25's

sanmich · 05-20-2009

I am considering upgrading my cv 25, mainly to gain speed.
I would love to incidentally upgrade the image quality (which is far froom bad).

I have found lots of pictures on Flickr from the three lenses:
vc skopar, ZM and elmarit (not really an option at this stage, unless it is THAT better than the others and I'll start to save)

The thing is that there is lots of variability in the picture light condition, processing etc. and put apart a silght better overall impression from the ZM over the CV, I couldn't reach any clear conclusion.

Could any of you that own/ owned them share his/her opinion?

Thanks

Keith · 05-20-2009

The only 25mm I have ever owned is my current Ziess Biogon so I can't compare it to others. So far it's failed to grab me but I supect it may be the focal length more than the image quallity ... I thought it would be the combination from heaven on my R4A but it hasn't happened which is a shame because I largely bought the R4A to maximise the opportunity of using the 25mm focal length.

The end result is two more pieces of gear that seldom make it out of the cupboard!

mabelsound · 05-20-2009

The CV is super sharp, too, and incredibly tiny. I've had great luck with it--there always seems to be something good in the frame. I've got the version with the clickstopped focus--a nice touch, and unusual.

BillBingham2 · 05-20-2009

Michael,

While I've not had the ZI, or the Leica for that matter, I grew to LOVE the CV. I started out coming back into rangefinders with a 21/2.8 Elmarit in the closet that never came out. I love fast glass, always will, but damn it comes at a price when I looked at the size of my CV 25/4 next to the honking 21/2.8. I thought I really needed the speed, but I came to realize that if I got creative that extra stop was not enough to trash my dreams of taking good pictures. I have yet to hear about a bad ZI lens. Tom A loves the new 21. I'm not sure I would give up the size thing. That 25/4 fit so well on my Bessa L, it's like it wasn't there. Also the three click stops made getting the focus right mindless for me.

B2 (;->

sanmich · 05-20-2009

Thanks all for the answers

Keith, I too am not used to these FL (so far I have almost done everything with 35/50)
Recently, folowing a remark of David Allan Harvey on my work, I have discvered the work of Eugene Richards, and it has been an enlightment.
I have shortly put at use my hexanon 28 and quite loved the results, and I intend to learn the 25 too (Richards used a 21 AFAIK)
So I hope to discover new ways of expresion related with these super wides...

Bill, I agree size is important and the cv is beautifully tiny, which makes it very interesting as a go around/ just in case lens. If I consider making a more serious use of this FL I think the size of the other two shouldn't be really objectinable, should it?

Krosya · 05-20-2009

I used newer CV 25/4 in M-mount and RF coupling. Good lens. Sharp, small. Too contrasty for me ( like all skopars). Sold it - got a ZM 25mm - great lens, superb image quality, faster, but larger. As much as I liked it - I just didn't "see" in that FL - it was either too wide or not wide enough for me. So I sold it. I prefer 21mm for wide shots and than 40/50mm. But thats me. So, as far as 25mm goes - ZM is hard to beat, unless you want to get that new Summilux 24/1.4

.

loneranger · 05-20-2009

Dont forget the other 25mm option , canon 25/3.5. It also has a good reputation.

sanmich · 05-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by loneranger

Dont forget the other 25mm option , canon 25/3.5. It also has a good reputation.

Thanks
I have heard great things about the canon, but with wides, I need to get close. Much closer than 1m...

I think it is a limitation even on my canon 35...

sanmich · 05-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krosya

I used newer CV 25/4 in M-mount and RF coupling. Good lens. Sharp, small. Too contrasty for me ( like all skopars). Sold it - got a ZM 25mm - great lens, superb image quality, faster, but larger. As much as I liked it - I just didn't "see" in that FL - it was either too wide or not wide enough for me. So I sold it. I prefer 21mm for wide shots and than 40/50mm. But thats me. So, as far as 25mm goes - ZM is hard to beat, unless you want to get that new Summilux 24/1.4

.

ehem...the lux will be for another life, unles I get lucky...very lucky...

So you do feel there is a clear advantage to the eimages produced by the ZM over the CV?
would you be kind enough to show a few samples?

Krosya · 05-20-2009

I dont have anything from CV 25 handy right now - have to look. Here is one from ZM 25:

sanmich · 05-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krosya

I dont have anything from CV 25 handy right now - have to look. Here is one from ZM 25:

The contrast looks indeed lovely.
The picture is also lovely.
Thanks for sharing

Austerby · 05-21-2009

I don't have any samples to share at the moment but I do have both the CV and ZM 25mm lenses. Both are excellent but for me, I've always managed to produce much better photos when using the ZM (note, that I am not saying it is conclusively a better lens, just that my photos with it are better than the one's I've taken with the CV).

The 25mm fits well on my 0.58 MP and the combination feels better than a 28mm. Photographs come out with beautiful tonal gradation, excellent shadow detail and a sparkling clarity with the ZM and I can't seem to replicate that look on the CV.

In summary, the ZM has more of the look of a Zeiss lens, the CV doesn't.

mfogiel · 05-21-2009

I use the 21/45, 25/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 Biogons, and I think in terms of pure "POP" the 21 and 25 are the best. If you like the biting sharpnes, good contrast, and generally are after a high acutance look, then the Biogon is the reference 25mm lens for the rangefinders.
This is shot on Tri-X (not a very sharp film) wide open at 1/15th handheld:

sanmich · 05-21-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfogiel

I use the 21/45, 25/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 Biogons, and I think in terms of pure "POP" the 21 and 25 are the best. If you like the biting sharpnes, good contrast, and generally are after a high acutance look, then the Biogon is the reference 25mm lens for the rangefinders.
This is shot on Tri-X (not a very sharp film) wide open at 1/15th handheld:

Brillian shot.
Say Hi to the cote d'azur from me

Just...when you say "good contrast" do you mean "high contrast", or a contrast "under control", not as high as other modern lenses?

Thanks again for posting.

peter_n · 05-21-2009

There is also the new Leica 24/3.8. Haven't used one but I've read it's best aperture is wide open.

mfogiel · 05-21-2009

Good contrast is probably a misnomer here, the latest Zeiss lenses have generally both high macrocontrast, which enhances the colours, but can cause some headaches to digital sensors, which are struggling with the dynamic range, and they also have an extremely high microcontrast, in my experience higher than that of any other brand of lenses. This microcontrast is I think the result of a combination of high MTF and extremely good coatings, and is definitely something that I like, but some may prefer a more sleek look. I see that difference for example between the 35/2 Biogon and 35/1.2 Nokton, although both are outstanding lenses in my opinion, and I see it between the 28/2.8 Biogon and 28/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, even if the Elmarit is actually sharper in the corners. Same goes for 85/1.4 Planar Zm against the corresponding Nikkor.
This is an example of a wide open handheld shot at 1/8th from C Biogon 21/4.5

sanmich · 05-21-2009

After the two last landscapes I found out that I have missed an important factor:

How about distortion?

Is the ZM ok in that regard?

Bruin · 05-21-2009

The ZM has very low distortion, as do all Biogons. Distortion is not an issue at all with this lens.

What sold me on the ZM25 is that is goes to F2.8 because I use it a lot indoors. And it's pretty darn good wide open, too. The lens is a reasonable size and weight, focuses down to 0.5m (which I definitely use), has outstanding image quality, excellent flare resistance (no hood needed), and can be found for less than $700 used. What more could you ask for...

tritiated · 05-21-2009

I like my cheap and cheerful snapshot skopar! shoot at 1600 to get cheap speed maybe, see if it's a requirement. Or buy Zeiiss for an extra stop, and better quality images? hard to tell I suspect.

yanidel · 05-21-2009

I use to own the CV25 than "upgraded" to the 24mm Elmarit. The CV was sharper on center, the Elmarit has more contrast and warmer colors and is faster. Not to mention the build quality and handling that is wonderful on the Elmarit.