28mm f1.9 vs. 35mm f1.7

[dazedgonebye]

So, 35mm is a great FL and has the serious advantage of framelines on most every camera (except my R3A, but 40 is close enough for me) where 28mm is less widely available and on cameras that are out of my $$$ range.
I've stayed away from 28mm as a walk-around lens, even though I like the FL, because I wanted the framelines. With the R4A coming out, all that is about to change.


How do these two CV lenses compare?

 

[ferider]

I found them very, very similar in character, Steve.

Roland.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I have found that the 28/1.9 is a little lower contrast than the 35/1.7. Nothing that you can't work around -- in fact for digital, it can be a plus. It will be interesting to hear others' impressions.

Ben Marks

 

[rover]

Both are excellent lenses, although pricey for the CV LTM lot, they perform very closely to their competition from Zeiss and Leica. A lot of bang for your buck with both lenses.

 

[jamxo]

Cant recommend the 35mm ultron enough - sharp where you want it to be, smooth everywhere else and fast to boot. Not as large or as flimsy as people seem to think especially if you take off the lens cap. 35mm is my favourite focal length - portraits with a surrounding, but not wide enough to leave too much empty space (which i find i get with 28mm).

I have a 50mm and it gathers dust, the 35 Ultron is on me 24/7.

Recent favourite: