Zeiss ZM: 21/2.8 or 25/2.8

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry for stealing this forum for Zeiss Zm lenses.

 

I was struggling, and still am, between Zeiss Zm 35/f2 and 25/f2.8. But now Zeiss 21/2.8 also get into the competition.

 

One of the lens review shows strange colors on the tree branches. The exlpanation was it's because Zeiss lens is too sharp, that the light ray only covers single piexl, not enough to cover all three (RGB) pixels. I think that explanation is BS. But I am then slightly moving away from the 35mm/f2.

 

The 21/2.8 now comes in. I know 25mm can be used without external VF, 21mm is wider. IQ are similar, although 25mm may be slightly sharper.

 

I don't care the little difference in the sharpness. The angle coverage is the game. I want your oppinions on the usefulness between the 21mm and 25mm. Don't ask me "what do you want to shoot". That's a sillu question for me for now. I want to shoot landscape and architecture, indoors and outdoors. It's really hard to judge without being in the situations. Very often what I think like does not match what I end up with. The judge really comes when in the situations.

 

So, your oppinion could help. Which ends up with more useful if you own both, 21mm and 24/25mm. It doesn't have to be Leica M, any SLR experiences are equally useful to me.

 

Thanks.

[Archiver]

As I have both the 21/2.8 and 25/2.8 and have shot with them extensively, I think I can share some experiences. The 21 is excellent for general landscape and cityscape shooting. It was my major wide angle lens when I went to Japan for three weeks and I did not miss the 25 or 28. Its ability to capture wide expanses of vision while looking surprisingly natural makes it very useful as a general purpose lens.

 

I like the 25 more as a walk-around lens for street and 'fun' shooting. 25mm just fits into the M9 viewfinder, whereas the 21 really benefits from an external VF. I can shoot with the 25 and no external VF but it's harder with the 21.

 

Both are great for landscapes and architecture; it just depends on how much you want to be able to see. Perhaps one benefit of the 21 is that it can be cropped to 25 with not much loss of resolution. One thing I like about the 25 is that it is relatively short. The 21 is just that bit longer and doesn't fit under a jacket without odd bulges. Is that a lens in your jacket or are you just glad to see me?

 

If you want to see some examples of the 21, go to my flickr account and have a look at the Japan folder, and find the images tagged with zeiss 21mm.

[Einst_Stein]

Thanks a lot. I did browsed flickr with M9+21mm and M9+ 25mm.

 

To my taste, I think a lot of the 21mm composition could be done better with 25mm. Percentage-wise, the pictures from 25mm are more balanced. I've concern I might fall into the same pitfall.

 

I'm almost decided to pick 25mm. I might just use for 24mm~35mm. It seems cropping 25mm into 35mm does not loss too much pixels.

[Lord Fluff]

I'm afraid no-one can decide which will work better for you other than yourself. The reason both focal lengths exist is because there is a need for both, for different photographers.

 

Which should I buy, a big car or a small car? Either could be better, it depends on my needs.

 

If you liked the flickr pics with 25mm better, then maybe that suits you better. As part of a Leica M9 kit, I much prefer 21mm, but that makes no difference to you.

[LotharZhou]

I had both and used both, the size of the two lenses are almost the same, nearly identical, so the 21 is not really longer than the 25, sharpness wise, across the whole frame are both exellent, wide ope I can't find a lens sharper than these lenses, the 25 maybe a tiny little bit sharper in the center, almost insignificant.

[rramesh]

I was struggling, and still am, between Zeiss Zm 35/f2 and 25/f2.8. But now Zeiss 21/2.8 also get into the competition.

 

I see that you are still not sure of your choice of focal length - 21, 25, 35. All lenses, whether Leica, Zeiss or CV are good and fit for a purpose.

 

Lens choice is a call you need to make. Best would be to borrow from a friend and try out, get a loaner or a friendly shopkeeper to try and gauge for yourself. Flickr has good examples of what you can achieve with each lens.

 

The 35 or 50 would for most users be the primary lens i.e. used most of the time. In my case it's the 35 as I like it wider as I shoot landscapes a lot. Other lenses usually play a complementary role.

 

You have not indicated your primary lens. I am sure if you can identify your primary kit, you will get a lot of advise from other members.

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have not indicated your primary lens.

 

In SLR, 85,50,35 are my primary lenses. All f1.4, I didn't go wider than 35mm for the distortion. for portraits, but that was then.

 

Now 28 and 25 and even 21 (Biogon, for example) are no longer a real issue. So I'm changing my equations. Besides, I just decided to keep the tri-elmar 28-50, f4, together with 135 f4, 90 f2.8 and 50/f2. In the tele-end I'm well covered, more than enough. Wide-end is fine too except the lens speed. Eventually I might get rid of the tri-elmar, it could depend on what I'm going to get.

 

35mm/f2 is till attractive for its speed. 21mm f2.8 is still attractive because I have no lens to cover that yet. 25mm f2.8 is still attractive because it's between the 35/f2 and 21/f2.8, and it does not need external VF.

 

I'm mainly looking into kicking out the tri-elmar 28-50, not to complement.

[Lord Fluff]

25mm f2.8 is still attractive because it's between the 35/f2 and 21/f2.8, and it does not need external VF.

 

That's debatable. I take it you're not a glasses wearer. I am and struggle even with 35mm framelines. I think not using an external VF for the 25 would be guesswork at best - fine if that's what you're happy with - and in that case you could argue that one could use the 21, or any lens, without an external finder.