Elmarit 28mm or Biogon ZM 28mm

[Captain]

For quite some time now I have been considering getting a faster 28mm lens and will be selling off my black 28mm f3.5 Skopar. The choices are a secondhand Version 3 Elmarit 28mm f2.8 or a New Biogon ZM 28mm f2.8.

It such a tough choice one week I decide on one then the next week the other. I like the more compact size of the Biogon and its brand new but am worried about some continuity with contrast and colour with my other lenses which are mainly Leicas from the 70's and 80's.

Ultimately I have to decide myself but others may have some thoughts to help tip the scales one way or the other. Thanks in advance for a friendly discussion.

 

[jonasv]

Perhaps consider the CV Ultron 28/1.9? You need a faster lens but your two choices aren't even a full stop faster than what you have now - if it were up to me I'd stick with the Skopar for a while, until I could afford the 28/1.9 or perhaps a secondhand 'cron.

 

[Captain]

The Ultron is a bit too big for my liking as I want to use it on a CLE sometimes too. The Summicron is too expensive and am concerned by the severe light fall off wide open on the examples I have seen, so Im not considering that lens either at this time. Its true my choices arent that much faster but the 2 choices I have listed are more usuable wide open that the Skopar so there is gain there in that its usable speed.

 

[hth]

You could also consider the M-Hexanon 28/2.8.

On the other hand, half a stop is not worth the bother I think, if you are happy with the Skopar 28/3.5 otherwise.

/Håkan

 

[Nick R.]

I have the ZM 28/2.8. I think it's a superb performer but I think you're concern about matching the color and contrast of your other lenses is a fair one. It does have a different look to my eye than my Leica lenses. However, I don't have an elmarit to compare it to. I don't have any color shots handy to show you but I'll include this one B & W

 

[sleepyhead]

I would get a good example (i.e., without the severe form of separation) of the Minolta 28mm 2.8 M-rokkor - small, sharp, would fit your CLE obviously, and can be had for around $300.

 

[grantray]

For the sake of continuity, go with a 70's or early 80's Leica. But that's only if continuity within color work is of utmost importance. The Zeiss has a strong "Cinescope" feel when used in low light with ektachrome. I personally dig it, but others may not.

-grant

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

If you have ruled out the Ultron (which is not as big as some folks seem to think), another great choice that is second to none in terms of build quality and sharpness is the m-hexanon 28/2.8

 

[Captain]

Sleepyhead I had considered that but the Rokkor brings up 35mm framelines in an M, in reverse a Leica or Zeiss on a CLE brings up the 90mm framelines with the 28mm lines being always visible and the 90mm frames so tiny that they dont get in the way when your using it with 28mm lens.

Also I got scared off the Rokkor a bit as a friend thats on this forum also had a perfect Rokkor then took it out on a hot day here in Australia and the white spot problem occured in the course of the day. So I thought to look at these other two instead just to free me from any worry that it may happen to me as well.

 

[sleepyhead]

Okay, I didn't know that about the 35mm lines on an M. I only used the rokkor for a short time on a CLE - nice lens, but 28mm wasn't my cup of tea.

 

[kbg32]

I have both, an Elmarit M and a Biogon for the Contax G. Both superb lenses. If I had to choose one, the Elmarit. Mine is a pre-aspheric. I love the way it renders an image. It seems to etch the film. A bit indescribable unless you own one and can see for yourself. I highly recommend it.

FYI - 2.8 is really not that much faster than a 3.5.

Isn't it a bit redundant to post here and on Pnet with the same question? I mean, how many answers do you want?! Every one of us has our own experiences. A bit overwhelming.

 

[back alley]

The Zeiss has a strong "Cinescope" feel when used in low light with ektachrome.

could you try to describe that a bit more or maybe post a pic?

does it have that effect with other films/b&w?

joe

 

[grantray]

Sorry for the misspelling! 'Cinemascope' refers historically to anamorphic lenses developed for film production in the 1950's, now commonly called 'widesreen.' Variation of color tonality went through the roof, as well as the ability to manipulate the captured image via controlled lighting.

http://bedetermined.com/lightbox/night018.html

-grant

 

[Captain]

"Isn't it a bit redundant to post here and on Pnet with the same question?"

Not at all, I find the difference in perspective from one forum to the other quite interesting. Also its clear some visit one forum and not the other. As you youself visit both you must get something unique from both forums at times or you wouldnt visit both?

Which version Elmarit do you have? 3rd or 4th? Owning a G biogon would be pretty close to the ZM one I would think, what is it the sways you more to the Elmarit?

 

[back alley]

thanks grant!

 

[kbg32]

"Isn't it a bit redundant to post here and on Pnet with the same question?"

Not at all, I find the difference in perspective from one forum to the other quite interesting. Also its clear some visit one forum and not the other. As you youself visit both you must get something unique from both forums at times or you wouldnt visit both?

Which version Elmarit do you have? 3rd or 4th? Owning a G biogon would be pretty close to the ZM one I would think, what is it the sways you more to the Elmarit?

I believe it is the 3rd version. I purchased it in 1980. What sways me is the quality of the negatives I get from processing film from this lens. It's hard to describe. The lens doesn't take images, it "draws" them. A quality I haven't found with the Zeiss lens. It's just "different". I thought it was just me that thought this, but a long time friend of mine remarked that he was always enamored with the quality of the images that this lens produced. I would post some, but you really couldn't see what it is about this lens that I am describing.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Elmarit third version. I have one, I like it (even though I'm not quite as confortable with it as I am with the FOV of my 35mm Hexanon).

As for contrast... I can't tell a thing. Pricewise, though, the Biogon is lower. In either case, you'll always win.

 

[vol72]

"...am concerned by the severe light fall off wide open on the examples I have seen..."

I use a 28 Summicron and unless one is photographing evenly lit white walls or similar, have never found the light fall off to be objectionable. I do not have examples to show at this time, but here is a post on p.net:


http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FgpK&tag=

 

[Doug]

I chose these two examples because they're of similar subjects and both shot wide open. Left side is 28 Summicron, right side 28 Biogon-G. I don't see any excessive fall-off in either, though some cosine-law fall-off is an optical fact of life.

I like 28mm a lot. When I again went shopping for a 28 for my CLE, I took out my old Pentax with its 28mm f/2 to see how I might use its speed, and whether that was really necessary. Didn't want to spend the money on the Summicron. But yeah, I "needed" the speed. I'm doing a lot of indoor environmental portraits and don't want to be pushed into fast color film. And Puts says the 'cron slightly outperforms the Elmarit.

And, really, to do it "right" the Summicron was the only choice. Fast, optically outstanding, and small; a unique combination. Much preferable to the larger Ultron for my CLE. But, excruciatingly expensive. That had earlier diverted me to the 28 Skopar, a sweet tiny lens whose only fault is f/3.5. I finally lucked onto a "new old stock" Summicron and bit the bullet, so to speak. I'm delighted with it, and the CLE is purring contentedly.

 

[Captain]

Thanks for the responses so far.

Doug, I have read several complaints about the light fall off of the Summicron and a fellow forum member showed me a comparison with his Nikkor 28mm f2 and it was really noticable in the shots, mainly landscape stuff admitedly but it wasnt just there it was severe. But the main thing that puts me off the Summicron as you say is the high price. F2.8 would be nice but the amount of times I would use f2 on a 28 wouldnt be overly high. For that kind of money I could get a 21mm and 28mm non aspheric lenses. I just couldnt justify the price of the Summicron.