monochromejrnl
Well-known
Not to put works in his mouth but I believe he wanted something very compact - like the VC28/3.5 and as good as the hexanon-M 28 is - compact it isn't..
Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 vs. Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8?
- Thread starter jsrockit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 55
- Views 19K
Not to put works in his mouth but I believe he wanted something very compact - like the VC28/3.5 and as good as the hexanon-M 28 is - compact it isn't..
jsrockit
Moderator
What he said ... ^
Yeah, I just didn't want a large 28mm or I would have stuck with the Zeiss. The CV is a tad too slow... I know it isn't really that much slower... but anything over 2.8 gets me mentally. 🙂 Plus, I just wanted a leica lens again.
Yeah, I just didn't want a large 28mm or I would have stuck with the Zeiss. The CV is a tad too slow... I know it isn't really that much slower... but anything over 2.8 gets me mentally. 🙂 Plus, I just wanted a leica lens again.
sahe69
Well-known
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I hadn't actually realised that the 28 ASPH is that small but now that I checked it: yes, it is. 🙂
jsrockit
Moderator
Ok, got the Elmarit and tried it out today... worth an extra $1150 over the CV 28mm f/3.5? Not sure how to quantify that (and I'm leaning towards no), but I know I like it better. The bottom line, I believe, is that all of these 28mm lenses are pretty damn good. It's cool we have options.
The issue is that I also received the CV 35mm Ultron 1.7 today and that is the lens that ended up being the shocker for me... it's really good.
The issue is that I also received the CV 35mm Ultron 1.7 today and that is the lens that ended up being the shocker for me... it's really good.
Last edited:
akk2
Established
damn, I still don't have time for a test between 28/3.5 and 28/2.8A. Sorry for anyone waiting for it.
Did anyone tried the 28/3.5 G-Rokkor on M9?
Did anyone tried the 28/3.5 G-Rokkor on M9?
jsrockit
Moderator
or the Ricoh 28mm?
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
That's all that matters when you get to the heart of it.
I think the point of diminishing returns happens quite early with rangefinder lenses.
jsrockit
Moderator
True... you summed it up in your signature.
bwcolor
Veteran
Resurrecting an Old Thread.. What Happened?
Resurrecting an Old Thread.. What Happened?
So, when all was settle, what did you find out about CV vs. Zeiss vs. Leica in 28mm?
Resurrecting an Old Thread.. What Happened?
So, when all was settle, what did you find out about CV vs. Zeiss vs. Leica in 28mm?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Here are 30 photos of which 29 were shot with either CV 28mm f3.5, Hexanon 28mm and Zeiss Biogon 28mm lenses. (sorry no Leica ASPH) Can anyone pick out any photo and identify which lens was used? I cannot other than by tracking the date and figuring out which lens I owed at that time. The other of the 30 photos was shot with a 35mm f2.0 Zeiss Biogon. Can you even pick it out?
FWIW, the 10 x 12.5 inch prints give no clue either.
FWIW, the 10 x 12.5 inch prints give no clue either.
thompsonks
Well-known
IMO you were in good shape in the beginning, with the 28mm Zeiss.
I used to have a 28 CV for M4, but it had a soft corner & rather loose aperture ring – not the best quality. When I bought an M8 I also got a 28 Elmarit, but I found it too contrasty & clinical. I took it back & got a Summicron: great IQ but a bit too bulky to carry everywhere & a bit valuable for some of the places I wander; so I got a used Zeiss 28 (coded by DAG) for $700 to use most of the time. Though Zeiss has a reputation for high contrast, the 28 was less contrasty than the Elmarit. Of the 3 it was my Goldilocks lens (except for low light).
Since switching to M9 I use 35 much more but kept the 28 Summicron, only because it handles more situations. For almost all shooting I'd have been happy with the Zeiss.
Kirk
I used to have a 28 CV for M4, but it had a soft corner & rather loose aperture ring – not the best quality. When I bought an M8 I also got a 28 Elmarit, but I found it too contrasty & clinical. I took it back & got a Summicron: great IQ but a bit too bulky to carry everywhere & a bit valuable for some of the places I wander; so I got a used Zeiss 28 (coded by DAG) for $700 to use most of the time. Though Zeiss has a reputation for high contrast, the 28 was less contrasty than the Elmarit. Of the 3 it was my Goldilocks lens (except for low light).
Since switching to M9 I use 35 much more but kept the 28 Summicron, only because it handles more situations. For almost all shooting I'd have been happy with the Zeiss.
Kirk
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
No, the photos were shot with all three lenses (CV, Hexanon, Zeiss) I want someone to tell me which photos were shot with which lens.
thompsonks
Well-known
Sorry, was responding to OP's question.
In response to your fine portfolio, I saw so much stylistic consistency in your exposure/development/post-processing that I couldn't see anything I could attribute to different lenses. You have a very consistent vision & style, regardless of lens!
K
In response to your fine portfolio, I saw so much stylistic consistency in your exposure/development/post-processing that I couldn't see anything I could attribute to different lenses. You have a very consistent vision & style, regardless of lens!
K
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
No, I am sorry. I was thinking you were responding to my preceding challenge.
back alley
IMAGES
bob, i wonder when the experts will appear and take up your challenge...
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Joe: I suspect you can find some differences in those lenses if you specifically look hard enough. Of course you cannot tell from JPGs, no matter how hard you look. I do remain convinced there are no discernible differences in prints made from any of them.
I probably should not even mention that 23 of those were shot on Neopan 400 and 7 on Tri-X and challenge someone to pick out which photos were on which film.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Bob, you're right: that's nearly impossible...
I love the real B&W tones: beautiful! And the sensation of being there is a pleasure.
You got there -to my taste- some of the best street shots I've ever seen from Cuba. Really frank and moving.
Wonderful, superb work! Congratulations!
Cheers,
Juan
I love the real B&W tones: beautiful! And the sensation of being there is a pleasure.
You got there -to my taste- some of the best street shots I've ever seen from Cuba. Really frank and moving.
Wonderful, superb work! Congratulations!
Cheers,
Juan
kermaier
Well-known
Yeah, the Elmarit-M Aspherical is quite small for a 28/2.8 -- about the same size as the M-Rokkor, but quite a bit larger than the Canon or the CV. I just got the Elmarit recently, and haven't shot with it much, but it's at least as good as the M-Rokkor or the CV stopped down, and better wide open. (All three of them run circles around the Canon, but the Canon sure has a great Vintage look.) The one demerit for the CV is that it has more light fall-off in the corners than any of the other 28mm lenses I've used.
::Ari
::Ari
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I try to imagine Bob's photographs with visible vignetting... Wouldn't they look great too?
Sometimes I wish all lenses had a lot more vignetting (without filtering or post-processing/printing) as I really like it and consider it opportune for what photography means to me: isolating a fragment of reality...
Cheers,
Juan
Sometimes I wish all lenses had a lot more vignetting (without filtering or post-processing/printing) as I really like it and consider it opportune for what photography means to me: isolating a fragment of reality...
Cheers,
Juan
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Juan: thanks for the compliments! I can photograph only those people and cultures that I have a special feeling for.
The only reason I finally quit using the CV 28mm f3.5 was the speed. There were times when I would be invited into a home to shoot with dim light. Some of my photos were shot f2.8 at 1/30th or even 1/15th with iso 400 film. Because I am a "one camera, one lens, pocket full of film" type photographer, I settled on a f2.8 lens.
