uhoh7
Veteran
For which I prolly overpaid-- a mint copy for 290. But the tests imply the thing is sharp as hell, so we'll see.
It's from the same collection as my 42/1.2-- which really does have perfect glass, but a little nick on the filter threads.
Anybody shoot much with the 25/2.8?
It's from the same collection as my 42/1.2-- which really does have perfect glass, but a little nick on the filter threads.
Anybody shoot much with the 25/2.8?
Nokton48
Veteran
OK, let's see some tests.
Dosen't sound like you overpaid, at least by much.
Very speedy for the focal length.
Dosen't sound like you overpaid, at least by much.
Very speedy for the focal length.
uhoh7
Veteran
170 grams, good speed, and reputed to be very sharp. Also CF to 2.5 meters. Had to pay 290USD for this mint copy.
above: f/8 infinity
below bokeh @ 2.8
close focus:
hmmmmmm......
raid
Dad Photographer
The bokeh is not that wonderful looking ....
uhoh7
Veteran
haha, I was surpirsed I could get that much bokeh out of 25, period
That's a pretty close focus @2.8, which really sends the background, but no one should judge the lens by that one. Like the the 42/1.2, I suspect bokeh is highly variable. SOme say the 42 has harsh bokeh, but I've seen many shots from it which are fine.
Time will tell, I like it so far
andredossantos
Well-known
Leaves with light coming through is a tough task for any lens. I'm sure the bokeh is fine in most normal situations.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You call?
pinkarmy
Well-known
using such superb lenses on a digital cam is a crime
get a decent film camera!
get a decent film camera!
uhoh7
Veteran
Nice looking camera SF
pinkarmy-- I did my own develping and enlarging in the 70s (Junior High)--I like to hear about it, but have no interest in shooting film myself, right now.
WHich is better, a 25/2.8 that gathers dust because film is a pain (and expensive) or one that is USED?
from today:
Corners sometimes soft, othertimes OK--check lower ight of cat--no PP there or crop.
Centers are pretty darn good
maybe it really is worth 300 bucks!
PS NO that is NOT my house, hehe. If you look close you can see her playing with her brand new 7D. good client.
pinkarmy-- I did my own develping and enlarging in the 70s (Junior High)--I like to hear about it, but have no interest in shooting film myself, right now.
WHich is better, a 25/2.8 that gathers dust because film is a pain (and expensive) or one that is USED?
from today:
Corners sometimes soft, othertimes OK--check lower ight of cat--no PP there or crop.
Centers are pretty darn good
maybe it really is worth 300 bucks!
PS NO that is NOT my house, hehe. If you look close you can see her playing with her brand new 7D.
good client.
Last edited:
pinkarmy
Well-known
WHich is better, a 25/2.8 that gathers dust because film is a pain (and expensive) or one that is USED?
quote]
you have the point, if these are the only choices you have.
BTW. really impressive pictures!!
uhoh7
Veteran
TY sir, This lens is fun to use
note the blueish tinge on the tin roof--CA? The funny thing is the lens will not purple fringe, even wide open again bright lights, yet sometimes bright reflections are blued. You can also see what appears to be spherical aberation in the lower corners, however the edges up higher are quite good. It's possible to get quite a sharp corner, but you have to focus for it.
below: f4
It's pretty sharp, even wide open, but the serious resolution begins at 5.6 where all but the extreme corners are pretty impressive really.
f/2.8 sharpness test: centers seem quite respectable
100
It will be very interesting to see this lens on the Nex-7, where the sensors will be optimised for corner performance, and conrnerfix is no longer needed for the wide CVs.
It's no ZM 25/2.8, but then again I didn't pay a grand AND it's 100 grams lighter
Frankly, without any peeping and ignoring the far corners, it produces images which look fine next to my leica 50/2 v4.
here is a 100 from near center of the first image, which is at least f/8
I do have a fantasic 24, the nFD 24/2, which many consider the best FD lens ever made, and while it's not at all large, it's big enough that I don't all always have it with me--but this one BEGS to be used
note the blueish tinge on the tin roof--CA? The funny thing is the lens will not purple fringe, even wide open again bright lights, yet sometimes bright reflections are blued. You can also see what appears to be spherical aberation in the lower corners, however the edges up higher are quite good. It's possible to get quite a sharp corner, but you have to focus for it.
below: f4
It's pretty sharp, even wide open, but the serious resolution begins at 5.6 where all but the extreme corners are pretty impressive really.
f/2.8 sharpness test: centers seem quite respectable
100
It will be very interesting to see this lens on the Nex-7, where the sensors will be optimised for corner performance, and conrnerfix is no longer needed for the wide CVs.
It's no ZM 25/2.8, but then again I didn't pay a grand AND it's 100 grams lighter
Frankly, without any peeping and ignoring the far corners, it produces images which look fine next to my leica 50/2 v4.
here is a 100 from near center of the first image, which is at least f/8
I do have a fantasic 24, the nFD 24/2, which many consider the best FD lens ever made, and while it's not at all large, it's big enough that I don't all always have it with me--but this one BEGS to be used
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
bokeh looks fine to me, in these samples. Lens size looks huge though, for a 28/2.8.
uhoh7
Veteran
By itself, this is the lightest 24-25/2.8 MF lens ever made at 170 grams. The OM version is only 16 grams heavier and it is quite abit shorter.
However the OM SLR adapter is much bigger and 50 grams heavier.
So you are looking at the smallest lightest 24-25/2.8 available for the Nex, when mounted.
The new sony zeiss 24/1.8 may change that however
It works fine indoors at nite, here my daughter is shooting her friend with a splinter:
ampguy
Veteran
It's pretty long, I looked it up, almost 2", longer than most of the other Pen 1/2 frame standard and wide lenses. Over twice as long as a Canon 28/2.8 lens. Just by looking at it, it looks like my small DSLR setups.
uhoh7
Veteran
2 inches longer?
The entire lens length from base of mount to end of filter ring is 2 inches.
It's exactly the same length as the 42/1.2, but slimmer and much lighter.
With adapter it's shorter than the Konica 40/1.8 pancake, which is a tiny SLR lens.
However I'm sure the 38/1.8 and several other Pens are alot shorter.
ampguy
Veteran
No, your lens is 1 and 13/16" long, just under 2". The Canon 28/2.8 LTM lens is under 1 inch long, and looks better to me.
I am not sure why this half frame lens is so long, I'm guessing the designers glommed on a close up lens onto a normal 1/2 frame wide angle, and it ended up being double a full frame 28/2.8 lens.
I am not sure why this half frame lens is so long, I'm guessing the designers glommed on a close up lens onto a normal 1/2 frame wide angle, and it ended up being double a full frame 28/2.8 lens.
uhoh7
Veteran
for me there is a big difference between the frames of 25 & 28, so the comparison is really moot, but
JJW:
"I've owned both the 28mm Canons. The f/3.5 is far better than the f/2.8.
That said, the current 28mm Voigtlanders... the f/1.9 Ultron and the f/3.5 Color Skopar, blast both Canons totally out of the water. They even outdo the early versions of the Leitz 28mm Elmarit.
The 28mm Canon f/2.8 owes its reputation to Garry Winogrand, who used it to shoot a lot of this street photographs of the late 1960s and early 1970s. As it turns out, I recently stumbled into a copy of "Public Relations", Garry's 1977 monograph, which contains pictures he shot in that time period. I am less impressed with their technical quality now. To be fair, Garry's work wasn't about technical excellence. The pictures were sharp enough to get the idea across.
If you are a shooter -- I recommend the Voigtlanders. Excellent value for the money. On the other hand, if you're collecting Canon screwmount lenses..."
Here is the pen 25/2.8 next to the gold standard RF 28, the leica 28/2.8 circa 1989:
it is shorter, a smaller diameter and lighter than the leica. So you must consider the elmarit-m gargantuan?
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Not sure who JJW is, but I doubt he's sampled a good 28/2.8 Canon in his test with the 3.5.
I've owned all of the CV 28's except for the 28/2. Also, the Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8, and M-Hexanon 28/2.8.
For my purposes, the combination of IQ, speed, and size, the Canon 28/2.8 LTM beats them all.
I've owned all of the CV 28's except for the 28/2. Also, the Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8, and M-Hexanon 28/2.8.
For my purposes, the combination of IQ, speed, and size, the Canon 28/2.8 LTM beats them all.
uhoh7
Veteran
10 grams lighter than this 25
my little ref site says: "Very Good for a Vintage wide angle lens", though there were a few conccuring with JJW in the thread here (canon RF).
looks pretty pricey for a good copy--the canons are so often hazy or have other issues--as you note the copy is everything.
Would not trade this 25 for one, but they do look quite nice.