CV 28/1.9 vs Olympus 28/2, anyone used both?

N

nightfly

Well-known
Local time
5:13 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
1,986
I'd really like a fast 28mm lens and I don't ever forsee being willing or able to fork out 2 or 3 grand for a 28mm Summicron. So I'd either like to get a CV 28/1.9 for my M4-P or maybe an Olympus 28/2 along with a something like a OM 1 or OM 2 body.

Just wondering if anyone has used both these lenses and can compare them. I shoot mostly black and white and like a little more contrasty lens. I really love my CV 28mm 3.5 Skopar for it's size, weight and rendition. I just want something faster. The Zeiss 28mm/2.8 or one of the many Leica 28mm Elmarits aren't really much faster than the CV I have so I've kind of ruled them out. Same with the Hexar 28mm which also seems to be difficult to find anyway.

Of course I'd prefer something M-mount (or LTM with adapter) but I wouldn't be opposed to adding an Olympus body for the 28/2 and having the option of some of the other good Olympus glass as well. Although it does complicate things to have another body, the Olympus with a 28/2 seems like it would be around the same size as the Leica with the CV 28/1.9 but having not handled either lens, I might be off on this. Thoughts?
 
The Zuiko 28/2 is 250g, 43mm in length, and 60mm in diameter. That makes it quite a bit larger than the Zuiko 28/2.8, which I consider a good size, though yet again larger than many 28mm lenses in RF mount. So while the OM-28/2 body would be fairly close to an RF in body size, I think overall you might find it enough different that you'd wonder about having a 28 on the M4.

That said, the 28/2 is a great lens if you believe in "tests": http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

... certainly I'm now thinking of ferreting out a 28/2 to replace my 28/2.8 :D
 
In my experience, the 28/2 (had two...) is very good and the 28/1.9 (had one) is very very good. I've ended up keeping none of them as I prefer 24 or 25mm lenses, but one day I might get an ultron again...

Tom
 
How would you compare the look of photos taken with the two at or near wide open? I'm more interested in the kind of character of the lenses than absolute sharpness.

Also is the CV actually longer? Someone above posted that the Olympus is 43mm in length while Cameraquest gives the dimensions for the CV as 47mm in length. It seems odd that an RF lens would be longer although the CV is less wide at 55 vs 60 for the Olympus. I find the length more of factor in feel than the width.


tom_f77 said:
In my experience, the 28/2 (had two...) is very good and the 28/1.9 (had one) is very very good.
Tom
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Oly made their lenses compact as a marketing point, CV do theirs resonable.

For a SLR the 28mm is diminuative.

Noel
 
The Ultron has a pseudo built in hood, and with that it's a good bit longer than the Zuiko, although if both have hoods on the Zuiko's going to look a lot bigger.

Wide open look, I don't know; I had them at different times... Both have fairly nice SOFA, but the Ultron is probably a bit crisper at f2.

Tom
 
I’ve had both lenses. I still have the ultron, it’s my favorite 28. I sold all my OM gear so I had to let go of the Zuiko f2, but it was a REALLY nice lens. When it comes to sharpness wide open and resolution, there is no question that the Ultron is sharper, has more contrast, and has that rangefinder resolution that tip toes towards medium format. But it’s still apples and oranges. The Ultron has that very distinct footprint, the ‘creamy’ look... where as the Zuiko's footprint isn’t so strong. The one thing I can attest to is the Zuiko’s distortion suppression, it’s amazing, maybe even better than the Ultron. When close focusing closer than .7 meters on certain subjects, you might even confuse the lens for a 50mm. The subject really pops when things are about a meter away from the lens… but beyond a meter the Zukio loses some of the subject separation while the Ultron remains very ‘poppy’ when subjects are further away from the lens.

I also found my Zuiko 28 went a little towards the yellow side of the things with color film, though the coating was beautiful. And speaking of coating, here is something you’re going to miss with the Zuiko; flare suppression. You have to hand it to the CV lens lineup with flare; most of them really excel when it comes to reducing it. If the sun is anywhere in the shot with the Zuiko you’re definitely going to see that redish half moon shaped flare in the opposite corner of the lens. At least with an slr you can work around it and recompose, or just hold one hand out to block the sun. Lastly, the Zuiko is a very compact lens. I was surprised by just how tiny it was, just a little wider than the Ultron, and though it might not be as tall as the Ultron, it probably sticks out more; OM bodys have an extra thickness to the lens mount. But it handles beautifully and has a very short focus throw, fast to focus. If I had one gripe about the Zuiko f2 it was with the flare, but I suppose we’ve all been spoiled by modern coating at one point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom