Zeiss 25 2.8 ZM & 28 2.8, who has both?

[kknox]

I have a 25 2.8ZM, I shoot both Leica M & Fuji X-Pro1. The 28 is more compact, and not quite as wide. Do any of you own both lens, & do you see any difference other that the width of the lens from 28-25mm?

 

[maddoc]

I used to have both, first the 25/2.8 and later the 28/2.8. The 25/2.8 was the better lens, performance-wise (resolution, contrast, corner-sharpness). The 28/2.8 is OK when stopped down a little but so is the M-Rokkor 28/2.8 which I now have and prefer. However, I have only used the 25/2.8 on both, film and digital sensor, the 28/2.8 both only with film.

EDIT: The digital camera I used with the ZM 25/2.8 was the Epson R-D1s.

 

[rscheffler]

I have shot both on the M9, but not side by side, therefore discount my opinion as you like... The ZM25 is a more technical lens that will blow you away with its sharpness across the frame, even from near wide open. The 28 is very sharp centrally, but takes awhile to catch up in the corners. My feeling is it has great contrast qualities and is a good 'reportage' lens, but if you need technical performance across the frame, it's not as strong compared to the Leica 28s. Also, the 25 has been described as a bit tighter than 25, maybe more a 26mm. While of course there will be coverage differences between the two, it may not be dramatic.

BTW, Lensrentals recently blogged about field curvature observed with some wide angle M mount lenses, including both of these. It's quite informative. The graph for the 28 clearly shows it has noticeably more field curvature than the 25, which certainly affects across-frame performance with planar/flat subjects.

 

[Tom A]

I have both lenses - use them on film cameras (M's, Bessa and Zeiss ZM). The 25mm f2.8 is probably one of the best lenses in the Zeiss ZM line-up. Resolution, sharpness, tonality etc puts it in a class of its own. The 28mm f2.8 is OK, but certainly not a stellar performer, I prefer the VC 28mm f2.0. The 28mm f2.8 is not a bad lens as such, but compared to the 25f2.8 it is just mediocre in my opinion. I find that I can use the 25mm on the Bessa R4M without the finder by being a bit "optimistic" with the view through the 25 frames.

 

[MCTuomey]

I've used both on an M8 and M9, no longer have either lens. I liked the ZM 28 very much on the M8, where it had strong contrast and center performance, as noted in posts above. Made some some of my favorite NOLA images with it. (It also helped that, for me, the 28 FL is a sweetspot for the M8's viewfinder.) The 28 flared occasionally, which is a bit surprising given how my other ZMs resist flaring. As everyone says, the 25 is wonderfully sharp, consistent, one of the best ZMs and so on. But for some reason I didn't love it, have only a few fav images from it, which doesn't make sense given its reputation.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I have only the 25 but I did a lot of research on the 28 as well. What Ron and the others say above is all true. Both lenses are very near in FL because the 25 is closer to 26. The 25 is technically fantastic. Very flat field, beautiful tonality, even nice bokeh, but the contrast is more like Leica rather than Zeiss. The 28 from what I understood from my research has a very strong field curvature which makes it less ideal for landscapes and whenever you need across the frame sharpness. However, the field curvature combined with a very Zeissy contrast can produce very dramatic results especially in reportage and environmental portraits.

 

[Tom A]

Bejing 2006, Zeiss Biogon 25mm f2.8, M2/TriX/PCK developer

 

[Tom A]

Leica M4P, Zeiss Biogon 28mm f2.8. Kodak Double X in Harvey 777 developer.

 

[mfogiel]

The 28 is the weakest lens in the ZM line, mainly for two reasons: field curvature, which makes sharp corners at infinity a struggle, and incredibly, it is the most flare prone of all of them, which is not much in absolute terms, as Zeiss coatings are in any case the best. The 25 is gold standard.

 

[kknox]

Thanks everyone for you comments. I will stick with my 25 zm.