3.5 vs. 2

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
10:23 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
would you trade your cv 28/3.5 for a cv 28/2?

i could also sell the 3.5 and buy a 2...

bottom line switch out a 3.5 for a 2?

i like the size of the 3.5 and it renders just fine for my liking but i am thinking about something a bit faster. this is a constant struggle when winter and darkness approaches.
the 2 seems smaller the cv 28/1.9 so it would be a sort of compromise as i know the 1.9 is a great lens while the 2 seems to have a mixed rep.

i might also add a used 40/1.4 as a winter sub for my 40/2.8.

thoughts?
 
But for the FL, those are two very different lenses.

What was it attracted you to the skopar in the first place?

they're not exactly unobtanium, but they aren't so easy to find, either. I'd think twice before selling.
 
I have a 2.8 but a 3.5! I can not see justifing a 3.5 except as a collector. I do a lot of shooting in the 2.0 range so a 3.5 is really out of the question. My 2.8 is a summer lens or for going far south where the light is stronger & longer in the winter. Maybe, I am being hard on my 2.8 but that's my opinion.
 
Well if you need f2 then the f3.5 is as good a 2 stops slower give or take 1/3 stop. If the size and weight difference is not too great then the f2 is a must. It would be good to test the f2 out by borrowing one to see if it renders the way you want though. Always a hard call sight unseen. Good luck coming to a decision on this one.

Bob
 
noimmunity said:
But for the FL, those are two very different lenses.

What was it attracted you to the skopar in the first place?

they're not exactly unobtanium, but they aren't so easy to find, either. I'd think twice before selling.
Click to expand...

been thinking way over twice on this...
 
I'm a fan of the CV Asph 1.9, b/c I need the speed too. that said, I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a 2nd 28mm, and thats the ONLY reason I am also in the market for a vintage f3.5 user.
let us know what you decide ......
 
Didn't you have a 1.9?

I had one and it was a dog.
If I knew I could get a good copy, I would. Meanwhile, the CS is a tiny, sharp, very well built lens.
There is no real f/2 options for me:
The summicron is way out of my league, and the VC choice, I believe, suffer from QV variation.
Given that, right now, I would rather occasionally push my film to 800 than trade my CS for an unknown quality Ultron.
That being said, let's talk proportions: if you need f/2 for 90% of your work, I don't think there is much of a choice...
 
ALL three CV 28s mentioned here suffer from sample variation. Good copies of Ultrons can rival the Summicron; in fact a good Ultron will outperform a not-so-good Summicron (see Sean Reid's review of fast 28s on M9).

If you're gonna get a CV 28, either buy from a dealer with a decent return policy, or find a trusted seller who can vouch for its quality. Pay a little more if you have to... it's worth it.
 
The 28/1.9 is really nice, but quite frankly, I'd rather have the 28/3.5 for what I do. Less distortion. Much smaller and lighter. At least as sharp. I traded my 28/1.9 for a 40/1.4 which I use a lot more.
 
I would not trade my Skopar 28 for the faster 28 (and I've given it some thought). I just like the small size and rendering of the 28/3.5 too much to part w/ it. I like that this lens is pocketable w/ a Barnack or Bessa T. And I don't do a lot of shallow dof photography, so f.2.0 (or 1.9) isn't so compelling. I think if I were ever to get another 28 for a film camera, I'd base the decision on how the lens renders rather than on speed.

I'm thinking of asking Santa for a faster 28 in the form of a Panasonic Lumix 14/2.5, to go on my E-PL1. That would be a nice digi companion to an M2 w/ a 40 or a 50. YMMV. :)
 
so it's all because of winter time. When the summer comes, you will say, 3.5 is fast enough.

Just kidding. I owned 3.5 before. I don't have a 2.0. But I don't think I will trade a 3.5 for a 2.0. I have other fast lens.
 
one more thing, I remember that you have the 28/1.9. U sold that one already? in favor of the small size of 3.5? then no point to reverse, it will be really painful.
 
I had complaints about the size of my 28mm f/1.9. Then, I realized how much the hood added to the bulk. I tried it out without the hood, and there was almost no increase in flare. I bought a generic 46mm cap to use without the hood, and I have no more issues with the size :)
 
roundg said:
so it's all because of winter time. When the summer comes, you will say, 3.5 is fast enough.

Just kidding. I owned 3.5 before. I don't have a 2.0. But I don't think I will trade a 3.5 for a 2.0. I have other fast lens.
Click to expand...

in winter, there are precious few hours of daylight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom