You're opinion please...

I'm looking for a wide-angle in between 21mm and 35mm. I narrowed it down to two lenses. I would appreciate it very much if you could look at these following two slide shows and please tell me what you think. You will encounter some very good photos (especially those by Vladimer Nachkebia - one of the most brilliant photographers I've ever came across on the internet) and also some bad photos. I'm not interested in how good the photos are. I'm interested in the rendering - e.g. colour rendition, contrast, flare, tonality, etc. Contrast, I find, is the biggest difference and the one I'm most concerned about. I realize that looking at photographs on the computer screen is a crappy way to make judgement about a lens but its the best I can do under the circumstances...

I'm really stumped and I've been going back and forth between these two lenses for about 6 months now. Please don't be shy. I appreciate any feedback.

So here goes.

Lens number 1:
link

Lens number 2:
link

I think I've seen enough of each of these, I stopped at like 120 shots a piece.

Now, maybe you're going to disagree with everything I'm about to say, but here's what I saw.
Lens #1 by a landslide. And not just because of better images.

The first thing I noticed was that #1's colors are slightly muted, though I take that as a good thing. It doesn't seem to want to blow out one color or another. Also, boosting saturation by 5-10% is no sweat. Dealing with a blown out or super intense color, especially darker reds is a pain in the ...

I really liked the bokeh of #1. It seemed smooth on the eye allowing me to go directly to the subject, then browse the rest of the frame. I found many of #2's shots had an... almost unsettling blur. (Maybe it's just the shots, but i didn't like it) I also noticed that in similar street scenarios, #1 users seemed to embrace the bokeh and shoot almost wide open, where as most of the similar examples in #2 were shot stopped down. I guess it could also be the shooter's preference of time of day and film speed, but it made me wonder why?

I also found that I liked the contrast more with #1. In almost any lighting scenario. What got me looking extra hard at #2 was that most of the shots that I liked the overall contrast and tonal relationships, had obvious dodge/burn marks. I found that #2 didn't do as well capturing contrast/detail in the brighter range. If you look at a few of the stone architecture shots, there's almost nothing in the lighter areas. I'm not looking for black lines within the bright stone, but i wanted to feel something.
It did perform well on the early shot of the white "tarp" looking thing suspended in a courtyard. Though again, i would have liked to see a bit more transition to the tones.

It was almost hard not to fall in love with #1 based solely on the absolutely beautiful images. I will admit that despite my best efforts, I may still have been swayed.

I'd love to hear which way you may be leaning, (if even slightly) and why.

It's hard to judge I think looking at these slideshows. I think my problem is that both have a wide variety of shots and also a wide variety of processing and framing going on in them.

When looking through Lens 1 shots I was impressed with a lot of them, I lot of the shots grabbed me but I think this was more the subject matter, the processing and the use of the lens then just the lens itself.

When going through the Lens 2 shots it took me awhile to find one that I stopped on and said 'wow' to (that one being the man in the diner I believe).

They are both pretty close in focal length 24mm vs 25mm so there's not really a difference there. I'm loving wide angle stuff right now and trying to shoot more with me 20mm (on my crop frame camera however that equates to a 32mm) and my fisheye (which when extended acts as a wide angle as well without the fisheye effect but the IQ is a bit lower)

Thanks Colin and Curt,

I'll wait just a bit for others to (hopefully) chime in before I state my preference (and the dilemma).

I have a few more photos at my disposal from these two lenses, including 100% crops of the same scenes taken with an M8 (the digital rangefinder). Unfortunately, I cannot show you those photographs here. They're from the Reid Reviews website that I subscribe to. Perhaps if we meet again, I'll bring my laptop and I'll log into the website so that you can see them.

So can I say that, so far, the score is Lens One: 2 and Lens Two: 0?

Well first and foremost I have to talk about price... the 1st lens, though it may be superior is $3200. For a lens. One lens. Not including the camera.

The second lens is under $1000. Is the first lens 3x better? Possibly. But do you really need either one? You always point out how little gear someone like HCB used in their lifetime.

The great thing is even at $3200 the lens is an investment, you probably won't lose any money on it even after years of service. The second one will lose some value but not a ton.

If it makes you happy then go for it, I would never tell someone how to spend their money. I think you may be getting to a point where you have to consider "am I a shooter or a collector?"

I never really had an impression on either one as it mostly depending on the other factors of them and I thought the images shot with them were at two different levels.

Ken pointing out the prices sort of displays (maybe) why the shots are completely different and the ones from Lens 1 being superior to Lens 2 as more professional photogs are using Lens 1 with some pros and serious amateurs using 2.

I assumed 2 was cheaper based on the fact that it was a 25mm and Lens 1 being a 24mm. 24 seems to be the more common and most "off brand" lenses come in at the odd focal lengths.

Like Ken said is it worth 3x more to you and will you see 3x more the results with the more expensive lens etc? It's basically a decision only you can make.

Holy Shmokes!

Well, that sure makes things different. Um... I'd have to look a lot closer. Unfortunately for that big of a price difference, I'm not sure if there's any way for me to make that kind of comparison with the images shown. I'd love to see the side by side lens comparison of the same subject.

To let the cat out of the bag, lens #1 is the Leica 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-ASPH and lens #2 is the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 Biogon ZM.

Ok, I guess that you guys would eventually figure out that price is the big dilemma but also time. I was hoping to leave price out of it.

When it comes to these particular lenses, I don't see price so much as a factor since they normally hold their value very well and in some instances, they increase in value over time. The jury is still out on whether the new Zeiss lenses can hold their value to the same degree but I pretty sure that they will. The problem is that with the Leica, the much bigger entrance fee to play will be a major inconvenience to say the least. Time is also a factor because the price for the Elmarit is no longer $3200. The price has increased to over $3700 now thanks to a combination of the falling US dollar, increased fuel and commodity prices and all the other nice things that happened recently. Another factor is that 24mm gives 33mm on the M8 with the crop factor, so there is a very high demand for this particular lens. However, dealers are still selling their older stock at old prices. With some wheeling and dealing, I think that I can get a new lens for around $3000 and a used one for around $2700. But if I don't act soon, I'll be hit with the price increase... again. The Elmarit could been had for $1900 just a few years ago. (Thanks Mr. Bush!)

I've talked to many people about these two particular lenses, many of them seasoned and well respected photographers, and most of them can't see much of a difference between the two lenses. I maybe the one living in bizarro world but I think I can see a difference in the way the images are drawn! A "Leica cliche", I know.

I've also have talked to people who have had both of these lenses. Quite a few of these people that swear by the Elmarit. I've found that most that prefer the Zeiss feel that the lens is 'just as good' optically and better in some ways like distortion and flare-resistance but they usually bring up other factors - the Zeiss is lighter, some prefer the more positive click-stops of the Zeiss's aperture ring instead of the rolling-type action of Leica's, the superior Zeiss metal/glass viewfinder... things like that. And of course, the much lower price.

I wish I could be like HCB and just use a handful of lenses in my entire life like he did. Believe it or not, I think I'm on that path (not to photographic greatness but to less gear). Before you guys all start laughing, just hear me out. I will be starting to reduce my camera and lenses inventory soon. I've drawn since as long as I can remember but I've only recently started photography. I really wanted to try as many things as I could possibly try in order to find how I can do my best work. In the last 4-5 years, I've pretty much come to a conclusion on what is best for me. I'll probably hang on to a few cameras and lenses for sentimental reasons or for certain situations but I'm pretty sure that I'll be using a rangefinder with a 24/35/50 combo for the vast majority of my photographs.

I'll say that if the price was the same, I'd be getting the Elmarit. However, I'll elaborate more once Ken comments on the two lenses without regard to the price difference.

First off I should apologize, sometimes I am a blabbermouth. As soon as I hit "send" on that message I knew I probably should have kept my mouth shut about the lens prices. Probably the main reason why I focused on price over image quality is because I am stuck with a slow internet connection right now and can't really go through the slideshows.

Don't worry about it Ken. If you have a chance to look through the slideshows, I'd very much appreciate your input. Hopefully, I'll be on a fast enough connection soon.

There's definitely an intangible, the Biogon is probably technically sharper but there is something about the Elmarit. I'd love to see the full crops and I personally would probably want to see some prints before I threw down that kind of cash.

It doesn't matter which one you get... I probably won't be able to mooch it off you

This is what I found in my research over the last six months. When it comes to the 'technical' aspects, if you look at the two lenses on paper, it will seem like a no-contest with the Biogon trumping the Elmarit. Zeiss achieved 400 lpm at f4 in the centre. Apparently this is a world record for resolving power. It has virtually no distortion or chromatic abbreviations. Its much more flare resistance. The current Zeiss lenses are probably among the most flare resistance lenses ever made. It has more macro-contrast (aka 'contrast') and these days, there is often the belief that the more contrast the better. (I completely disagree with that type of thinking, of course). Yet the Zeiss isn't completely over the top when it comes to contrast like many 35mm SLR lenses are. The Biogon also doesn't vignette as much.

It doesn't mean that the Elmarit is a slouch. I'd very like to see how an Elmarit would do in a resolution test under the same conditions as used by Zeiss to set that record with the 25 Biogon. In fact, I'd like to see some old Leica glass from the 50's tested, especially the 35mm Summaron and 50mm 'DR' and 'Rigid' Summicrons. I wouldn't be too surprised if those old lenses could pose a challenge. The Elmarit also gives sharper photographs wide-open and at wider apertures it seems. The lens is sharper in the centre whereas the Zeiss has a more uniform sharpness. The Elmart does extremely well in all aspects. One area that Elmarit excels is in micro-contrast. Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to resolve detail from very tiny adjacent areas that are very similar. This contributes to extraordinary detail in the shadows and highlights and ensures gorgeous tonality. When it comes to macro-contrast (aka contrast) the Elmarit is quite good and its more to my liking. I can always increase the contrast to get the same level of contrast as the Zeiss lens in the processing stage. I like the bokeh better on the Elmarit and one would think that with the Zeiss being just slightly longer would give it slightly smoother bokeh but it doesn't.

When I look at the photos, its a different story than making assumptions based just on stats and mtf charts. I much prefer the 'look' that the Elmarit-ASPH gives, especially at wider apertures. I just love everything about the way this lens renders photographs. All aspects of this lens come together in an beautiful "optico-mathematical 'dance' akin to that of the infant Shiva on the beach". (A quote from wise online buddy actually in reference to notion of "lens signature".) The lens seems a bit like magic.

The 100% crops are helpful but sometimes they actually makes it a bit confusing. When you see a tiny part of the photo looks perfect on with the Biogon while the Elmarit exhibits a veiling flare, it looks pretty bad for the Elmarit especially when close-up. But I often found that if you look at the picture as a whole, the one taken with the Elmarit looks gorgeous despite the fault while I would find the picture taken with the Biogon to be a bit clinical. The classic case of "Leitz is nice, Zeiss is ice" perhaps.

In trying to make a decision, I probably feel the same way as Sam Pollock did when he was choosing between Guy Lafleur or Marcel Dionne as the 1st overall pick for Montreal in the 1971 entry draft. (The Elmarit being more akin to Lafleur, who was poetry on ice.)

The price of the Leica is just a major, major, major inconvenience and it will interfere greatly in a lot of other things that are going on. I just want to avoid any more substantial price increases from Leica. I usually save up for these lenses very slowly. Most of the time I save over a period of several years. I initially planned on getting the Elmarit in about a year from now but with the price increases, I think that it would be better for me to either try to get one soon or to abandon the idea and opt for the less expensive Zeiss 25mm Biogon. I feel that it is now or never time for getting an Elmarit.

I haven't lost any money on Leica gear so far. If I sold everything I have now, its likely that I would even make money... even on the stuff that I bought new. I've always truly felt that I'm essentially using my Leica gear for free and that I just had to pay a big 'entrance fee', so to speak, that is mostly refundable when you pass the equipment on to the next person.

The Biogon is the most practical solution but I don't know... my heart says Elmarit, my brain says Biogon. This really has more to do with psychology and photography. At this very moment, I'm leaning toward the Elmarit.

Had a secret meeting with some spiritual advisers this afternoon... made a decision.

Haha I think you knew all along which to buy... can't wait to see some new work from it.

Gotta a package from Popflash this morning....

HA HA HA HA HA! You're my hero Nando. Enjoy the new toy... um.... serious piece of photographic equipment.

Oooh... I wanna see I wanna see.

Or do you need some time alone with it first

I also found a good quality B+W filter on the Zeiss Biogon when I took it out of the box. A very nice surprise. Popflash is the best.

.... just kidding. I got ordered the Elmarit.