Leica Elmarit 24/2.8 ASPH or Zeiss Biogon T* 25/2.8 ZM

[david_c3]

<p>Has anyone used either or both and can give comparasons on OOF, sharpness. I know there is a great price differrential so that obviously will be give consideration.</p>

<p>Build quality: Is current build quality an issue with either of these lens? I am not an abuser but would like a lens that would hold up. </p>

<p>External Viewfinder: I would use the lens with a Leica MP 0.72 VF or M2. Can I use a Zeiss external VF on the Leica (with either lens) or do I need to use the Leica VF to get accurate framing of the picture?</p>

[ray .]

<p>Haven't used these specific focal lengths, but in general, the Zeiss line will show a little more contrast than Leica. Both are very capable and well built.</p>

[cpj]

<p>First, the answer to "comparison" has to be framed according to what you want to produce with the lens. I've been regularly using the Leica 24/2.8 and never had any noticeable problems. Of course, the largest prints I've made have been 8x10's. (In some cases, it would be a crop out of an 11 x 14 or a little larger.) If you are expecting to make 24 x 36 prints, I can't help you as I haven't done it.<br>

As for he viewfinders, either one will work fine with either lens. At 24 mm if one was slightly different than the other due to manufacturing variations, you'd need an optical bench to see the difference. </p>

[john_gleason1]

<p>Some hits from the archives:<br>

<a href="00KZqA">1</a><br>

<a href="00AaKS">2</a><br>

<a href="00H4O7">3</a></p>

<p> </p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>I've used both, sold the Leica, and kept the Zeiss. I have found there is little to choose between the two lenses in terms of sharpness. I don't go larger than 11x14 or 16x20 and they are both excellent. I like the filter size of the Zeiss, the same as my 28mm Ultron, 28mm Hexanon-M, 35 Lux Asph, and 50 Lux Pre-Asphs. I like the 1/3 aperture stops. I really like the silver finish. I use the Biogon on the RD-1s and especially the Bessa R4. The slim barrel obscures less of the finder.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I also use the 25mm f4 Skopar in M-mount (rangefinder-coupled), and it is also excellent. On the R4 it doesn't obscure the finder at all; so unless I need f2.8 I tend to go with the smaller lens. These days we are lucky to have such good wides on the market. I don't think you can go wrong with any of these; it just comes down to personal preference.</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>Regarding the viewfinders: I used the VC 25mm finder for the Leica 24, the Zeiss 25, and the VC 25. No problems at all and a great price too. But once you try the Zeiss or the VC on a Bessa R4, you won't want to use an external finder ever again. The R4 is really made for 21 and 25mm lenses.</p>

[rgerraty]

<p>I have the 25mm Biogon. Great lens. Can't imagine wanting the Leica lens now. The 25/28 Zeiss finder is fantastic. Like Frederick I would enjoy the small size of the Color Skopar P 25mm f4 and will almost certainly get that too at some stage. The ZM feels big on the camera but doesn't seem big in the bag. He has both and doesn't miss the quality of the Zeiss so that must be a good recommendation for the VC lens. Maybe if I had that I wouldn't bother with the Zeiss, nice though it is.</p><div></div>

[gary_b._herbst]

<p>I have had three 25 mm lenses. The Canon 25 which is old and small, org. VC 25 screw mount, and Zeiss 25. I like the quality of the VC but sold it because I found that I felt that I needed to be able to focus at close range for my style of photography. I find that I use the Zeiss quite a bit on both M8 and film Leicas. The old Canon 25 gives a very special feel and is very small and light to carry.</p>

<p>Gary</p>

[gary_b._herbst]

<p>I have had three 25 mm lenses. The Canon 25 which is old and small, org. VC 25 screw mount, and Zeiss 25. I like the quality of the VC but sold it because I found that I felt that I needed to be able to focus at close range for my style of photography. I find that I use the Zeiss quite a bit on both M8 and film Leicas. The old Canon 25 gives a very special feel and is very small and light to carry.</p>

<p>Gary</p>

<p>Sorry</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

I have shot the 24mm Leica Asph Elmarit and the 25mm Zeiss T* Biogon side-by-side on my M8 and I would say for all practical purposes they perform equally. If I had neither I would be shopping for a Biogon due to its price advantage.

 

If you're interested, send me an email and I will respond with some test shots.

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I have this lens and love it -- it is very very sharp, and has almost no distortion. I had both the Zeiss and voigtlander 21mm's as well, and though good, I don't think the CV was as good -- it was not as sharp in the corners and had more distortion. I sold both 21mm's and kept the Zeiss 25mm as it was the best of the three, as well as the most useful focal length. My other lenses are mostly Leica, and I feel the Zeiss is of equal optical quality. </p>

[back_alley_.]

<p>which zm 21 did you have stuart?</p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>I've never owned or used the Canon 25mm, though I've had a couple of chances to buy one. For what it's worth, that lens was a workhorse for David Douglas Duncan on a Barnack. </p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I had the 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss -- again, a very good lens, but the 25mm biogon is something special. </p>

[peter_weyrauch]

<p>I own the Zeiss and have used it from everything to portraits to wide scenics. I think the lens is absolutely stellar and I have been in the biz for 30 years. It's true, the silver version is beautiful, the 1/3rd stops are a great asset, and the price is by far the best bang for the buck. On the M8 it's pretty much what you see in the viewfinder from edge to edge.</p>