Zeiss or Voigtlander for 21/25mm

[jomyoot]

If I want to invest in one lens to keep on my camera 90% of time for street shooting, is it worth investing in a Zeiss? Leica is defintely out of my reach, but Zeiss is 'only' about 3 times as much. I am not planning to buy too many lenses, but would like one very good street lens that I will use all the time for the next 10 years or so (even through body upgrades). Then, will I see significant advantage in Zeiss?

I understand my question is further complicated since I will probably upgrade to digital sooner or later and will probably suffer from the crop factor. Then my 25mm will become something like a 35mm, and will throw my equation out of balance. Unless full-frame digital range finder is introduced in the next couple years, hopefully.

 

[kbg32]

The ZM 25 Biogon is a fantastic lens. Highly recommended.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I don't think you can go wrong with the Zeiss 25mm. I plan to shoot mostly with a 25mm and a 35mm on the Zeiss Ikon
At least that was the plan until I bought a Nikon S3 the other day and it has a 50 on it.
-Rob Skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

 

[rpsawin]

The ZM 25 Biogon is a fantastic lens. Highly recommended.

I'll second that as well. I own both lenses and the 25 gets used 5 times as much as the 21...it's a workhorse and the build quality is tops.

Bob

 

[drewbarb]

Depends upon your situation. They are all great lenses- there seems to be little doubt that you can get excellent pictures with any of them. Personally, I like the VC lenses- for size, weight and cost, as well as for their good performance. But the Zeiss lenses are certainly a notch up in speed, and probably beat the VC's on resolution tests. How much do you want to spend, and what do you want to carry around for the next ten years? Do you have to have f2.8, or can you live with slower speeds for lenses this wide?

 

[Rob Skeoch]

If your going to look at the zeiss 21mm than why consider the new 21mm F4.5. It should be out in the next two months... is prices well and is smaller than the other 21mm.
I have a picture of it on my website.
-Rob
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

 

[grainhound]

I have both the Voigtländer and the Zeiss 25mm lenses. Bought the Voigtländer 1st because it's a very good deal, the Zeiss more recently. No tests, not even enlargements from either, & I think I need a new scanner. My highly subjective response is that I was surprised at how good the Voigtländer is, but think the Zeiss gives a noticeably better result. Opinion based on 4x6 lab prints. For a lens to use for a decade, I'd say the Zeiss.

 

[erikhaugsby]

The problem with 2.8 is that you start to get into the wierd zone as far as DOF is concerned neither here nor there.

Would you mind elaborating on this? How is DOF 'neither here nor there?'

 

[Paul T.]

great news on the Zeiss 21/4.5 price. If i'd seen it earler, I might even have kept my R-D1! While I always thought the VC 25/4 was terrific value for money, I never quite liked its look on film, and it wasn't very crisp; perhaps I'd bought a sub-par example. THis put me off buying the 21/4 for the R-D1, plus the reported problems with vignetting.

I love the compactness of the new Zeiss, on digital in particular the speed isn't a problem, and if it's coming in at $900 or so from popflash , then that's less than the price of the original Bertele Biogon 21/4.5, for a lens mount that's not been produced in any number for 50 years! (discounting the R-2C of course...)

 

[Gary B]

21/25?

21/25?

I just returned from 8 days in Sicily and shot about 85% of my photos (761) on an M8 with a ZM 25 f/2.8. I also had 15 mm, 50 mm and 75 mm lenses with me. I don't think that I can say enough kind words about the quality of the images. I picked the 25ZM because of speed, price and quality that I read about as will as it is almost the widest lens usable without using finders. I was not disapointed. Still can not believe the price of new Leica glass.

GaryB