drjoke
Well-known
Is there any real-life or MTF comparison? Is this worth the price differential? Biogon does not come with a viewfinder, so this makes it even more expensive.
However I hear many good things about the Biogon. Searching for both lenses through Flickr appears to confirms what I hear that Biogon 25mm is really in a class of its own.
However I would like to hear from people who have first hand experience with both lenses.
However I hear many good things about the Biogon. Searching for both lenses through Flickr appears to confirms what I hear that Biogon 25mm is really in a class of its own.
However I would like to hear from people who have first hand experience with both lenses.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
The Skopar was no slouch, but the Biogon is really first class. Many of my recent street images in my RFF gallery were shot with it.
Huck Finn
Well-known
The old version of the 25/4 Skopar came with viewfinder included. The new 25/4 P does not. To mitigate the additional cost of an auxiliary finder is the fact that new version is in M-mount & therefore there is no additional cost for an LTM/M acapter as required by the old LTM version. The newer version has the additional benefits of a closer minimum focus distance (0.5 m) & of being rangefinder coupled - as is true for the Biogon in both regards.
The speed alone of the 25/2.8 Biogon is going to make it more expensive than the 25/4 even if there were no optical benefits, which there appear to be since the 25/2.8 is regarded as the best of the new Zeiss ZM lens line-up.
If you're looking for a xomparison, both of these lenses are reviewed at www.imx.nl.
The speed alone of the 25/2.8 Biogon is going to make it more expensive than the 25/4 even if there were no optical benefits, which there appear to be since the 25/2.8 is regarded as the best of the new Zeiss ZM lens line-up.
If you're looking for a xomparison, both of these lenses are reviewed at www.imx.nl.
Last edited: