Anyone Using The 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH ?

[aizan]

ever used a p&s digicam?

point being, a 28mm on the m8 looks like a 35mm on film. dof depends on focal length, aperture, coc, enlargement, blah blah blah.

 

[tomasis]

I try to get your point, but I don't understand your definition of "look".

Do you refer to the drawing characteristics (contrast, tonality, ...) which differ between lenses?

I understand Erik's point well. He meant signatures but also some less corrected shortcomings as vignetting, distortion.

The more wide lens is, you get feeling that it is not something "right", you get more distortion on the picture sort of no matter if it was cropped. It doesn't look flat as you used with 50mm. You get same but slighter reaction when you switch 50mm to 90mm. Just look on optics how they are formed. If the optics are quite rounded, so expect "distortion effects" like 15mm CV heliar.

I suspect myself that summilux preasph 35mm is designed to be small lens so front element is more rounded to take less space. I still get "35mm lens" feeling sometimes when I use this lens on Rd-1 (1.5x cropped sensor). I bought the lens to use as normal lens 50mm on rd1. It is not quite same you used to get from 50mm on film camera. Myself I don't like 35mm fov on film cameras, I tend go for 28mm or a bit wider like 25mm, 21mm. So Elmarit looks very tempting for me when I only have 21mm and 25mm 😛 35mm is not normal lens for me for sure. It is least wide, but enough wide 😉

It might be a bit different with ASPH version or Biogon, when their optics look like more corrected compared preasph. Look at Zeiss wide angle lenses from 15mm to 28mm. Though their good perfomance, they are too big to be quite compact sized. To make corrections, it needs more space in the barrel IMHO. I remember that I reacted when I looked at Zeiss website and saw that those wide angles have so many elements. This explains for large size of barrel.

Correct me if I'm wrong and I might to be fantasying a lot 🙂

 

[tomasis]

ever used a p&s digicam?

point being, a 28mm on the m8 looks like a 35mm on film. dof depends on focal length, aperture, coc, enlargement, blah blah blah.

I forgot mention about P&s cameras. they use like 2mm lenses but we get quite "normal" pictures with such deep dof from those wonders 😉 It has something to do with our expectations from every lens?

 

[R2-D2]

That probably sounds right. Im not good at explaining this in English.

My point is that if you use a 12mm and take a portrait, the nose of the subject will be big. If you had used a 19mm(equals 12mm on M8)

16mm

on a film camera the nose would have been smaller.

Yes, but only if the object, er, subject distance stays the same. To cover the same section of the object plane with a 16mm lens on your film camera, you have to step closer to your subject. What does this to your subject's nose? ;-)

 

[ampguy]

well

well

Prior to the introduction of the 35/2 asph summicron, most all non ~50mm standard lenses had distortion, SA, coma and other bad things that would induce different "looks"

With the advent of the 35/2 asph cron, we now have a lens that is accurate whether on a film M, or a crop RD1 or M8.

Read the Advanced Leica M book for more facts.

16mm


Yes, but only if the object, er, subject distance stays the same. To cover the same section of the object plane with a 16mm lens on your film camera, you have to step closer to your subject. What does this to your subject's nose? ;-)

 

[R2-D2]

Prior to the introduction of the 35/2 asph summicron, most all non ~50mm standard lenses had distortion, SA, coma and other bad things that would induce different "looks"

That's not what Erik meant...

With the advent of the 35/2 asph cron, we now have a lens that is accurate whether on a film M, or a crop RD1 or M8.

Read the Advanced Leica M book for more facts.

"Thanks".

 

[R2-D2]

Im thinking the same as Tomasis. Where is that FF DRF when I want to show what I mean. I will have to do it with film vs crop digital next week.

I will see if I can do a test with my Dslr a little later today to show what I mean. I might be wrong of course as I have said all along. I usually just take pics and dont know to much tech stuff🙂

OK. 🙂 Turtle's explanation is good...

 

[ampguy]

I don't think so

I don't think so

His focal length is not changing.

His final image is cropped on the digital body.

Perhaps Erik is noticing a difference in the “spatial relationship” between objects when changing focal lengths?

 

[ampguy]

Ok,

Ok,

Then what he may be seeing is distortion.

Shoot a brick wall with a 28 and a 35 asph cron and and you will see less distortion with the 35 asph cron.

He's seeing a difference between a 28mm focal length lens cropped and a 35mm focal lens, un-cropped.

 

[kemal_mumcu]

I'm not sure if jumping in here at this moment will help clarify anything or not. I do believe that Erik was indeed talking about the "spatial relationship" differences rendered my the different focal lengths. (As DougFord mentioned). As I understand it, the main difference between teles and wides is the way they render the spatial relationships between objects in the scene (especially depth). With a wide the spatial relationship increases and with teles the spatial relationship decreases. (We all know the look of that crammed intense look that a tele will give when shot over a crowd.)

Erik is saying that the spatial relationships between objects shot with a 28mm, whether with a film M or an M8, will look the same. (Just that the final image will be trimmed on the M8. Thats why a 28 on a M8 or on a film M "feels" the same to him?

Erik?

 

[DwF]

Erik,


Soooo, what this should mean is that if you shoot a 28mm on a M8 and a 35mm on FF and use the appropriate F numbers to get the same DOF, the two will to all intents and pursposes be identical. Just like my 90mm on 5x4 behaves just like a 28 on FF in terms of persepctive etc, only I need to shoot at a much smaller aperture to get front to back sharpness in landscapes compared to a 28mm on FF. On 35mm for a landscape I might shoot at F8/11, but on 5x4 more likely F22/f32 for teh same scene (unless I can use movements).



I am not technically minded so if this contains inaccuracies, please correct me! Hope I am not leading people astray here :O

Not to beat a dead horse or cause an unnecessary bump, but I think that Erik is referring to distortion of the nose and true that going in close with wide angles will distort a face or nose as Erik mentioned. So this is a good point. Myself, I go on feel and intuition so I don't personally let it get to me. I am pretty certain my sense of shooting with these lenses is morphed now to take these considerations into account.

For me, if i analyze it, I wouldn't be able to enjoy shooting, nor can I do anything about it. I have no desire to shoot a D300 much less a D3 (and I know they're both fine cameras..just not for me) When full frame comes available, maybe we'll look back and scoff at what we dealt with like Eight Track in the seventies....but I doubt it.. So it is like getting to know these lenses again, and they behave differently on the M8 or R D1.

And the more I read or think bout which version of a lens to use, I realize again what I've learned over and over which is that it's not the equipment!
But gear is fun🙂

David

 

[ampguy]

Very easy to determine if this "spatial relationship" is what Erik is seeing or not -

try this, avoid the 28 which we all agree is "wide" and avoid the long telephoto range.

Test with a good 35-40 focal length on the M8, and a good 50-55 on a full frame and compare the results, isolating body/film/sensor issues as much as possible.

By avoiding the 28, you are getting rid of the "wide angle" effect. Again, I cannot emphasize that distortion, SA, Coma, etc. needs to be absent in the 35, just as telephoto lens effects described above need to be absent in the 50-55 lens, whichever brand or model of lens you choose to test with.

 

[DwF]

I agree, that would be a good test....had to sell my full frame to afford the M8 🙁 I did keep my 6x6 and 6x9 folders!!! Actually I also kept a Barnack Leica 🙂

 

[TJV]

I have and use (although not much as I'm not a big wide guy) the new 28mm ASPH. I got it when it first came out over a year ago to use on my M8. Great lens, very sharp but the out of focus areas do look a lot more sharply defined lending it to SEEM to have more depth of field.

Having said that, I didn't like the look of it on the M8 but love it on film. Have to agree with Erik on this one. It doesn't look like a 35mm equiv lens on M8 due to effective cropping of image. The depth of field a 28mm lens has over a 35mm lens is partly to blame here, along with the fact that it is a little harsher in rendering back / foreground areas. The perspective is also different, in the sense that there is more separation of objects before and after the plane of focus. LIke someone said above, don't photograph people too close or noses or forground objects on a table etc will start to look awfully large and distorted. That's the nature of using a 28mm lens on whatever system of whatever brand.

Great lens though, certainly one of my favourites for film.

 

[aizan]

actually, the test should include the 28mm, since that's what people are confused about.

m8 with a 28mm lens at f2.8
film body with a 35mm lens at f2.8

set up a tripod and put an object .7m away. take a picture with one camera, then take another with the other camera.

 

[tomasis]

Agree with TJV and other. Aizan has good idea for testing purposes. I'm curious to see the results from Erik too.

I think it depends how far/near objects are located to lens. I have seen pictures, taken with 21mm lenses and I thought it was shoot with 35mm lens. I recognized that objects were placed quite far away like 7-10 meters from lens so we don't get "distortion effects" of nose as Erik mentioned above.

 

[TJV]

I think it depends how far/near objects are located to lens. I have seen pictures, taken with 21mm lenses and I thought it was shoot with 35mm lens. I recognized that objects were placed quite far away like 7-10 meters from lens so we don't get "distortion effects" of nose as Erik mentioned above.

Exactly, I think the further away you are from the main subject the less it seems to make a difference, except things appear smaller than with a longer lens of same effective focal length. But if it is consistent, ie if you don't compare prints between a cropped sensor against full frame, it doesn't make a difference in the end.

 

[Hacker]

Why go through all the trouble? I've seen comparisons done, but for SLRs.

 

[raid]

Discussions posted are very interesting for users of digital cameras with a cropping factor.

How good is the Elmarit-M ASPH?
Is it clearly optically superior toother 28mm lenses?

 

[DwF]

another test

another test

Simply place a 21 on the M8 get close to a subject and snap away. It will appear really clear that the lens on the camera is a "21" that is being cropped. It is considerably less obvious (but still apparent) that the 28 is a wide. The wider lenses really illustrate Erik's question/point.

As for your question Raid...whose to say optically superior? It is a great lens and a joy to use (small and compact) and handles like a little Summicron 35....somewhere between the 4th gen and the asph. which is a good place to land.

David