower than the Leica 24mm ASPH. The wide angle perspective is more pronounced with the 25mm which is great sometimes. The 25mm is hard to beat optically. Mine has a butter smooth focus ring and a nice slightly stiff aperture ring with positive detents. It's a great mate for the whole field view of Hexar RF 0.6X or Leica 0.58X finders.
CDL
Member
Thank-you everyone for the detailed responses. I, too, was considering the CV 28mm 1.9 but worried that the viefinder blockage (which I really hate) would be too much of an issue. I was attracted to the Biogon 28mm becasue it was so small. Based on your responses, I probably should go for the 25mm, but somehow, the 28mm seems like a great small/light high-quality lens. Decisions.
fuwen
Well-known
I am new to range finder. My reason for a 28mm Biogon is I already have a 40mm, and therefore 28mm will be a logical choice as a wide angle companion to the 40mm, and also I am able to use my finder without external finder and therefore faster for candid shot.
Turtle
Veteran
I would go 25mm:
1. This lens is supposed to be increible. Even Erwin Puts says so.
2. As said before, it partners well with 35mm and a fast 35mm is surely the mainstay of any street outfit? 28 might leave you wanting a wider view with the innevitable cost of a 21 too.
3. The 25 can just about be used with a 28mm finder by using the internal border of the entire finder (on Leica .72)...so I have been told. Will say for sure when mine arrives!
4. Consensus is that the ZM 25 is better than the 28. I am sure the 28 is very good, but just not as special. the 28 is a wee bit smaller tho!
5. I went for a 25,35,50,90 outfit too. Thats me done..unless I get that new 18mm Zm but I reckon the price incl inder will cure me of that.
I don't think 28 is a big enough gap to 35. However, 28-50-90 is a slightly less flexible alternative (lighter, cheaper, less bulky!).
Sounds like you wont be disappointed with the 28 ZM if that is what you need to hear. I just think the 25 kinda stole the glory.
1. This lens is supposed to be increible. Even Erwin Puts says so.
2. As said before, it partners well with 35mm and a fast 35mm is surely the mainstay of any street outfit? 28 might leave you wanting a wider view with the innevitable cost of a 21 too.
3. The 25 can just about be used with a 28mm finder by using the internal border of the entire finder (on Leica .72)...so I have been told. Will say for sure when mine arrives!
4. Consensus is that the ZM 25 is better than the 28. I am sure the 28 is very good, but just not as special. the 28 is a wee bit smaller tho!
5. I went for a 25,35,50,90 outfit too. Thats me done..unless I get that new 18mm Zm but I reckon the price incl inder will cure me of that.
I don't think 28 is a big enough gap to 35. However, 28-50-90 is a slightly less flexible alternative (lighter, cheaper, less bulky!).
Sounds like you wont be disappointed with the 28 ZM if that is what you need to hear. I just think the 25 kinda stole the glory.
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
Turtle said:
No, this will not work well. The 25mm Biogon projects more to the negative than the Leica 0.72X Finder can display. The 25mm will work well, as I said before, with the whole view of the 0.58X Leica Finders and the 0.6X Finder of the Hexar RF, though without parallax correction. I have read the larger 0.74X finder of the Zeiss Ikon also works well for the 25mm Biogon. I use the Voigtländer 25mm brightline accessory finder on my 0.72X Leica body, and it has a dashed line for parallax guesstimating at close distances.
CDL
Member
The 25mm will be used with the Zeiss Ikon finder, and I've heard this is OK. I don't place that much importance on super-accurate framing, especially for street work, and if I get a 35mm lens as well, then I can use this with the isolated frame on the ZI.
jano
Evil Bokeh
SDK said:
It's... okay. I wear glasses (have -14 vision), and I cannot see the inside, so I sort of guesstimate by pulling my glasses up and looking through the VF, trying to concentrate on shapes and stuff. Doesn't work too well. I've ended up with some really nice shots, but framing wise.. it's still difficult and I personally do not like it. Or maybe it's just the lens is so wide and I'm not wholly used to it *shrug* Anyway, I'm considering getting a 28 instead.
Goodyear
Happy-snap ninja
Sounds like the most important reason to go for the 28, however hot the 25 is.CDL said:
K
Kyle
Guest
FYI, there was a ZM 28 in the classifieds last night at a really good price.
CDL
Member
The Biogon 28mm in the classifieds looks good but, unfortunately, its not in ZM mount. I still can't decide!
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
CDL said:
there was one there yesterday, it must have sold already.
joe
K
Kyle
Guest
CDL said:
I'm not talking about the one thats in there for the Contax G for $199. There was the ZM mount version, with hood, for $600 but it appears to no longer be up for sale (it either sold or the seller decided to keep it).
Nachkebia
Well-known
28mm ASPH is good in it? 
x-ray
Veteran
I just received my 25 biogon this morning and finished running a roll. In the mid 80's I had Rollei 3003's and had a set of Zeiss glass for it. In that set was the 25 which I absolutely loved. The ZM looks every bit as good or better than the one I had twenty years ago. I also purchased a 35 biogon last week and have run a few rolls from it. Wow with this lens too. With my old 3003's I had the 35 1.4 Zeiss and didn't think it was anything special. I also had the 15, 16 fisheye, 18, 50 1.4, 60 micro and 85 1.4 plus a zoom 200 and 400. The 15 was the best i've ever owned including my nikkor 15. The 18 was excellent and beat the pants off my 19 leitz R, the 50 was great but the 60 and 85 were magic just like the 25.
I don't know about the 28 and really don't care for that focal length but that's just my thing. I can say you will totally love the 25.
I don't know about the 28 and really don't care for that focal length but that's just my thing. I can say you will totally love the 25.
ERV
Well-known
I just bought a very lightly used zeiss 28 biogon and am extremely pleased with it.
The images are very sharp and have a nice 3-D quality to them.
I had and sold a CV 25 because I didn't care for scale focusing all the time and considered the zeiss 25, however the 28's price was right and I prefer a less-wide look overall. I also wanted to be able to use it on my M6 w/o a separate finder.
Eventually, someday, when I cash in all the spare change around the house, I'd like to get an M8 and the 28 will become a 37mm, which is perfect since my favorite focal lengths are 40 and 50. So, I'm happy with the 28mm.
Here is a sample from the first roll.
The images are very sharp and have a nice 3-D quality to them.
I had and sold a CV 25 because I didn't care for scale focusing all the time and considered the zeiss 25, however the 28's price was right and I prefer a less-wide look overall. I also wanted to be able to use it on my M6 w/o a separate finder.
Eventually, someday, when I cash in all the spare change around the house, I'd like to get an M8 and the 28 will become a 37mm, which is perfect since my favorite focal lengths are 40 and 50. So, I'm happy with the 28mm.
Here is a sample from the first roll.
Attachments
Last edited:
LazyHammock
Well-known
My primary lens is the ZM 50 Planar and I bought the 28mm as my wider option. It is a killer lens, sharp, virtually distortion-free and very resistant to flare. I find it a great compliment to the 50mm. I don't have any pics posted from this lens but will try to within the next week.
Cheers,
Nick
Cheers,
Nick