Anyone Using The 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH ?

[dcsang]

hmm.. well.. the Elmarit-M isn't that pricey.. (boy.. you know you're buying Leica gear when $1600 is not considered "that pricey" 😀) in comparison to any of the "big brothers" (35mm Lux ASPH, 28 Cron ASPH etc.)

I am going to have to go through this thread again with a fine tooth comb to pick out what I'm looking for.. I think I know what I'm looking for, but want to be sure I'm explaining myself.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[ampguy]

I played around a bit this morning

I played around a bit this morning

specifically to try to address my own similar findings as Dave and the OP.

with the RD1, and 28 Biogon, I can frame straight on to a window from a meter away and the resulting image is not that different than a 35.

But if I start taking photos at angles with the film/sensor plane non parallel to the window, I get some of the "wide" effect, even though the "effective" fl is similar to a 35.

In addition to the above wide angle lens "spatial relationship" effect, I think there could be other things going on, for example, if the phenomenon is specific to RF's and not film and crop DSLRs, then perhaps it is the VF window area that covers more than the lines for a particular lens (still lots of space with the 28 beyond the lines on the RD1.

That's why I think a test with the wider portion of "normal" and longer portion of "normal" is interesting to me because between 35 and 75 I can use them interchangeably on FF and 1.5 crop, but when I go to 28, the 28 is always a "wide angle".

Would be interesting if someone with a 4/3 system with various lenses could weigh in, as this has a 2x crop factor.

Did I mention the benefits of the 35/2 cron asph and it's lack of "wide" issues yet?? 😀

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

 

[DwF]

specifically to try to address my own similar findings as Dave and the OP.

with the RD1, and 28 Biogon, I can frame straight on to a window from a meter away and the resulting image is not that different than a 35.

But if I start taking photos at angles with the film/sensor plane non parallel to the window, I get some of the "wide" effect, even though the "effective" fl is similar to a 35.

In addition to the above wide angle lens "spatial relationship" effect, I think there could be other things going on, for example, if the phenomenon is specific to RF's and not film and crop DSLRs, then perhaps it is the VF window area that covers more than the lines for a particular lens (still lots of space with the 28 beyond the lines on the RD1.



Did I mention the benefits of the 35/2 cron asph and it's lack of "wide" issues yet?? 😀

No need to convince me of the virtues of the 35/2 cron asph on either R D1 or M8.

I agree regarding the framelines and "spatial relationship" which to me is a lot of what RF is about. Not getting too caught up in what is there as you would with a DSLR where you virtually live and breathe arranging the contents of what falls into the window as though it is a small room. The rangefinder is about what is in flux as you appoach and shoot (at least in theory) 🙂. And so for me transitioning to new lenses ( the 28 and the 35 and 50) in a different context is just that, a transition, but not a bad thing. I used to love to go out with the Hexar because for me the fixed 35 f2 worked great. So the 35 is a little different now.

David

 

[ampguy]

some addl. testing - no photoshop

some addl. testing - no photoshop

I walked around with the Zeiss 28 on my RD1s specifically trying to take photos that in the VF just seemed like "wide" photos, wider than a normal lens, although the focal length is 42mm or so on the RD1.

These images were JPG's, no photoshop, pp or cropping, just reduced to 640 pixels. monochrome done in-camera.

I would never expect to get these types of "wide" images on my film RF, SLR, or a DSLR which is why I think I prefer 35 to 75 on the RD1, even though the effective focal length becomes longer than that on the rd1.

http://matsumura.smugmug.com/gallery/4708711_NGjzw#278607807_upJAT

 

[DwF]

Wow, you got busy! I see what you are talking about but also (spinning it here) 🙂 think it is possible to emphasize the wide look with a 35 by emphasizing something in the foreground and shooting from a low angle for example. And on the other hand with a 28mm lens like the Zeiss or the Elmarit asph, by taking pains to align vertical planes to avoid distortion.

In full frame format, I guess I see a bigger break to "wide" at less than 28mm but not so much between 35 and 28. In fact I've never been as fond of the 21mm for the reason that it's look can tend to overpower content or subject. I had a CV25 for a while but didn't use it much for that reason, and it was a really nice lens!

David

 

[ampguy]

Yes

Yes

The angles and style of shooting have a lot to do with it. I agree that good 28s and even wider with little pin cushion and barrel distortion can be hard to distinguish from good "normal" primes when shooting with the film/sensor plate parallel to the subject matter. I can see where a landscape or studio photographer never sees this "spatial relationship" issue come up.

A couple of years ago I took photos straight out at the ocean from some cliffs where you could stand on the cliff edge, or 100 meters back with a clear view. I had my film SLR and an 18mm, 35mm, and 50mm lens. I took several rolls, and didn't think of labeling them.

It was very difficult telling which images were from which lens later, since I was shooting straight out and high except on a couple of rolls where I shot something at an angle and the 18 showed.

Wow, you got busy! I see what you are talking about but also (spinning it here) 🙂 think it is possible to emphasize the wide look with a 35 by emphasizing something in the foreground and shooting from a low angle for example. And on the other hand with a 28mm lens like the Zeiss or the Elmarit asph, by taking pains to align vertical planes to avoid distortion.

In full frame format, I guess I see a bigger break to "wide" at less than 28mm but not so much between 35 and 28. In fact I've never been as fond of the 21mm for the reason that it's look can tend to overpower content or subject. I had a CV25 for a while but didn't use it much for that reason, and it was a really nice lens!

David

 

[DwF]

The angles and style of shooting have a lot to do with it. I agree that good 28s and even wider with little pin cushion and barrel distortion can be hard to distinguish from good "normal" primes when shooting with the film/sensor plate parallel to the subject matter. I can see where a landscape or studio photographer never sees this "spatial relationship" issue come up.

A couple of years ago I took photos straight out at the ocean from some cliffs where you could stand on the cliff edge, or 100 meters back with a clear view. I had my film SLR and an 18mm, 35mm, and 50mm lens. I took several rolls, and didn't think of labeling them.

It was very difficult telling which images were from which lens later, since I was shooting straight out and high except on a couple of rolls where I shot something at an angle and the 18 showed.

I could see where that could happen. At the other end of the "M" spectrum, while a 50mm on crop sensor approaches short tele, you should not expect to get the compression in a landscape (say shooting a mountain in the distance from a shot over a bay; I have a particular shot in mind) as you'd get with a 90 on full frame. It's a drive but I may try this out to see for myself.

 

[ampguy]

Possible

Possible

but even with the 75 lux it's still a 75 with no weird tele effects on the RD1 that I've noticed and experienced with long teles on SLRs and as described above in this thread. Not even framelines for it either, it's just a tight 50!

Wide, I can go down to 35 with the cron asph, and 40 with Rokkor 40/2 or 50 with other lenses and everything is "normal" spatial wise.

28 CV 1.9, 3.5, and Zeiss 28/2.8 all give the wide effect at angles, on both film, and RD1 unless shooting something straight on, then comparing with a 35-75 "normal" range it's just a bigger view.

I'm wondering what a good artificial test might be, possibly parallel or diverging roads shot at an angle with cropped digital and ff wide and normals?

I could see where that could happen. At the other end of the "M" spectrum, while a 50mm on crop sensor approaches short tele, you should not expect to get the compression in a landscape (say shooting a mountain in the distance from a shot over a bay; I have a particular shot in mind) as you'd get with a 90 on full frame. It's a drive but I may try this out to see for myself.

 

[aizan]

I could see where that could happen. At the other end of the "M" spectrum, while a 50mm on crop sensor approaches short tele, you should not expect to get the compression in a landscape (say shooting a mountain in the distance from a shot over a bay; I have a particular shot in mind) as you'd get with a 90 on full frame. It's a drive but I may try this out to see for myself.

you can save yourself the drive! lenses cannot physically move objects. but if you do try it out, use a 75mm instead of a 90mm.

 

[DwF]

you can save yourself the drive! lenses cannot physically move objects. but if you do try it out, use a 75mm instead of a 90mm.

Thanks Aizan,

I like the drive and look forward to visiting that spot; it's been some time. As for the 75, I realize it is closer to a 50 but that's not a lens that I own. 50 and 90 do me really well in complimenting one another.

Last time I was out there I had an SLR and a 200 which did the trick in compressing the scene (moving the mountain)🙂. I am curious to see what the 90 does really.

David