28mm sharp in corners that doesn't break the bank?

[daniel buck]

So I have a CV 28/2.0 which seems to be nice for general shooting and questionable lighting (ability to shoot at f2.0 is nice!) But I've noticed for bright light "landscape" type shots where I'm going to be stopping down to f8 or so, it doesn't seem to be very sharp in the corners, noticeably softer than the rest of the image.

So my question is, for a lens that's going to be stopped down to f8 (give or take a stop) what would be a good 28mm that won't break the bank? If I could find something in the sub-$600 range, that would be perfect. I'm on an M9. I don't mind some barrel distortion, so having a super flat lens isn't really a high priority for me, nor is vignetting (unless it's heavy). Don't mind if it's an older lens either.

If I find such a lens and it happens to be a slow lens (like an f3.5 or f4) I will probably still keep the CV 28/2.0 for it's lower light capabilities.

Is f8 enough to sharpen up the corners on this lens? Or does this lens need to be closed down farther? Usually for my SLR shooting, I find that F8 is sufficient to keep most landscape shots in focus unless I have something fairly close in the foreground. Maybe I'm not stopping it down enough?

 

[f16sunshine]

Dump the CV's 1 extra stop and get a Biogon 2.8/25mm . Yeah it's a touch wider and 1 stop slower. With the M9 or M8 for that matter a Biogon sceme is going to be your best bet for corner sharpness and also for low distortion. The Biogon 25 is the best of the 24mm-28mm pack. I highly doubt you will miss the one stop.

 

[akk2]

I will try to shoot some sample with my 28/3.5 and let you know if it is sharp at the corner.

 

[Turtle]

the Zm 28 is plenty sharp in the corners on full frame film. I cant really tell any difference in the corners by f5.6 compared to my 35 biogon, summarit, 21 ZM etc. Its really very sharp and the MTFs may reveal curvature of field that wont show up in the field!

 

[Avotius]

I also have the 28 Biogon I am using on film and the M8. Its a great compact lens and can be found used pretty easy. I thought I would miss the extra speed at 2.8 sounds slow but its not a big deal. I have heard good things about the CV 28 3.5, might want to check that out too.

 

[daniel buck]

Dump the CV's 1 extra stop and get a Biogon 2.8/25mm . Yeah it's a touch wider and 1 stop slower. With the M9 or M8 for that matter a Biogon sceme is going to be your best bet for corner sharpness and also for low distortion. The Biogon 25 is the best of the 24mm-28mm pack. I highly doubt you will miss the one stop.

Thanks for the suggestion 🙂 I have no problem going with a Zeiss lens, I do enjoy Zeiss lenses on my 1-series Canon 🙂

Can you give any thoughts on shooting the Biogon 25 while looking through the 28mm frame lines? Is it significantly wider? or not noticably? I'm the type of shooter who likes to take my time and get the cropping right in the camera, and not do much cropping after the fact (I think it's a psychological thing, not wanting to crop after the fact hah!)

I guess the first reply to this might be to get an external viewfinder, but I don't want to do that, I'd rather not have alot of extra stuff to go along with the camera, just the camera and one or two lenses.

I will try to shoot some sample with my 28/3.5 and let you know if it is sharp at the corner.

Thank you, I would appreciate that 🙂 Are you referring to the CV 28/3.5? I'm kind of eyeing that one, for how small it is! I was actually going to get this lens instead of the 28/2.0, but cameraquest did not have any in black, so I went for the 2.0 (I like black)

I have heard good things about the CV 28 3.5, might want to check that out too.

Thank you 🙂

 

[f16sunshine]

In response I suppose I'm missing something. The m8 has 24/35 framelines that work perfect with the zm25. Did the m9 do away with the 24/35?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Just get the 28mm Biogon from Zeiss. It is sharp all the way to the corners.

 

[daniel buck]

In response I suppose I'm missing something. The m8 has 24/35 framelines that work perfect with the zm25. Did the m9 do away with the 24/35?

I guess so, I'm not to familier with the M8. But the widest frame lines I have on the M9 are for 28mm. Which I guess is probably equivilant of the 24mm on an M8, eh?

Just get the 28mm Biogon from Zeiss. It is sharp all the way to the corners.

Thanks for your reply, I will consider this lens as well 🙂

 

[Krosya]

M-Hexanon that I'm selling (see my signature) will be easy on your bank.
And it for sure better built than it's ZM counterpart. Just google all those ZM wobble and light leaks. Plus while most other ZM lenses are very good, - zm 28 is thier weakest offering, - again do some search on it. If you wanted a 21mm, 25mm, 35mm or 50mm lens - I'd consider ZM as well, but NOT for the 28mm one.

 

[Jaans]

M-Hexanon that I'm selling (see my signature) will be easy on your bank.
And it for sure better built than it's ZM counterpart. Just google all those ZM wobble and light leaks. Plus while most other ZM lenses are very good, - zm 28 is thier weakest offering, - again do some search on it. If you wanted a 21mm, 25mm, 35mm or 50mm lens - I'd consider ZM as well, but NOT for the 28mm one.

I couldn't agree more about ZM's reliability issues. I had a Biogon 35mm F2 and it was purchased from new.

It quickly developed focus wobble that had to be tightened - at my expense.

Then bits of black paint started to fall off on the inside that were prevalent all over.

The performance is great, with great sharpness, but little character. Perhaps this is what you are after.

In the end I would definetely go for the Hexanon. I also find the ZM contrast overtly strong in sunny conditions. The Hex will render more like the Summicron.

I will never purchase another ZM product again due to the issues that I had with my Biogon.

 

[Turtle]

Well I have extensively used the 21 2.8, 35 F2, 50 planar and 28 Biogon and the 28 sits next to the rest no problem. I have no reason to think mine is anything other than typical. I agree that it is weaker on paper... only it is no weaker to my very picky eyes on 20x16 prints using D100 and Xtol (which takes no prisoners). Its tack sharp and if one can see any differences in the extreme corners at high mag it would be so subtle as to be messing with your imagination. While for 40" murals using orthocopy film the 25 might smash it, I would imagine the application here would mean no visible difference in real world use. The 21 2.8 is darned close to the 25 on MTFs and it looks just like my 28 on print...

As for build, it would seem the Hex is better.

M-Hexanon that I'm selling (see my signature) will be easy on your bank.
And it for sure better built than it's ZM counterpart. Just google all those ZM wobble and light leaks. Plus while most other ZM lenses are very good, - zm 28 is thier weakest offering, - again do some search on it. If you wanted a 21mm, 25mm, 35mm or 50mm lens - I'd consider ZM as well, but NOT for the 28mm one.

.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The old 28/3,5 Kobalux/Pasinon was a good lens, well made, and an f/3.5 is a LOT easier to design and build than an f/2. It's also tiny.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Thank you, I would appreciate that 🙂 Are you referring to the CV 28/3.5? I'm kind of eyeing that one, for how small it is! I was actually going to get this lens instead of the 28/2.0, but cameraquest did not have any in black, so I went for the 2.0 (I like black)

I have a black CV 28mm f/3.5 for sale in the lens classifieds.

 

[Ben Z]

So I have a CV 28/2.0 which seems to be nice for general shooting and questionable lighting (ability to shoot at f2.0 is nice!) But I've noticed for bright light "landscape" type shots where I'm going to be stopping down to f8 or so, it doesn't seem to be very sharp in the corners, noticeably softer than the rest of the image.

I have the Voitlander 28/1.9 (screw mount w/adapt), it's sharp as a pin from the center to the corners from at least f/4. I read something about focus issues with the M-mount f/2 version, don't remember what. There may also be some sample variation in the Voitlander lenses.

 

[venchka]

Konica. It's sharp. Doesn't flare. Built like a Rolex.

 

[maddoc]

The old 28/3,5 Kobalux/Pasinon was a good lens, well made, and an f/3.5 is a LOT easier to design and build than an f/2. It's also tiny.

Cheers,

R.

+1. Another advantage is that it is also a LTM lens and very nice to use with a screwmount Leica. I also have the CV 28/3.5 in S-mount but like the Avenon (Kobalux/Pasinon) better.

 

[daniel buck]

Thanks for all of the replies!

After doing some reading around about the lenses mentioned here (thank you!) and talking with a few aquaintances who are more experienced with rangefinders than myself, AND after looking at my last two paychecks with all the overtime I've been doing, that I might as well just get a coded Summicron and be done with it. I would probably just spend it on another lens anyway, :bang: lol The 28 will be what's on my camera most of the time, so I guess if I'm gonna spend good money on a lens, I suppose that's the one to spend it on. 🙂

And I can sell another one of my SLR lenses if need be 😱 (as well as the Ultron)

 

[ferider]

I have the Voitlander 28/1.9 (screw mount w/adapt), it's sharp as a pin from the center to the corners from at least f/4. I read something about focus issues with the M-mount f/2 version, don't remember what. There may also be some sample variation in the Voitlander lenses.

If you have focus shift issues with the 28/2, do consider the 28/1.9 ASPH. Even Puts has high praise for that lens - it's incredibly sharp at f4 and up, corner to corner.

 

[raid]

I find the Kobalux 28/3.5 to be very sharp. It is in LTM, and its size is very small. The other option is the Rokkor-M 28mm/2.8. I have both lenses. Some people like the vintage Canon 28/2.8 or the 3.5 version.