alexz
Well-known
Soem time down the road I intend to extend my WA capabilities by 28mm +/- range lens. Obviously, quality-wise preferable not to fall far from my current setup (see my sign.) and intended to get used on my M6 (28mm frame). So far the list of possible options compiles into just 3-4 of such:
1. Leica 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH
2. Zeiss ZM 28mm/2.8
3. Zeiss ZM 25mm/2.8
4. Hexanon 28mm/2.8
I keep hearing appraisals on optical quality of ZM 25mm/2.8, however have been able to locate very few dedicated ZM 28mm opinions (on Leica bodies) and even more scarce on Hexanon 28mm/2.8
I think I can safely assume general optical performance of all these is probably very close to each other, though there might be differences (in OOF rendering, flare resistance ? what else ?). There are however few technical questions that I'd like to get clarified:
1. Does the 25mm ZM bring 28mm frame on M6 (and any other M body capable of 28mm farmes) ? Same for 28mm ZM and Hexanon 28mm one...
2. Any notable focusing issues one should be aware about of Hexanon 28mm on M bodies ?
3. For experienced 25mm ZM users on Leica M body: How do you cope with the field of view (bearing the lens invokes 28mm frame) ? Do you just assume entire finder coverage diregarding 28mm frame ?
4. I have HK x0.85 magnifier that I acquired some time ago (along with x1.25 one) particularily to assist in 28mm frame visibility in my M6 because I wear obstacles. The magnifier indeed helps tremendously making 28mm frames visible (albeit at the edges of visibility in eyeglasses). Do you think 25mm lens will make it more difficult in this respect ?
5. I guess ZM 28mm and 25mm lenses are longer physically then the Elmarit. Hoes does it gets interpretted protruding into 28mm frame ? (and I always tend to use lens's hood if available).
Xmm, Elmarit appears to be hard to come upon (especially used), kind of rarity (due to that may command used prices nearly as high as the brand new one). Wondering whether the 600$ difference between Elmarit and 28mm/25mm ZM is something worth to count in ....
1. Leica 28mm/2.8 Elmarit ASPH
2. Zeiss ZM 28mm/2.8
3. Zeiss ZM 25mm/2.8
4. Hexanon 28mm/2.8
I keep hearing appraisals on optical quality of ZM 25mm/2.8, however have been able to locate very few dedicated ZM 28mm opinions (on Leica bodies) and even more scarce on Hexanon 28mm/2.8
I think I can safely assume general optical performance of all these is probably very close to each other, though there might be differences (in OOF rendering, flare resistance ? what else ?). There are however few technical questions that I'd like to get clarified:
1. Does the 25mm ZM bring 28mm frame on M6 (and any other M body capable of 28mm farmes) ? Same for 28mm ZM and Hexanon 28mm one...
2. Any notable focusing issues one should be aware about of Hexanon 28mm on M bodies ?
3. For experienced 25mm ZM users on Leica M body: How do you cope with the field of view (bearing the lens invokes 28mm frame) ? Do you just assume entire finder coverage diregarding 28mm frame ?
4. I have HK x0.85 magnifier that I acquired some time ago (along with x1.25 one) particularily to assist in 28mm frame visibility in my M6 because I wear obstacles. The magnifier indeed helps tremendously making 28mm frames visible (albeit at the edges of visibility in eyeglasses). Do you think 25mm lens will make it more difficult in this respect ?
5. I guess ZM 28mm and 25mm lenses are longer physically then the Elmarit. Hoes does it gets interpretted protruding into 28mm frame ? (and I always tend to use lens's hood if available).
Xmm, Elmarit appears to be hard to come upon (especially used), kind of rarity (due to that may command used prices nearly as high as the brand new one). Wondering whether the 600$ difference between Elmarit and 28mm/25mm ZM is something worth to count in ....
Turtle
Veteran
I can only spk for the 28 ZM and it is superb. I dont have a 25 to compare it to but on its own it is a superb lens. Size is not that large and a fair bit smaller a than the 25. the difference in FL is not that insignificant as a 25 is essentially closer to 24mm than 28 so this would be my first decision. Do not discount the 28 ZM on the basis that the 25 gets all the glory; it is a fine lens indeed and another $100 cheaper, smaller lighter etc. In light of teh great performance of teh ZMs I would not personally spend over double for the Leica glass, but a Hexanon might tempt me but they are relatively hard to come by. With the Zeiss price drop a new lens (look up www.popflash.com) has never looked so good.
Rgds
Rgds
troym
Established
I have had the ZM 25/2.8 for a while. It is a wonderful performer--sharp and very good at rendering fine detail--but I've found that the focal length doesn't really agree with me.
As Turtle said, 25 and 28 may seem close, but the difference is noticeable (at least to me). In the end, I found the 25 field of view to be too unwieldy for my type of shooting, while 28 was wide without crossing the tipping point.
I've just picked up a ZM 28 Biogon, so I can't speak to its qualities yet. But if it's even in the ballpark of the other ZM lenses I've used, I think I'll be very happy indeed.
As Turtle said, 25 and 28 may seem close, but the difference is noticeable (at least to me). In the end, I found the 25 field of view to be too unwieldy for my type of shooting, while 28 was wide without crossing the tipping point.
I've just picked up a ZM 28 Biogon, so I can't speak to its qualities yet. But if it's even in the ballpark of the other ZM lenses I've used, I think I'll be very happy indeed.
waileong
Well-known
I think you forgot to add the Leica 24/2.8 Asph.
24/25 is probably better than 28 in terms of coverage, good focal length separation in case you want to add a 35 mm in future.
Performance-wise, the 24/2.8 prob has the edge, but it bigger (55 mm filters). With your 90 Elmarit taking 46 mm filters, a Zeiss 25/2.8 will be more convenient as you can share filters.
24/25 is probably better than 28 in terms of coverage, good focal length separation in case you want to add a 35 mm in future.
Performance-wise, the 24/2.8 prob has the edge, but it bigger (55 mm filters). With your 90 Elmarit taking 46 mm filters, a Zeiss 25/2.8 will be more convenient as you can share filters.
Turtle
Veteran
troym said:
troym,
Please let us know your thoughts. we all know the 25 has the 28 whipped on MTFs but in the real world who knows? I dont know of anyone who has owned both and who has also posted some comment. You are a rarity!
mfogiel
Veteran
I am currently using the 25 Biogon and 28 Elmarit, but the 3rd version, and I am waiting for the arrival of the 28 Elmarit ASPH to replace it. The Biogon is a clear winner in all respects here - no flare, better resolution, better contrast, no vignetting, and it gives you a more "pasty" looking image even at high magnifications - the Elmarit shots in comparison are sort of noisy...
BUT
The new Elmarit ASPH looks like it has better MTF's than the 28 Biogon, and in particular is quite small, what should be a huge boon for the intended use on the Bessa R4A body. Should it prove to be a dog, I will dump it in favour of the 28 Biogon (or the 28 Ultron ???) for sure...
BUT
The new Elmarit ASPH looks like it has better MTF's than the 28 Biogon, and in particular is quite small, what should be a huge boon for the intended use on the Bessa R4A body. Should it prove to be a dog, I will dump it in favour of the 28 Biogon (or the 28 Ultron ???) for sure...
alexz
Well-known
Thank you guys, all valuable opinions.
thomasw_ - xmm, you just pulled words from my mouth.... I used to treat 50mm as my main and most useful FL, have never tried 35mm albeit noticing this one to be quite popular among RF shooters. I figure 50mm is pretty convenient for outdoors, however I shoot indoors alot (available light, but not necesserily wide open) and here is where I oftne wish having a bit wider perspective on my M6, i.e. 35mm. A friend of mine, who is an avid SLR shooter firmly believes in 35mm FL as the main one for general shooting (contrary to my opinion of 50mm), and now, at a time I tend to agree with him.
So along with 28/25mm consideration, 35mm FL has also found its way into my hesitations, what bugs me however in this respect - it may be too close to 50mm in its perspective and I may find myself in difficult situations trying to make up my mind what to take, 50mm or 35mm to my next session....(besides I had in my mind limiting my lens lineup by three lenses only: 90mm for sure, 50mm as normal (35mm ?) and WA: most certainly 28mm).
AFAIK, Leica 35mm/2 ASPH are still overboard for my budget (no need for faster one), so naturally 35m/2 ZM comes to mind. But if so, wouldn't the gap between 35mm and 28mm too shallow ? And consiquently, wouldn't the gap between 35mm and 90mm too deep ?
Go figure...
thomasw_ - xmm, you just pulled words from my mouth.... I used to treat 50mm as my main and most useful FL, have never tried 35mm albeit noticing this one to be quite popular among RF shooters. I figure 50mm is pretty convenient for outdoors, however I shoot indoors alot (available light, but not necesserily wide open) and here is where I oftne wish having a bit wider perspective on my M6, i.e. 35mm. A friend of mine, who is an avid SLR shooter firmly believes in 35mm FL as the main one for general shooting (contrary to my opinion of 50mm), and now, at a time I tend to agree with him.
So along with 28/25mm consideration, 35mm FL has also found its way into my hesitations, what bugs me however in this respect - it may be too close to 50mm in its perspective and I may find myself in difficult situations trying to make up my mind what to take, 50mm or 35mm to my next session....(besides I had in my mind limiting my lens lineup by three lenses only: 90mm for sure, 50mm as normal (35mm ?) and WA: most certainly 28mm).
AFAIK, Leica 35mm/2 ASPH are still overboard for my budget (no need for faster one), so naturally 35m/2 ZM comes to mind. But if so, wouldn't the gap between 35mm and 28mm too shallow ? And consiquently, wouldn't the gap between 35mm and 90mm too deep ?
Go figure...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Alexz: Do not make a judgment on 35 vs 50 based on "thinking" about it. For me (YMMV), the 35 fov is significantly different in feeling than 50, the math be damned. That said, 50 has it charms over 35, and vice versa. I resisted 28 for a LONG time, and am now warming to it. I shot some 24 (OM/Zuiko) this weekend, and it almost felt like my 21, definitely way different than a 28.
I too have been taken by all the great comments on the ZM 25, so am really curious to see ZM 28 samples, as I think it would be more useful to me on an M body. I mean really, they're all Zeiss for godsssakes ... can they be "bad"?
I too have been taken by all the great comments on the ZM 25, so am really curious to see ZM 28 samples, as I think it would be more useful to me on an M body. I mean really, they're all Zeiss for godsssakes ... can they be "bad"?
troym
Established
Turtle said:
Will do. (I don't think I've ever been called a rarity -- in the positive sense!)
mfogiel
Veteran
Alexz
In the 35mm range, IMHO there are 2 lenses that are difficult to "beat" - the Nokton 1.2 for the 1.2-2.8 zone and the Biogon for the 2.8-whatever zone. I ended up buying both, and I enjoy the Nokton a lot for the available light interior shots, including soft portraits, while the Biogon is sitting most of the time on my ZI as the most used lens, and makes the "one lens combo" for open air photography. Depending on what you want to shoot, I believe a 21(or25)/35/75 or 25(or28)/50/90 combinations work best, make sure though you get at least one lens for low light photography, the best candidates being the 28/1.9 Ultron (or the 28/2 Summicron if you can afford it) or the 35/1.2 Nokton(or the 35/1.4 Summilux - as before). My choice would go for 25 Biogon, 35 Ultron and 75 Color Heliar - if you wanted to stretch to a 4 lens combo and add a 50mm specialty lens, it surely would be the C Sonnar 50/1.5.
In the 35mm range, IMHO there are 2 lenses that are difficult to "beat" - the Nokton 1.2 for the 1.2-2.8 zone and the Biogon for the 2.8-whatever zone. I ended up buying both, and I enjoy the Nokton a lot for the available light interior shots, including soft portraits, while the Biogon is sitting most of the time on my ZI as the most used lens, and makes the "one lens combo" for open air photography. Depending on what you want to shoot, I believe a 21(or25)/35/75 or 25(or28)/50/90 combinations work best, make sure though you get at least one lens for low light photography, the best candidates being the 28/1.9 Ultron (or the 28/2 Summicron if you can afford it) or the 35/1.2 Nokton(or the 35/1.4 Summilux - as before). My choice would go for 25 Biogon, 35 Ultron and 75 Color Heliar - if you wanted to stretch to a 4 lens combo and add a 50mm specialty lens, it surely would be the C Sonnar 50/1.5.
thomasw_
Well-known
mfogiel said:
well for four lenses: zm 25, 35, 50/2, VC 35/1.2: this gives you versatlity and a solid core of street shooting lenses, smashing glass indeed.
alexz
Well-known
Well, so far I did not find myself expressing an interest in "acailable darkness" shooting, the regular 1/30@f/2 so far was pretty much as low as I figured necessary to go (with ISO 400 film), occasionally at 1/15. So, bearing enormous premium one must pay for in cash (and bulk) for high-end f/1.4 - f/1.2 lens, I think I keep my profile low with f/2 lens.
Now, naturally the most comprehensive coverage (IMHO) would be set by four FLs: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. Fiddling with frame preview I figure 35mm frames are quite convenient even with obstacles I wear, albeit leaving very little out of the frame. If I need more out of frame observated coverage, x0.85 magnifier provides that convenience (making 35mm frame to appear slightly bigger then 50mm frame with regular 0.72 magnification). However, 35mm FOV does appear to me very natural in the viewfinder, whlist 28mm, being probaly most useful WA focal length, makes hard on me hiding the frame lines (even with x0.85 magnifier).
Chances, I'll go for both, 35mm and 28mm, but probably pull the trigger for 35mm first...
Now, naturally the most comprehensive coverage (IMHO) would be set by four FLs: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. Fiddling with frame preview I figure 35mm frames are quite convenient even with obstacles I wear, albeit leaving very little out of the frame. If I need more out of frame observated coverage, x0.85 magnifier provides that convenience (making 35mm frame to appear slightly bigger then 50mm frame with regular 0.72 magnification). However, 35mm FOV does appear to me very natural in the viewfinder, whlist 28mm, being probaly most useful WA focal length, makes hard on me hiding the frame lines (even with x0.85 magnifier).
Chances, I'll go for both, 35mm and 28mm, but probably pull the trigger for 35mm first...