edrodgers731
Member
I have seen many comparisons between the 28 Elmarit and 28 Summicron, as well as many comparisons between the 35 Summicron and 35 Summilux.
What I have not seen is a comparison between the 28 Summicron and the 35 Summicron.
My dilemma is that I am trying to balance the wide that I like with the sharpness that I like. I'm having a tough time deciding on the one lens that I can get right now.
Is the 28 a lesser lens than the 35 when FOV doesn't matter (much)?
I like the 37mm (equiv) that the 28 will give me, but I would definitely live with the 46mm that the 35 would give me if the rendering was better.
Anyone familiar with the rendering differences of these two lenses?
What I have not seen is a comparison between the 28 Summicron and the 35 Summicron.
My dilemma is that I am trying to balance the wide that I like with the sharpness that I like. I'm having a tough time deciding on the one lens that I can get right now.
Is the 28 a lesser lens than the 35 when FOV doesn't matter (much)?
I like the 37mm (equiv) that the 28 will give me, but I would definitely live with the 46mm that the 35 would give me if the rendering was better.
Anyone familiar with the rendering differences of these two lenses?
J. Borger
Well-known
I assume you are refering to the asph summicrons.
I never liked the 35 summicron asph on the R-D1 or the M8 ....
I always found the results too "clinical" and not generating nice B&W tones, especially not if the lens is stopped down ... i feel the same about the 28 elmarit asph
The 28mm summicron on the other hand is a toatal different story ..... in my opinions it generates the most beautiful tones of all of the asph Leica lenses ..... files are creamy, very sharp, contrasty but not too (like the 35 cron asph), great bokeh .....
So the 28 is not the lesser lens compared to the 35 summicron, on the contrary ..... i would say it is the "better" lens in every aspect.
Hera are 3 snaps from the 28 summicron on the M8
I never liked the 35 summicron asph on the R-D1 or the M8 ....
I always found the results too "clinical" and not generating nice B&W tones, especially not if the lens is stopped down ... i feel the same about the 28 elmarit asph
The 28mm summicron on the other hand is a toatal different story ..... in my opinions it generates the most beautiful tones of all of the asph Leica lenses ..... files are creamy, very sharp, contrasty but not too (like the 35 cron asph), great bokeh .....
So the 28 is not the lesser lens compared to the 35 summicron, on the contrary ..... i would say it is the "better" lens in every aspect.
Hera are 3 snaps from the 28 summicron on the M8
Attachments
Last edited:
edrodgers731
Member
Sorry, yes, this is for an M8 and I am talking about an asph 35 summicron.
Thanks very much for your input. That's exactly the kind of experience I am looking for.
I know it all comes down to personal preference, but I am sitting on the fence about this choice. I'm sure I'd be happy with either, but I want to make the best decision I can.
Thanks very much for your input. That's exactly the kind of experience I am looking for.
I know it all comes down to personal preference, but I am sitting on the fence about this choice. I'm sure I'd be happy with either, but I want to make the best decision I can.
Fred
Feline Great
I've had one of these lenses for a few years now, I had pondered selling it for a faster 28 but the compact size and build stoppd me. Great contrast and sharpness.
DwF
Well-known
35mm Summicron asph!
35mm Summicron asph!
I have no real experience with the 28mm Summicron but have the 28 Elmarit aspherical and love that lens. I find I can hand-hold it slow enough for pretty much any low light application that I need. As for the 35mm Summicron asph it is a great lens. I can't speak for those that call it cold or clinical but here (link below) is an example of a photo shot with the R D1. I also love it results of this lens with the M8 but, recently having picked up the 28 Elmarit, my 35 has been sitting
.
If I could only keep one lens, it would be the 35 Summicron Aspherical. And I have owned the 35 pre asph 'lux and the 8 element 35 'cron. Hands down, I prefer the 35 Summicron aspherical. That is because as I see it, the Leica 35mm lens is about having a wide view and shallow dof (read that a contrasty f2 to work with). I don't know a 35 that does it any better than the Summicron asph.
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/74165230
Best,
David
35mm Summicron asph!
I have no real experience with the 28mm Summicron but have the 28 Elmarit aspherical and love that lens. I find I can hand-hold it slow enough for pretty much any low light application that I need. As for the 35mm Summicron asph it is a great lens. I can't speak for those that call it cold or clinical but here (link below) is an example of a photo shot with the R D1. I also love it results of this lens with the M8 but, recently having picked up the 28 Elmarit, my 35 has been sitting
. If I could only keep one lens, it would be the 35 Summicron Aspherical. And I have owned the 35 pre asph 'lux and the 8 element 35 'cron. Hands down, I prefer the 35 Summicron aspherical. That is because as I see it, the Leica 35mm lens is about having a wide view and shallow dof (read that a contrasty f2 to work with). I don't know a 35 that does it any better than the Summicron asph.
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/74165230
Best,
David
DwF
Well-known
Here is one from the M8 where it (35mm Summicron asph) functions as a portrait lens.
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/93402943
David
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/93402943
David
edrodgers731
Member
Thanks everyone for your input! I'm leaning toward the 28 Summicron right now. I really value the wider FOV, as long as the IQ doesn't suffer for it.
edrodgers731
Member
Okay, I just bought the 35/2 ASPH Summicron. (Am I flaky, or what?)
Let me summarize my decision for the curious.
35 Pros:
Much cheaper (by $1000)
Smaller
I already have an IR filter for it
Slightly more pronounced bokeh if needed
After looking at hundreds of sample shots, I think I SLIGHTLY prefer the rendering on the 35.
Can still use my 1.25 viewfinder magnifier for focus assist (.86 from .68) and keep the frame lines visible with my glasses on.
If there is ever a full frame DRF, I've got the FOV I want.
The nagging belief that the optimal IQ is achieved at or around a normal FOV. (My most expensive Canon SLR lenses are the wide lenses, 14 2.8L and 16-65 2.8L, and they are junk compared to my $300 50 1.4) It may not apply here, but I suspect it has merit in general.
28 Pros:
Wider FOV
Slightly less contrast (although I think this is somewhat negated by the additional image compression caused by the wider FOV)
Better compliment to my Noctilux. (more varied look)
So, it's a completely personal choice. I won't say one lens is "better" than the other, but right now I'm buying the 35!
Thanks again everyone.
Let me summarize my decision for the curious.
35 Pros:
Much cheaper (by $1000)
Smaller
I already have an IR filter for it
Slightly more pronounced bokeh if needed
After looking at hundreds of sample shots, I think I SLIGHTLY prefer the rendering on the 35.
Can still use my 1.25 viewfinder magnifier for focus assist (.86 from .68) and keep the frame lines visible with my glasses on.
If there is ever a full frame DRF, I've got the FOV I want.
The nagging belief that the optimal IQ is achieved at or around a normal FOV. (My most expensive Canon SLR lenses are the wide lenses, 14 2.8L and 16-65 2.8L, and they are junk compared to my $300 50 1.4) It may not apply here, but I suspect it has merit in general.
28 Pros:
Wider FOV
Slightly less contrast (although I think this is somewhat negated by the additional image compression caused by the wider FOV)
Better compliment to my Noctilux. (more varied look)
So, it's a completely personal choice. I won't say one lens is "better" than the other, but right now I'm buying the 35!
Thanks again everyone.
aizan
Veteran
huh? i wouldn't have thought one had anything to do with the other.
edrodgers731
Member
Maybe you are right, but I'm thinking in terms of details becoming smaller simply because the FOV is wider, and to me, contrast becomes more detrimental in that situation.