28mm lenses

[ljsegil]

Contemplating fixing (more like filling as nothing is really broken) a hole between my 2.8/21 ZM Biogon and my 2/35 ZM Biogon lenses for my ZI rangefinder. A 28mm lens is a nice arithmetic fit, and is pretty close to evenly splitting the angle of view between the two lenses I have. There are a pretty wide variety of choices at this focal length, so I am curious what people think of whatever options they have experienced. Obviously I am partial to the ZM lenses, though not slavishly, and wonder how the Cosina offerings like the Ultrons and the Color-Skopar stack up next to the Zeiss.
Then of course there is the option of leaving the hole unfilled, as I have been happy shooting with my current kit and am not sure that there are shots that I could have taken with a 28mm lens that I could not get with either of the flanking focal lengths.
Please chime in, any and all opinions eagerly sought.
Larry

 

[Al Kaplan]

Put the money into another body or a lens outside of your current selection rather than in the middle. Maybe a 15 or a 90 depending on your NEEDS, not your whim of the moment. Lenses you don't need should only be bought when you find one so dang cheap that you know you could double your money if you decide to sell. And stop looking for holes. You can ALWAYS find a hole. They stare you in the face. The 18mm hole, the 19mm hole, the 24mm hole, the 40mm hole, etc. It doesn't stop with the 28mm hole. Too much GAS comes out of those holes.

 

[Austerby]

I'm very happy with my new Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 - a tiny lens that takes gorgeous photos. I looked carefully at the contenders and picked this one for its size, quality and price - something of a Leica bargain, though still pricier than the ZM range though not by that much these days as Zeiss prices have shot up in the UK (I wonder why that is...). I used to have one of the older Leitz Elmarits but found it too large, but it did take wonderful photographs so don't discount second-hand glass.

To me a 28mm should be a small lens, which is why I didn't go for the ZM (plus I also have the ZM 25/2.8 which I do find large, though a fabulous lens). My CV lenses are excellent in other sizes so I'm sure the 28s will be too but again the smaller size of the Elmarit was a larger factor for me than the speed of the new CV 28/2.

I like the 28mm focal length a lot - I think more so than the 25 or 35 and it pairs nicely with a 50mm for a walk-around set.

Enjoy making your choice.

 

[Spider67]

Hi Larry,
If it's the hole that's prompting you to buy forget it! Then you have the phenomenon of your gear turning into a very specific kind of collection: The collection that enslaves its owner and sarts to collect itself. Been there believe me (perhaps still there).
So just give it additional thiought and check maybe a 15mm or get a 28mm that will make you leave the other lenses on the shelf..
best regards
Des

 

[ferider]

Both the Ultron and Color Skopar are outstanding lenses. Maybe the best in th CV line-up.

The problem with "filling the gap" might just be that you might stop using 21 and 35 🙂 There is nothing a 35/2 can do that a 28/2 cann't with just a little bit of cropping ....

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[oscroft]

I have a CV 28/3.5 and I think it's one of the best lenses I've ever had.

(But like others, I wouldn't buy any focal length lens just to fill a gap - I'd have to feel a need for that FL when I'm out shooting first).

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I have the 28mm Biogon. It is a very sharp lens with some curvature at the corners. I picked up mine used and it was considerably less than the Leica. Reviews have this lens equal to or better than the Leica pre-asph. As for a hole that is depending on what you are taking pictures of...for landscapes, I found it prefer this focal length to other more narrow lengths..

 

[Sam N]

Don't bother... 21/35/85 seems like it would be enough for the vast majority of RF situations. I like the 28/1.9 a lot, but it mostly sees use on the R-D1 instead of the ZI.

 

[tedwhite]

There's something about this combo - 28/3.5 -and regardless of who makes it that results in lenses that are not only small but excellent optically. I have the Super Takumar 28/3.5 (and have had it for decades), and have borrowed the CV28/3.5 from a friend. Both lenses are indistinguishable from one another in terms of image quality.

I also have the Ultron 28/1.9, and it, too, is a fine lens, but larger and heavier. If you don't need the speed then I'd get the CV28/3.5 and save some money.

 

[raid]

I agree with Ted that the 28/3.5 is a great lens. I have two such lenses. A Kobalux and a Canon. Both are very sharp lenses.

 

[Robburrito]

I have the Canon Serenar 28/f3.5 - it's a fantastic, tiny little lens.

 

[Tom A]

Filling the hole depends to some extent on your shooting style. If you are travelling and shooting, less is better and the 21/35/50 would work well. If it is for general shooting were you just want to take a body and one or two lenses along, you can always pair the 28 with 50 or the 21 with the 35.
The 28 has the advantage that you have frames in the ZM for that focal length, while you have to have an additional finder for the 21.
All of the 28 around are good! The VC 28f3.5 is one of my favorites for bl/w - it does have a slightly different look to it. The Biogon 28f2.8 has a great "snap" to it - very sharp and even. The best bang for the buck is probably the Ultron 28mm f2.0. It gives you a fast medium wide were the 21f4.5 could be too slow for handholding. Small and compact too - and extremely good for tight, close in shots. Probably the best of them for that.
Leica's 28f2.8 Asph is another contender, but more money and not better than the Zeiss or VC offerings - except for compactness - it is almost as small as the VC 28f3.5!
Your choice is probably more down to what it feels like on the camera and how much you want to spend than anything else. Modern glass is getting extremely good and you will not really see much difference between them.

 

[Tim Gray]

As much as I love 28mm, I agree. Go for a 15 or something. I like to skip focal lengths in my lenses (90, 50, 28, 15, etc.) and for me, 28 and 35 are too close together. That being said...

The Leica 28 Summicron is awesome. It's bigger than the 28/2.8 ASPH and the CV 28/3.5, but those are some of the smallest lenses available. It's really not that big. It's sharp, fast, and expensive. The 28/2.8 ASPH gets great reviews too, is small, and for a Leica lens, not all that expensive.

The Zeiss gets good reviews, but is a bit large. If I were buying new, I'd skip the Zeiss and go for the Leica 28/2.8 ASPH. I don't see where the Zeiss is worth $800-900 when you can get a much smaller Leica for not much more. Used, on the other hand, you could probably get the Zeiss for $500-600, and that's enough of a savings to make me think about it.

So far, I've not see one bad review of the CV 28/3.5. You can still get the silver ones new, it's super tiny, well made, sharp - it leaves little to be desired with the exception of some speed.

I personally went for the 28 Summicron since I like 28mm so much. It's been wonderful. Though recently, I decided I wanted a super tiny lens to make my camera more pocketable. I was open to different focal lengths (collapsible 50, CV 40/1.4, etc) but then thought about the 28/3.5. I picked one up a couple weeks ago and have been very happy with it. While there are times I (irrationally) wish it were the Leica 28/2.8 ASPH, it was a fraction of the price and is an excellent performer.