Inexpensive 28mm?

[raid]

The 28 Kobalux costs around $350-$550, depending on what the seller is asking for.
Mine cost me a IIIc plus cash

 

[ferider]

If I remember right, the Kobalux distorts noticeably. Also depending on the version, min. focus distance is 1m (?).

Hard to beat the CV 28/1.9 and 28/3.5. Also the Canon 28/2.8 if you like more of a classic look.

 

[ornate_wrasse]

I just bought the CV 28mm 1.9 Ultron for $300. So far I have been pleased with it. The fact that it didn't cost much is an added plus.

Ellen

 

[kermaier]

I have the Skopar 28/3.5, the M-Rokkor 28/2.8 and both Canons (28/2.8 and 28/3.5).

I haven't done controlled comparisons, but here's my experience:

The Skopar is the contrastiest of this set (though still super contrasty like some of the Zeiss lenses), and shows the most light falloff in the corners (at least on my R-D1); it might be the sharpest, but I'm no sure. It's beautifully well-made and finished.

The M-Rokkor is the next most contrasty, and possibly the sharpest (not sure). Very well built (noticeably more solid that the 40/2 M-Rokkor). I love how it draws wide open. Mine had the spots, so I sent it to FocalPoint for a (not inexpensive) cleaning; it's been clear since. Note that it will not bring up the 28mm frame lines on an M body without modification. This probably my favorite.

The Canon f/3.5 is the next sharpest, with moderate contrast. A very nice lens, fun to use, well made. There's an RFF member "gohaj" who has posted some really nice results from this lens.

The Canon f/2.8 is probably the least technically "good" of the four -- at least my copy is, though there's considerable sample variation among 55-year-old lenses. But it's lower contast look is unique and very pleasing for some things. And it's the smallest 28/2.8 around.

::Ari

 

[ampguy]

Hi Ari

Hi Ari

I think some Canon 28/2.8 ltms were made as recently as '75.

Just curious, what type/year range is your sample? I've had a Type 2 and Type 3, and both killed the CVs.

http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=wide_angle_lenses&id=3

I have the Skopar 28/3.5, the M-Rokkor 28/2.8 and both Canons (28/2.8 and 28/3.5).

I haven't done controlled comparisons, but here's my experience:

The Skopar is the contrastiest of this set (though still super contrasty like some of the Zeiss lenses), and shows the most light falloff in the corners (at least on my R-D1); it might be the sharpest, but I'm no sure. It's beautifully well-made and finished.

The M-Rokkor is the next most contrasty, and possibly the sharpest (not sure). Very well built (noticeably more solid that the 40/2 M-Rokkor). I love how it draws wide open. Mine had the spots, so I sent it to FocalPoint for a (not inexpensive) cleaning; it's been clear since. Note that it will not bring up the 28mm frame lines on an M body without modification. This probably my favorite.

The Canon f/3.5 is the next sharpest, with moderate contrast. A very nice lens, fun to use, well made. There's an RFF member "gohaj" who has posted some really nice results from this lens.

The Canon f/2.8 is probably the least technically "good" of the four -- at least my copy is, though there's considerable sample variation among 55-year-old lenses. But it's lower contast look is unique and very pleasing for some things. And it's the smallest 28/2.8 around.

::Ari

 

[ferider]

Didn't know you tried the CVs, Ted.

 

[Tompas]

Ricoh GR 2,8/28 (LTM).

I got mine for 160€, and it's great. Seems to be quite rare, though.

 

[ampguy]

yup

yup

28/1.9 on film and RD1 (pre M8), and 28/3.5 on film and RD1. Of course they were bought in the classifieds as "minty" but most likely had some de-centering. No wobbles that I recall though.

The M-Hex 28/2.8 mops the floor with all of these though, as does a clean Canon ltm.

Didn't know you tried the CVs, Ted.

 

[Krosya]

M-Hexanon 28 is a very good lens - they say as good as Elmarit Asph 28 and better than pre-asph. I cant compare with others as Hex 28 is the only 28 mm lens I have (28mm is not really my fav. FL), but I like results from it and it has a much better build than any CV lens I have/had. Here is a sample from Hex 28:
On Film:

Digital on RD1S:

 

[35mmdelux]

Nice pic but not much pop in the color.

 

[Krosya]

what "pop" are you looking for?🙄
when you shoot film - wouldnt that depend on a film , developing and scanning used? I suppose I could "pop" it in Photoshop, but I wanted to keep scene close to real as it was. Had it been digital shot - maybe then you would see more "pop"?

 

[kermaier]

Mine is No.14281, which Kitchingman's website puts in the first few hundred of Type 2, so around 1961-62.
The previous owner said he bought it from a teacher at The New School in NYC in the 1970s. (Didn't Winogrand lecture there in the 70s or 80s? Nah... 🙂)

It got a CLA las year from Don Goldberg, so it should be technically in order.

Ari

I think some Canon 28/2.8 ltms were made as recently as '75.

Just curious, what type/year range is your sample? I've had a Type 2 and Type 3, and both killed the CVs.

http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=wide_angle_lenses&id=3

 

[ampguy]

Mine is

Mine is

182xx. Interesting that Cameraquest has the photos of the old Winogrand M4, but no lens ...

Mine is No.14281, which Kitchingman's website puts in the first few hundred of Type 2, so around 1961-62.
The previous owner said he bought it from a teacher at The New School in NYC in the 1970s. (Didn't Winogrand lecture there in the 70s or 80s? Nah... 🙂)

It got a CLA las year from Don Goldberg, so it should be technically in order.

Ari

 

[ampguy]

here's some pop

here's some pop

from the M-Hex 28/2.8, unedited, taken with the M8 a couple weeks ago:

Nice pic but not much pop in the color.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

28/1.9 on film and RD1 (pre M8), and 28/3.5 on film and RD1. Of course they were bought in the classifieds as "minty" but most likely had some de-centering. No wobbles that I recall though.

The M-Hex 28/2.8 mops the floor with all of these though, as does a clean Canon ltm.

Would be nice to see such a huge difference on film, doing the same image with the Hexanon, a Canon and the Skopar, at two different apertures... Maybe someone can provide images, so lenses' differences are shown in a real, visual sense...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[kermaier]

I'm pretty sure he went through a bunch of M4s - I think the one on Cameraquest is just the last one he had. Probably had more than one 28mm as well.

182xx. Interesting that Cameraquest has the photos of the old Winogrand M4, but no lens ...

 

[ampguy]

hmmm

hmmm

I think mine has the initials "G. W." engraved on it. Or it might when I sell it 😀

I'm pretty sure he went through a bunch of M4s - I think the one on Cameraquest is just the last one he had. Probably had more than one 28mm as well.

 

[David Murphy]

Very impressive shot. One thing Konica did well was optics - they really excelled at camera lens design throughout their history and with all their camera lines.

from the M-Hex 28/2.8, unedited, taken with the M8 a couple weeks ago:

 

[ampguy]

nice photo

nice photo

I'm not sure I'd want more "pop" in this photo. On my monitor, it looks as good or better than any CV, Leica, or the Zeiss 28, IMHO.

Nice pic but not much pop in the color.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks David

Thanks David

I agree. I hope some of that excellence ends up at Sony ...

Very impressive shot. One thing Konica did well was optics - they really excelled at camera lens design throughout their history and with all their camera lines.