CV 28/3.5 compared to Canon 28/2.8

[sparrow6224]

Tom -- you're the most reliable expert I can think of to ask this of, loving LTM wides as you have. You and your readers too, I should say. I have the CV Skopar 28/3.5 and just a few days ago got a deal on a Canon 28/2.8, which I await. I intend to take them out and shoot together (along with some other legendary 28s I've gotten hold of recently, SLR lenses like the Rokkor 28/2.0 and the Zuiko 28/2.0, plus my Nikkor 28/2.0) and check out the differences but I'm wondering about your taken on these two? I know you're a fan of the Color-Skopar. How does the Canon compare? Thanks to you and anyone else who knows them both.

 

[rfaspen]

I know you're interested in review of the Canon 28/2.8, but I can say the Canon 28/3.5 is quite sharp with low contrast. And very compact. I don't use it as much as I thought I would because of the low contrast, but I'm not complaining too much. I just seem to skip between 35 and 21.

BTW, the Zuiko lens is supposed to be very nice. Very sharp, great contrast, low CA, and so on. The OM system appeals to me some days just because of the wonderful lenses one can find. I missed out on a nice OM-2n body in the local second-hand store. Maybe next one.

 

[Tom A]

Vince, my take on the Canon 28f2.8 versus the CV 28f3.5 is very much the lower contrast of the Canon. With wide-angles I find that I like/need a bit of "snap" in the shot as you usually have a lot of details due to the wide-angle. I dont have the Canon 28f2.8 anymore - and I had too much flare problems with my 28f3.5 (not a very good sample though). The CV 28f3.5 just has something that works on black/white - very smooth tones, but still sharp and medium contrast. As in everything like this - it is very much a personal choice. Most of my Canon lenses has had a bit of "gravel" feeling focus and aperture ring. Never perfectly smooth. The 3 CV 28f3.5's are all silky smooth, well dampened in the focus and aperture - but then they are new lenses - less than 10 years old - and the Canon's are all getting on in age - with old lubricant.
Will be interesting to see your take on the various 28's. I rarely used 28's on SLR's - but I too have heard good things about the Zuiko 28. The Nikkor 28f2.0 was my standard 28 for many years - a bit brighter view than the 2.8/3.5. Didn't use it enough though.

 

[sparrow6224]

Tom, thanks. I'm not surprised on the contrast front as it seems to me the distinguishing characteristic shared by the Color-Skopars I've owned or used is strong contrast. Whereas my Canons are all over the place in this regard. You've had me pull them all out and check the focus/aperture rings, and fortunately none have that grittiness of which you speak. 35/2 is fine; 50/1.8 and 50/1.5 are fine; the 50/1.4 and 100/3.5 are a bit tight at one end of the focus "throw" but not in an obstructive way. I took some vitamins and picked up the 135/3.5 (amazing lens by the way, if you care to carry it) and it's fine.

I have just become enamored of 28mm and am throwing myself at that FL in a big way so I will indeed share some results in a few weeks time.

Thanks for the rundown.

 

[sparrow6224]

PS only slightly related question: do polarizing filters or ND filters help with flare? Yellow/orange/red contrast filters? Thanks.

 

[Tom A]

I have never tried the polarizing filter as an anti-flare help - but regular filters can accentuate the flare a bit as you are adding another glass surface to the lens.

 

[sparrow6224]

Ah, yes, of course.