Bill wrs1145
A native Texan
How do they compare, image wise?
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Never had the Leica but I have the Canon. Good lens.
Leica M8.2, Canon 28mm LTM f/2.8, f/5.6. It's a great camera - lens combo. by West Phalia, on Flickr
The Peacock, retired pilot boat. Leica M8.2, Canon 28mm, f/2,8, f/5.6, 1/1000, ISO 160 by West Phalia, on Flickr
Megler01 by West Phalia, on Flickr
Leica M8.2, Canon 28mm LTM f/2.8, f/5.6. It's a great camera - lens combo. by West Phalia, on FlickrThe Peacock, retired pilot boat. Leica M8.2, Canon 28mm, f/2,8, f/5.6, 1/1000, ISO 160 by West Phalia, on FlickrMegler01 by West Phalia, on Flickr
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
brusby
Well-known
I don't have any experience with the Canon 28mm f2.8, but I do own and really like the Leica 3.5cm f3.5. It's literally the smallest lens I have. Even more diminutive than the 3.5cm f3.5 Summaron. It's a little soft in the corners at wide apertures, but sharpens up pretty nicely stopped down some. Very nice for people pics particularly those positioned away from the edges of the frame where detail can get a little less sharp at widest apertures.
Here are a couple of pics for comparison purposes.
Leica 3.5cm f3.5 on M240 - probably wide open or one stop down because light was very low and this was hand held
M2400348 by Brusby, on Flickr
Same but probably around f5.6
M2400414 by Brusby, on Flickr
1941 coated copy on M240. It's really tiny, but looks larger here due to magnification
3.5cm Elmar f3.5 made in 1941 by Brusby, on Flickr
Here are a couple of pics for comparison purposes.
Leica 3.5cm f3.5 on M240 - probably wide open or one stop down because light was very low and this was hand held
M2400348 by Brusby, on FlickrSame but probably around f5.6
M2400414 by Brusby, on Flickr1941 coated copy on M240. It's really tiny, but looks larger here due to magnification
3.5cm Elmar f3.5 made in 1941 by Brusby, on Flickr