sper
Well-known
I just bought a Bessa-R4A and I AM PUMPED! I'm going to pick up one of the Zeiss 21mm Biogons for sure, but I'd like to pick up one more wide angle.
I can't decide between the 28 and 25mm lenses. I know the 28 is supposed to be sweet, but I don't hear too much about the 25. I know that I don't want a 35mm ƒ2 (even though I've heard only great things about this lens). I'm selling my 35mm ƒ2.5 Color Skopar because I think just don't like the 35mm angle of view, not long enough, not short enough.
The only other lens I have at the moment is the 50mm 1.5 Nokton. So what'cha think?! I suppose it's a win either way, but who can tell me if there is a glaring reason why I should get one over the other?
I can't decide between the 28 and 25mm lenses. I know the 28 is supposed to be sweet, but I don't hear too much about the 25. I know that I don't want a 35mm ƒ2 (even though I've heard only great things about this lens). I'm selling my 35mm ƒ2.5 Color Skopar because I think just don't like the 35mm angle of view, not long enough, not short enough.
The only other lens I have at the moment is the 50mm 1.5 Nokton. So what'cha think?! I suppose it's a win either way, but who can tell me if there is a glaring reason why I should get one over the other?
andredossantos
Well-known
From what I've on this forum it's definitely the other way around. Many people rave about the 25mm and not much is said about the 28mm.
FWIW, I have the 28mm biogon and love it. The widest frame lines on my m4-p are 28mm and I prefer not to use a external finder. Since you have a R4a, you don't have this problem so it really comes down to which fov you prefer.
FWIW, I have the 28mm biogon and love it. The widest frame lines on my m4-p are 28mm and I prefer not to use a external finder. Since you have a R4a, you don't have this problem so it really comes down to which fov you prefer.
back alley
IMAGES
both the 28 and the 25 are great lenses.
the 25 offers an edge to the look of an image while the 28 is easier to use.
if you get a 21 then you might want to think about getting the 28.
but you can't really go wrong with either.
the 25 offers an edge to the look of an image while the 28 is easier to use.
if you get a 21 then you might want to think about getting the 28.
but you can't really go wrong with either.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The 28f2.8 ZM Biogon is as good as any other 28 f2.8 out there. Not markedly better or worse.
The 25f2.8 ZM Biogon is one of the best lenses you can find. It is as good as naything from Leica. It is a bigger lens and with the hood (round version) you get a bit of blockage in the R4 finder. Not enough to discredit the lens - it is truly that good.
Combine it with a 21f4.5 Biogon for absolute straight lines - and you should be set for wides.
The 25f2.8 ZM Biogon is one of the best lenses you can find. It is as good as naything from Leica. It is a bigger lens and with the hood (round version) you get a bit of blockage in the R4 finder. Not enough to discredit the lens - it is truly that good.
Combine it with a 21f4.5 Biogon for absolute straight lines - and you should be set for wides.
sper
Well-known
mmmmm I'm going to lean toward the 25 I think!!!
It's going to be a bit redundant for me since I'll be getting the 21 (I love the 21mm angle of view), but I think it'll be great with those R4A frame lines.
Maybe I'll pick up a V'lander 28 if I really feel like I need one down the line.
Now to decide about selling the Nokton for a Planar...hmmmm!
It's going to be a bit redundant for me since I'll be getting the 21 (I love the 21mm angle of view), but I think it'll be great with those R4A frame lines.
Maybe I'll pick up a V'lander 28 if I really feel like I need one down the line.
Now to decide about selling the Nokton for a Planar...hmmmm!
Krosya
Konicaze
You should probably read this thread first, before making up your mind:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79134
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79134
sper
Well-known
Sounds like an easy to correct problem, as indicated by the thread. I plan to buy a Leica M6, but a 50mm Summicron is the only (modern) Leica lens I would ever consider buying. Two thousand plus dollars for a small format lens is just absurd. I think the Zeiss lenses are probably just as good, if not better in some cases.
Richard G
Veteran
The ZM 25mm is stunning. Very sharp, no detectable barrel distortion, beautifully made. Handles nicely, focuses closer than the 0.7m of the Leica RF. The external finder is great. It is not small but it is not so heavy. Surely the one to get.
arseniii
Well-known
If you have got yourself 21mm already then 35mm-50mm is a next step for you.
Regarding 25mm Biogon, in my opinion it's the BEST wide angle lens EVER made PERIOD
No experience from 28mm but there is nothing more I could wish for that ZM 25 cannot provide!
Regarding 25mm Biogon, in my opinion it's the BEST wide angle lens EVER made PERIOD
No experience from 28mm but there is nothing more I could wish for that ZM 25 cannot provide!
mfogiel
Veteran
I have both the 25 and the 28 mm, and while the second one is more of a universal lens, the 25mm is optically better and also in my experience, it is flare free, while the 28 can have some.
Turtle
Veteran
Dead simple, considering you dont like 35mm and do want a 21:
21 4.5 C Biogon
28 Biogon
50 Planar.
All contrast matched, the 21 wont intrude into teh R4 finder much at all, the 28 is moderately compact and the performance of all three is better than you.
PS I own the planar is it is amazing. The 28 is very very good and only comes up short on flare when compared to the other ZM wides which are a touch more resilient. Still, flare from the 28 is rare and I abuse mine all the time shooting into the sun.
21 4.5 C Biogon
28 Biogon
50 Planar.
All contrast matched, the 21 wont intrude into teh R4 finder much at all, the 28 is moderately compact and the performance of all three is better than you.
PS I own the planar is it is amazing. The 28 is very very good and only comes up short on flare when compared to the other ZM wides which are a touch more resilient. Still, flare from the 28 is rare and I abuse mine all the time shooting into the sun.
photocrazy
Established
I've got my minty 25mm biogon for around 600 bucks. It's sharp, sharp, sharp, even wide open!!! I'd recommend it without any reservation. In the realms of 25/24mm, it belongs to the very top league. And I feel perspective of the 25mm is not that difficult to control as the 21mm which renders more obvious distortion at corners. For 28mm, you've got more choices, vogitander\zeiss\leica\konica. So with litter patience, you may find a bargin on 28mm.
marduk
Well-known
Yep, and I'm going to upgrade from my CV Snapshot Skopar to the 25mm biogon. Would buy one for 600$ without hesitation
Jaans
Well-known
If you were already getting a 21mm, then I think the 28mm is too close. Perhaps the 28 or even the 35mm would be a more dynamic field of coverage.
I know the Biogon range has a lot of advocates, but my 35mm bought new was structurally bordering on poor. Problems that developed included a loose focus ring and black paint shedding of inside. After two trips to the repair shop, I was more than disappointed.
I have also read that these are problems that are inherent and common with the Biogon range.
My only regret is purchasing into the system and I won't be dabbling in ZM again. Also, the cotrast is too strong for my liking with no glow to the highlights. My $350 40mm Rokkor that was purchased secondhand makes the Biogon's images look a distant second.
Need I mention the difficulty and poor ergonomics in focusing vertically. Like opening a can of my grandmothers pickles.
I know the Biogon range has a lot of advocates, but my 35mm bought new was structurally bordering on poor. Problems that developed included a loose focus ring and black paint shedding of inside. After two trips to the repair shop, I was more than disappointed.
I have also read that these are problems that are inherent and common with the Biogon range.
My only regret is purchasing into the system and I won't be dabbling in ZM again. Also, the cotrast is too strong for my liking with no glow to the highlights. My $350 40mm Rokkor that was purchased secondhand makes the Biogon's images look a distant second.
Need I mention the difficulty and poor ergonomics in focusing vertically. Like opening a can of my grandmothers pickles.
MCTuomey
Veteran
over the past year, i moved from a mixed bag of CV and leica to pretty much all zeiss: 25/35/50. i appreciate the consistency of performance and handling that one gets from zeiss. hand-held, typical RF shooting, i think the performance b/w the 25 and 28 will be equally satisfying. i'd make the decision on which FL you might prefer. if you have a 21 and don't fancy a 35, the 28 fills gap nicely b/w 21 and 50, imho.
the planar 50 is wonderful, i doubt it will disappoint you. you have your nokton when you need more speed, so the 50/2 makes sense.
re krosya's linked thread and jaan's point, yes you should be aware of these QC problems. be prepared for the possibility of some repair time. if you appreciate the zeiss look - which jaan doesn't as he favors the more vintage style - a bit of patience while sorting out things like a loose focus ring may be required.
the planar 50 is wonderful, i doubt it will disappoint you. you have your nokton when you need more speed, so the 50/2 makes sense.
re krosya's linked thread and jaan's point, yes you should be aware of these QC problems. be prepared for the possibility of some repair time. if you appreciate the zeiss look - which jaan doesn't as he favors the more vintage style - a bit of patience while sorting out things like a loose focus ring may be required.
Last edited:
RobertB
Established
I don't have the 25. But use a 28 and 50 planar. My next lens will be the zm 18 or one of the 21's.
For me the 25 is way to close to the 21. Maybe if you take the small 21/4.5 c biogon, a 25/2.8 can be a good companion for the speed. But when having the 21/2.8 there is no need for that extra speed also.
I'm really impressed with the results from the 28. They are sharp, have nice contrast and I never had any problems with flare. Even when shooting into the direction of the sun.
And, the 28 biogon is a bit smaller than the 25. No enormous difference, but every mm helps.
What frame lines does your camera have? Do u need a extra finder for the 25?
Good luck with choosing.
For me the 25 is way to close to the 21. Maybe if you take the small 21/4.5 c biogon, a 25/2.8 can be a good companion for the speed. But when having the 21/2.8 there is no need for that extra speed also.
I'm really impressed with the results from the 28. They are sharp, have nice contrast and I never had any problems with flare. Even when shooting into the direction of the sun.
And, the 28 biogon is a bit smaller than the 25. No enormous difference, but every mm helps.
What frame lines does your camera have? Do u need a extra finder for the 25?
Good luck with choosing.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
I have both and use the 25 more than the other. A SUPERB lens.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
I use the 25mm more than others because of its super resolution, hardly matched by other lenses.
Here's one example:
Here's one example:
Last edited:
sper
Well-known
The answers in this thread have laid out the problem haha. Yes, it makes more sense kit wise to have the 21, 28, 50 combo...butttt it sounds like that 25 is suppposed to be the bee's knees. What to do?!
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Just sell the 21, buy the 25 and you never look back (sure you don't need a 28 in that case, since I have the 25 I don't use the 28 anymore, but kept it since it was so cheap - the orion i.e.
) I just see Back Alley is doing the same - l see his 21 in the classifieds!current setup (i.e. lenses I take with me on a trip): CV 15mm, Biogon 25mm, Leitz 35mm asph.
Last edited: