the metaphysical doubt, applied to 28mm

[sebastel]

if you do not know, what the term "metaphysical doubt" refers to - see mike johnston's article on LuLa.

now, how does this apply to 28mm?
i recently learnt, that certain lenses indeed are "magical". this gnostic revelation overcame me while looking at the results of a version 2 summilux 50mm, attached to my M9.

yes, it is just an outdated fifty. superseded by the lens of all lenses, the summilux asph. it does few things differently than my other 50es (planar, sonnar, nokton) - yet there is that certain "something".

and, guess what? i'd like to find this certain "something" also in a 28mm. so far, i know the zm biogon, the tiny C/V 28mm/3.5, and (long time ago, my memory almost fades) the 1.9 ultron.

none of them has "it".

is there any such lens?

or are they all good enough, and it is only my personal inability to yield the results i am looking for?
mike j.'s article seems to say: use any. but my own experience with the summilux has left that metaphysical doubt in me ...

do you share this doubt?
what is your experience?
do you know the all-magical 28?

thanks in advance for all contributions.
s.


postscribtum: i researched this forum long, wide and deep, but all attempts to ask for something similar like the summilux 50 in 28 did not result in anything. but then, i may not have searched enough - in that case, please refer me to the "thread of truth".

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think the ZM Biogon is the best 28 I have used. It is the only RF 28 I have used, but I own 28mm f2.8 lenses from Olympus and Nikon (the AF-D version) for SLRs. The Biogon is the sharpest and has a beautiful tonal rendering.

 

[kzphoto]

The 28 Summicron has a certain "look" that I like. I like modern, sharp, colorful images. They sing to me, in a way.

If you need something to "match" the look of your v2 lux, try the v3 28 Elmarit, or the v4. Both are reputed to have brilliant color transmission with a hint of character.

Through my own experience of 28 mm lenses: the Konica KM 28/2.8 is a total sleeper. Amazing sharpness and tonal range. Pairs well with a modern 50 Cron. The 28 Elmarit ASPH is the one 28 I use regularly. Amazing sharpness. It's really brilliant.

That being said, the Leica 24/2.8 is an optic with loads of character. It has a pronounced vignette, extreme micro contrast and the view is a great match to a 50.

 

[efix]

I think the ZM Biogon is the best 28 I have used. It is the only RF 28 I have used, but I own 28mm f2.8 lenses from Olympus and Nikon (the AF-D version) for SLRs. The Biogon is the sharpest and has a beautiful tonal rendering.

Indeed. The 28 Biogon is a magical lens.

It might help if you could elaborate on what "it" is, exactly?
For my part, "it" is the wonderful colour rendition, contrast and focus-to-out-of-focus transition of the Zeiss lenses. What is "it" for you?

 

[hausen]

I think the 28 Summicron is the best I have ever used. Had mine for about 6 weeks and it stuns me every time I use it. As Kzphoto says above is modern, sharp and colorful. Seems to me that it has a look that is all it's own. I never boned with the 35mm focal length but the 28mm justs seems to suit me. Can't go wrong with this darling of a lens.

 

[sebastel]

It might help if you could elaborate on what "it" is, exactly?

hm - i guess i am a bit out of words for this "it".
hoping that a picture tells more than 1000 words, here is an example from the summilux:


staircase by sebastel23, on Flickr


here is another one:


green light soon by sebastel23, on Flickr


some colour:


a veeeeeery good noodle shop, exists since more than 22 years by sebastel23, on Flickr


and finally this:


against the (traffic) light by sebastel23, on Flickr


another attempt to describe - it's gentle, not harsh. still well defined (sharp?). the tones are separated, but the contrast is "under control".

does this clarify what i mean?

thanks again for your contributions.

 

[maddoc]

The version 3 28m Elmarit comes to my mind, a Mandler-design.

 

[efix]

another attempt to describe - it's gentle, not harsh. still well defined (sharp?). the tones are separated, but the contrast is "under control".

does this clarify what i mean?

thanks again for your contributions.

I get it. That's exactly what I see in the pictures above. I suppose the v3 28mm Elmarit might just be what you're looking for, as was suggested before.

 

[sebastel]

thanks for the recommendations. i'll find one and try it out.

side note for those advocating the ZM biogon: i won't give up on that one. it's simply too good, a definitive keeper.

 

[mdarnton]

Just counting now, in my life I've had at least 7 28mm lenses, my favorite focal length, and the 28/1.9 Ultron was definitely the magic one for me.

I guess you will need to do the homework yourself--magic means different things to different people. I know for sure, though that "magic" and "best" are different categories, and probably don't overlap except by accident.

 

[sebastel]

@mdarnton:

i am quite aware of that - whether the shirt fits, you can only find out yourself. given the number of available lenses, an "exhaustive test" would be quite troublesome, so i had hoped to narrow it down to only a few types.

and, thanks to the kind assistance of the RFF members, i succeded.
not only shall i try the elmarit v3, but i'll also give the ultron 1.9 a second chance.

talking of ultron - did anyone compare the newer ultron 2.0 to the summilux v.2 already?

best regards,
sebastian

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have an exhibit of 33 10x12.5" prints from negs shot with a 28mm Biogon, a 28mm Hexanon and a CV 28mm f3.5. No one, including me, can tell which lens was used.

So I am one of the few here that believe it is what you photograph, not what lens you use.

.................................... or are they all good enough, and it is only my personal inability to yield the results i am looking for?
mike j.'s article seems to say: use any. but my own experience with the summilux has left that metaphysical doubt in me ...

do you share this doubt?
what is your experience?
do you know the all-magical 28?
..................................

 

[astro8]

So I am one of the few here that believe it is what you photograph, not what lens you use.

I'm a believer!

...except with 28's.

I won't become a believer until I spend lots of money and time and find a first version 9 element 28 elmarit with infinity lock.

I'll take a few pics, I'll look at them.... then I'll become a believer again.

 

[sleepyhead]

I would not rule out the 28mm M-Rokkor.
Like the Summilux version that you enjoy, it has great bokeh, is sharp but not clinical, and it is not overly contrasty as many modern wideangle lenses seem to be.
I do not have a digital M. I have both "modern" (very sharp and contrasty) as well as "classic" 50mm lenses, so I use the 28mm Summicron for modern, and the M-Rokkor for a more classic look.
This is a luxury of course.

 

[Tim Gray]

While I understand what you are asking for (a 28mm lens with 'it'), I'm not sure that's what Mike J. was getting at...

Anyway, I've used 3 28s. Canon 28/1.8 for SLR, the CV 28/3.5 for LTM, and the Leica 28/2 for M. Of the three, the Leica is by far my favorite, and probably my favorite lens ever. Most of that has to do with practical reasons: it's small, it's sharp enough across the field, it has relatively low distortion, flare resistant, it's fast, and most importantly, it's 28mm. There are some more subtle things about it that appeal to me: it's not *too* high in contrast and is a bit smoother, has a bit of vignetting which can look nice, etc. However, when push comes to shove, the other two 28s are great when I use them. I've never had any real complaints with them.

I'd bet many Leica users will just say the 28 Summicron, since it's the most expensive one. I do admit, it IS a great lens and if you have the cash and the desire, you should check it out. But if not, I've always liked the pictures from the 28 Elmarit pre-ASPH and the Zeiss ZM 28.

 

[Tim Gray]

So I am one of the few here that believe it is what you photograph, not what lens you use.

And I'd have to second this if I didn't make it clear in my post. This is what I got from Mike J.'s article.

 

[furcafe]

I'd also have to vote for the 28/2 Summicron ASPH for modern lenses. It's not as contrasty @ f/2 as the 35/2 'cron ASPH or 35/1.4 'lux ASPH (c.1997), but more so than the CV 28/1.9 Ultron I had which gave more of an '80s look wide-open (sharp, but less contrast). My 28/1.4 Nikkor AF-D falls somewhere between the 'cron & Ultron @ f/2.

I think people tend to get less poetic, or metaphysical, about 28s because there's more DoF & therefore less boke & other things for people to get worked up about, which is why I confined my discussion to the faster 28s.

I think the 28 Summicron is the best I have ever used. Had mine for about 6 weeks and it stuns me every time I use it. As Kzphoto says above is modern, sharp and colorful. Seems to me that it has a look that is all it's own. I never boned with the 35mm focal length but the 28mm justs seems to suit me. Can't go wrong with this darling of a lens.

 

[sebastel]

I have an exhibit of 33 10x12.5" prints from negs shot with a 28mm Biogon, a 28mm Hexanon and a CV 28mm f3.5. No one, including me, can tell which lens was used.

absolutely no doubt.
i used the ZM and the CV 3.5 in parallel, and i was unable to tell the differences - even at a second close look.
i am certain that thoroughly scrutinizing might reveal differences, but they probably will not matter.

So I am one of the few here that believe it is what you photograph, not what lens you use.

bob, i was firmly in that camp, too, until i saw what the summilux does.
so, i modified my opinion about the importance of gear. now i think, that most pieces of gear that are beyond the threshold of "good enough" will deliver. some may do it more comfortably, some less, but the optical properties will be similar enough to not play a role (tabbed versus non-tabbed, half stops versus third stops etc.). still, those handling issues can make a difference on how you use your lens/camera/whatever.
BUT (and this is the modification) - some lenses are different (so to say, "more equal than the others"). they just do it for you. no fussing, not a lot of postprocessing - they work a little bit "better" in may possible ways.

i agree, that my biogon should be sufficient for any mission that i'll encounter. so, in the end, maybe i'll find out that i do not need another 28, or that there is no "magical" 28 lens for me.
but the 50 summilux, that is.



again, thank you all very much for your valuable input. it is great joy to discuss with you.
even if i do not find my "grail", i could still enjoy this exchange of thoughts. and that is good enough reason to talk.

 

[sebastel]

While I understand what you are asking for (a 28mm lens with 'it'), I'm not sure that's what Mike J. was getting at...

tim, what i get from mike's article is exactly what bob already said: forget about finding "the one", but go on with using what you got. it's more about what you do with what you got, than what you got.

and there is a lot of truth in this. just sometimes, it may no be the end of the story?
and that is what i understand is the "metaphysical doubt".

 

[redisburning]

you can tell yourself that the lens doesnt matter

but what's the point if you don't actually believe it?

the summilux is an awfully good lens. you may need to prepare yourself for the possibility that you will not find another lens that you like as much.