Anyone Using The 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH ?

[dcsang]

The lens is about 1/2 the price (or less even) of the Summicron ASPH 28mm.
Pop Photo's review sounds pretty good.

I'm curious if anyone's used (or is using) one and their thoughts on it.

Feel free to compare it to any other 28mm that you have used/are using.

This will be as close as I can get to a "35mm" on an M8.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[aka5ha]

Wonderful Lens

Wonderful Lens

Hi, I have the 28 elmarit ASPH which I use mostly on the M8 but also on the MP. It's a gem of a lens, to my eyes it equals the performance of my 50 summicron, and is noticeably better than my CV 21 color skopar. The real beauty is the size and weight, it is practically a pancake lens. I was also pleasantly surprised I can get very pleasant bokeh even though it's only a 2.8. I would rather have this lens over the 28 cron because of size alone. I bought an M kit for compactness...

 

[dcsang]

35 is still 35 its just cropped. Same FOV as 35 just cropped edges. I just continued to use 35. I never liked 28 on film so I dont like it on M8 either 🙂

Ok.. Thanks for that Erik.. I think you sort of answered my question - I'm having "difficulty" with this sort of thing because I'm trying to wrap my head around a crop sensor rangefinder - that is, what I see through the viewfinders versus what I am capturing.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Turtle]

35 is still 35 its just cropped. Same FOV as 35 just cropped edges. I just continued to use 35. I never liked 28 on film so I dont like it on M8 either 🙂

Not quite if my understanding is correct. Same focal length (ie depth of field issues etc) but very different field/angle of view. So a 28 on a full frame camera procudes a much wider field/angle of view than it does on a camera like the m8. I cant see how not liking 28 on FF can relate to not liking it on a 1.3 crop camera, as the angle of view is quite a bit narrower, the same as a 36mm lens on FF, so if one likes 35mm on a F camera, one should like a 28 on a M8. I cannot understand how this can not be the case. If greater DOF is an issue (as one is using shorte FLs on a 1.3 crop camera to get the same angle of view one gets with FF), one admitedly might appreciate an even faster 28mm like the cron to allow one to sufficiently minimise depth of field.

Maybe I am wrong, but this is the reasoning I have always used. Just like I might not use a 90mm on 35mm much, but I sure as hell do on 5x4 where in angle of view it behaves rather like a 28mm on FF...as my 45mm does on my RF645.

 

[jplomley]

Hi Dave,

I have been using the 35/2 Biogon on the M8 having moved from an M6TTL. I've owned the M8 not quite two weeks now. To me, images seem a bit "squared off" when I use the 35mm FL. The "angular" dimension which leads the viewers eye into the image is absent with the M8/35 combination if that makes any sense. So I am in a similar boat to yourself. I'm trying to decide between the Leica 24mm, Zeiss 25mm, and 28mm Elmarit Asph. I'm leanng towards the Zeiss 25mm (33 mm FOV) as opposed to the 28mm (37 mm FOV) since I would rather take more in and crop after the fact rather than have not taken in enough and thrown out vital image area at the point I clicked the shutter.....The ZM 25/2.8 is also attractively priced compared to the Leica 24mm. Optically, not sure how all these lenses would compare, but based on what I have read, they are all solid performers. Would love to see a comparison of all three though!

 

[DwF]

I would agree in principle with 35 is same just cropped but:

For me, the framelines for 28 which come up along with 90 on the M8 are a bit better laid out than the 35 which come up with 24 lines and are close together. That can be distracting. The 28 lines stay out of the way of the 90 lines.

The 28 Elmarit asph. is a really nice lens. I prefer the size to either the 35 "lux asph or the Summicron 28 asph. Wide open it is very usable as it isolates subject well combined with it's size and handling make it workable for relatively low light as well.

I will still use the 35 just 'cause it's so good!

David

 

[DwF]

That sounds correct as I understand it Erik, but it also comes down to context. Or at least context is a factor. So if you shot with 35 or 28 because you wanted to show some context around subject while maintaining close proximity to subject, 35 is a bit more constrained than 28 is now.

 

[DwF]

Here's a city scape with 28 Elmarit asph
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/94994811

David

 

[dcsang]

I'm going to have to really get accustomed to a crop framed camera again.. the last one I tried (Canon 40D - 1.6x crop); I didn't particularly enjoy.

I guess the thing I'm looking for is the ability to still have a "full frame" 35mm on the crop body - that is - using the 28mm gives me a 37mm after the crop.

Anyway, I'll hold off on getting the Elmarit-M for now - I don't exactly have oodles of "available" funds to go towards this M8 purchase anywho 😀

Cheers
Dave

 

[R2-D2]

I may be wrong as well. Im not sure, but as I understand it the FOV remains the same just that the picture is tighter/ cropped. So when you use a 21 is looks like a 21 cropped.

No, the FOV is a function of the focal length and the format... The smaller film (sensor) plane is responsible for the cropping in the object plan and thus changes the FOV.

 

[ampguy]

very interesting

very interesting

I also experience this. I use a 28, but often feel it's a bit wide on the M, but also a bit wide on the RD1, even though I'm fine with a 35 or 40 on the M (and the RD1).

Same with a 50. 50 should be 75 or so on the RD1, but still feels and looks like a 50 to me, not a 75.

35 is still 35 its just cropped. Same FOV as 35 just cropped edges. I just continued to use 35. I never liked 28 on film so I dont like it on M8 either 🙂

 

[Athos6]

I don't see how you could be wrong, the image circle projected by the lens doesn't change, just the size of the piece being recorded.

 

[R2-D2]

Ok. I think I might be using the Field of view term wrong,

Maybe. Think of FOV as an angle...

but am I right in what I say in my next post after the one you quoted

In #11?

Edit: My point is that a cropped 28 doesnt look like a 35. It looks like a cropped 28😉 Right?

Define "looks like". ;-) You said that the FOV is the same... No, it isn't. Have a look at the "fantastic" (*ahem*) drawing I made.

 

[RuedigerMerz]

Here is some clarification :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

Rudy

 

[Athos6]

Right, but in reality, the lens itself continues to project the blue circle, the sensor records the red circle which = crop, not an actual "change."

 

[R2-D2]

Here is some clarification :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

Ah, the didactic experts at Wikipedia...

 

[R2-D2]

Right, but in reality, the lens itself continues to project the blue circle, the sensor records the red circle which = crop, not an actual "change."

Yes, the focal length doesn't change - it's the FOV that changes...

 

[R2-D2]

I get your drawing. yes post #11. Im just using the term wrong. Sorry. My point is that if you have a film 35 picture and you take the same pic with a M8 and a 28mm it still wont look like a 35. It will give you the same width, but not the same look. So saying that a 28 is a 35 on a M8 is wrong cause it will give you the same width as a 35, but not the same look. Get my point? 🙂

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

All wides have a different look and the look wont change...

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

 

[furcafe]

Perhaps he's alluding to the fact that the perceived depth of field, for that particular field of view, will be different.

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?

 

[Turtle]

Erik,

A cropped 28 on an M8 and a 35mm on FF have approximately teh same angle or field of view. This means that the positioning of the photographer remains the same to capture the same stuff in the frame. This means that the relationship in size between near and far objects also remains the same. This means the look also remains the same apart from one thing. F4 for example gives more percieved depth of field on a 28mm compared to a 35mm on FF as DOF is a function of focal length. This is the reason why an 80mm f4 lens shot wide open on a Mamiya 7 prodes the same background blur approx as a 40mm at f2 on FF. The shots will look almost identical in terms of persepctive etc but because the Mamiya has double the focal length (to get the same FOV as the neg is twice as long) it would produce a more diffuse background at the same f number. BUT if you double focal length you need to stop down two more stops to get the same depth of field.

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).

It realy helps to mess around with different film formats to get a feel for this. I shoot 5x4 and 10x8 too. My 150mm on 10x8 produces an identical look to a 75 on 5x4, only I need to stop it down more to get everything sharp. Many people discount the Mamiya 7 due to the slow 80mm f4 lens and then gaily use their 35mm cron thinking they can isolate their subject more. They cant. They are probably getting LESS isolation. My 90mm is a moderate wide on 5x4 but seriously wide on 5x7 and gives that stretched out look just the same as a shrter FL would on 5x4 (such as a 65). For teh same reasons the Mamiya 7 150 4.5 equivalent FL on FF would be about 75mm. However, you get FAR less DOF at f4.5 on the mamiya lens than you do on a 75 lens on a 35mm camera. About two stops less. This is the argument used by advocates of smaller formats, who say as you need to stop down less on smaller formats (shorter FLs for the same framing give more DOF) you can use slower film thus removing the disadvantage of reduced real estate.

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