Zeiss 25mm F2.8 {merged}

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tilt shift lens next please Leica!!

 

T-S lens seems a reasonable answer to the wide angle perspective problems. It's my initial reaction too. But I've played with Hasselblad Flexbody, Fuji GX680, and a Russia Super Rotation (45mm). It turned out that, frustratingly, the pictures using this technique have a weird miniature effect. All objects are like toys, not real. I feel I was in Alice wonderland.

 

You probably won't like that either.

 

This link is an example. Tilt Shift Fun | Nicolesy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Einst_Stein]

That "fix" only took a few seconds. The problem is not in the lens. It is the angle of the camera. The building would not be distorted if you shot from a higher perspective with the camera leveled. I use 4x5 with a lens rise and bag bellows for this type of work. You can do the same (more or less) with a tilt/shift lens.

 

Some of the Super-wide Linhofs and the Technika (my other favorite German camera) have built-in bubble levels, as does my Toyo monorail. And I have several carpenter's levels in my studio as well as tracking lines taped onto the floor. It is far easier to get the shot right than fix it in Photoshop.

 

I agree with you on 25 being too wide. 35 is perfect on a M9 (2, 4, 5, 6, and 7). 28 is too hard to see and if you're going to go to 24/25, you might as well go with a 21.

 

agree.

[pragmatist]

Some shots from my Zeiss Biogon 25mm. Very happy with this lens.

 

Orford ness

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/orford-ness/

 

 

[/url]

 

 

[billo101]

Is there anyone who has used the 25 with the MM?

do you think this lens is compatible with a kit like mine?

[pragmatist]

Is there anyone who has used the 25 with the MM?

do you think this lens is compatible with a kit like mine?

 

No different to using it with an M9, in fact the results would be stunning I would have thought.

[semi-ambivalent]

See the attachement.

 

This lens is sharp and sweet. But there is one problem for me. Its wide angle distortion.

This problem is not unique to this lens, I believe any 24mm~25mm would be the same if not worse.

 

For my taste, there is not much difference in angle coverage compared to 28mm. But I would choose a much narrower lens, the 35mm, next time.

 

"It's not distortion, it's exaggerated perspective."

-the guy at Nikon School, circa 1973

 

s-a

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"It's not distortion, it's exaggerated perspective."

-the guy at Nikon School, circa 1973

 

s-a

 

Maybe in Nikon's standard it is not a distortion, but in Leicaphile's standard, an exaggerated perspective is still a distortion. Any deformation, if it can be corrected, is distortion.

[hillavoider]

buildings always look better uncorrected, or less corrected, buildings with fat tops don't work

[Einst_Stein]

buildings always look better uncorrected, or less corrected, buildings with fat tops don't work

 

I tend to agree with you. I think once the lens is too wide, you can't win. To correct or not correct? or partially correct? none looks right to me. I'd rather use the "right" lens then leave it alone.

[richfx]

It's a terrific lens in terms of IQ and pop, like the other Zeiss Biogon 2.8s I've used. I've been tempted to try the Leica 24mm Elmarit as a comparison, but I don't use this focal length often enough to justify the large price premium.

Rich

[algrove]

Very nice lens. I just sold mine yesterday with VF and hood. Even though the 24/25 FL does not seem to be way up high on the Leica hit parade from a users standpoint, I liked the FL. I only sold it to pare my growing inventory since all my shelves are full of M lenses and I refuse to get more shelves. I have to keep most of my R lenses in Pelican cases nowadays. I still own the Zeiss 18/4.0, 35/2.0 and 50/1.5.

[AlexanderR]

Hey users,

 

I know the zm25 has to be send to Zeiss for cam adjustment in order to reach infinity focus or just fix the focus issue on the M9. But when this is done, does the zm25 produce in addition to the red corners also smearing or softness due to older wide angle optical design when u look at the 18mp results in 100%?

I am asking because:

Lets say the Elmar 24 3.8 at 5.6 has razor sharp corners because of newer design, does the zm25 quite reach that? I am asking because looking at the MTF data the are almost identical at 5.6.

 

I will be buyng an m9 soon but on my gxr m Mount A12 I tested the I think not "calibrated" ZM25 an this was the result wide open! ... Even looking at the center it is obvious It never reached Inifnity at F4 and especially at 2.8. Or is the zm25 that soft?

100% Crops from GXR Leica modul

All sizes | F2.8 vs F4 zm25 ZEISS center | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

in my flikr there is a comparison vs NEX5n with Sonnar 24 1.8 at 2.8 too.

 

Thanks in advance

Alexander

[lucerne]

Interesting topic for me as well.I have the 24 Elmar, but I was using a Zeiss 35 ZM today, and I'm disappointed with results. Should this lens work correctly on my M9? I original purchased it for the NEX7 in anticipation of my upgrade to Leica.

 

Edit. I'm sorry if it appears that I'm changing the original question. It seems related but perhaps a new thread would be better.

[RobertJRB]

U both don't have a M9 yet?

 

I never used the 25 zm but did use all the others. No smearing with the M9.

 

Don't forget the M9 sensor is different than those in the grx and the nex 7. Its build for use with the wide angle rangefinder lenses.

 

The 35/2.8 is a real great (small) performer on the m9.

Same with the 25/2.8 (and 24/3.8)

[lucerne]

U both don't have a M9 yet?

 

)

 

Yes I'm only using the M9-P now. I have summicrons, elmar, and a 50 lux, but I'm dubious about my Zeiss 35 f/2. I need reassurance from other M9 users.

[Chris101-MM]

Yes I'm only using the M9-P now. I have summicrons, elmar, and a 50 lux, but I'm dubious about my Zeiss 35 f/2. I need reassurance from other M9 users.

 

Stopped down to 4, mine is optically superb and does not leave me with any regrets. In larger apertures it is inferior to the current Leicas in my opinion.

[AlexanderR]

U both don't have a M9 yet?

 

I never used the 25 zm but did use all the others. No smearing with the M9.

 

Don't forget the M9 sensor is different than those in the grx and the nex 7. Its build for use with the wide angle rangefinder lenses.

 

The 35/2.8 is a real great (small) performer on the m9.

Same with the 25/2.8 (and 24/3.8)

 

Nex7 yes but not the case with the grx! it is specificly built for the use with wide angles! It is natvie M-Mount and has micro lens array to work better with old design wide angle lenses. The M9 too has a specific micro lens array BUT it is FF so it will be challenged by the zm25 more while the Elmar 24 3.8 is new design with basicly flat front and back elements!

 

Thats why i am asking if there is a difference in corner sharpness between zm25 and 24 elmar m on M9 when looking at the shots 100%? MTF sheets are basicly almost identical for both lenses (tested on an optical bench not on a digital senosr liek M9 obv.)

[RobertJRB]

Nex7 yes but not the case with the grx! it is specificly built for the use with wide angles! It is natvie M-Mount and has micro lens array to work better with old design wide angle lenses. The M9 too has a specific micro lens array BUT it is FF so it will be challenged by the zm25 more while the Elmar 24 3.8 is new design with basicly flat front and back elements!

 

Thats why i am asking if there is a difference in corner sharpness between zm25 and 24 elmar m on M9 when looking at the shots 100%? MTF sheets are basicly almost identical for both lenses (tested on an optical bench not on a digital senosr liek M9 obv.)

 

I think I misunderstood your first post. I thought you have the 25/2.8 ZM and are having problems with it on your gxr.

 

I used the 25/2.8 shortly on the M8, but did not use it on the M9. However I never heard of smearing problems on the M9. It is supposed to be an excellent performer.

 

So thats why I thought the gxr, beside it being build with an m mount, handles wide angles not the same as the M9 does.

 

 

What I heard from others, and what I saw with the M8 is that both lenses are really close in performance. Its more a taste of preference (zeiss colors vs leica colors) and budget.

Personally I prefer the little less contrast of the leica.

 

But maybe some owners correct me on this.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[RobertJRB]

Yes I'm only using the M9-P now. I have summicrons, elmar, and a 50 lux, but I'm dubious about my Zeiss 35 f/2. I need reassurance from other M9 users.

 

I thought you wrote about the ZM 35/2.8. Only used the ZM 35/2 shortly so can't really comment on it. When using it I forgot to set the right lensprofile and it really showed (in a negative way).

 

On the FM forum a user (denoir) tested the ZM 35/2 and found it performed best closed down at infinity. It outperformed all his other 35mm's including the 35 lux at this setting.

 

Wide open at close range wasn't its best setting.

[AlexanderR]

The problem is not the gxr its the zm25 being calibrated for film instead of sensors.

The its a matter of the tolerance that is supposed to be much thinner on digital sensors then film...