cv 28/3.5 or minolta 28/2.8

[back alley]

which do you prefer?

 

[jsrockit]

With or without the spots on the Minolta? In great condition, both of these lenses are quite good and are priced decently.

 

[Beemermark]

I have the Minolta 28 with the spots. I had both the old style LTM and new style M mount CV 28.

I still have the Minolta, got rid of the other two.

 

[wlewisiii]

I've often wondered how either compare to the Canon 28/3.5. I won't be getting any of them soon but having had the Canon once it makes a touchstone for me.

William

 

[ferider]

The Minolta is sharper at all apertures. The CV has higher micro and macro-contrast. In the end I traded the Minolta, but if you have a clean copy, it's a great lens.

 

[swatch]

Cv 28 / 3.5

Cv 28 / 3.5

The Minolta is sharper at all apertures. The CV has higher micro and macro-contrast. In the end I traded the Minolta, but if you have a clean copy, it's a great lens.

Does higher micro and macro-contrast means high contrast?

would be help with pic for explanation.

thanks

 

[back alley]

i was interested in the minolta for it's higher speed and small size but have shifted my thinking to the cv 28/1.9.
in fact the 35/1.2 has also been added to the want list.

 

[FrankS]

I'm still looking for a 28mm f3.5 CV or Canon.

 

[ferider]

Does higher micro and macro-contrast means high contrast?

would be help with pic for explanation.

thanks

Have a look at the wide angle pictures in here for the Rokkor:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Picture-a-Week/2009/020209/7355918_vKmGs

and here for the Color Skopar:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Picture-a-Week/PAW-2007/012907/2405036_c8VMG

Shot at different times, etc, but similar subjects and you might see what I mean.

And here are center crops of a boring side by side resolution comparison:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Tests/MR-vs-CS/8235689_C5d9Q

Best,

Roland.

 

[heliographer]

Float

Float

The Minolta is one of my FLOAT lenses (favorite lenses of all time), but it got the white spot disease. It's still sharp as all heck, but will flare up whenever a light source is in the shot. The combination of size, optical excellence, and ergonomics has not been equalled by anyone IMHO, Leica included. I remember long ago in SF speaking with a Leica rep at Moscone Center about this lens (must have been the 1980s or 90s), and he admitted that he wished that Leica made it. It was the optical equal and ergonomic master of anything Leica offered at the time.

I have both the 28 f1.9 and f3.5 cv lenses, and they are both great. The 3.5 gets almost as much love as the Minolta for size. The f1.9 has beautiful rendering and decent ergonomics, if, like me, you have big hands. But I wish I could just find medicine for the Minolta, since it would live on my M2 if it wasn't so "sick."

 

[januaryman]

The Canon 28/3.5 is pretty darn nice and tough to beat, I think.

 

[back alley]

i had a canon 28/3.5 a while back, sold it foolishly.
the big difference with the canons and the cv is the canons have a softer but still sharp look to them...they have less contrast. i find the minolta somewhere in the middle.

but today's news is that i was offered and bought a cv 28/1.9 lens. with shipping and customs i should have it in a few weeks.

 

[januaryman]

Wow - a 28 that fast... I'd like to own that myself. (sigh)

 

[Mister E]

Zm 28/2.8!