proenca
Proenca
Hi there,
Im contemplating my next purchase. Christmas bonus kicked in and Im torned between two ( well actually three ) options :
I want a wide angle lens that i dont want to carry a external viewfinder. 24mm would be my first choice but there isnt such framelines. So I gues im going 28mm.
I found out two candidates >
Zeiss Ikon 28mm Biogon 2.8
or
Konica M Hexagonon 28mm 2.8
I dont want a Leica lens.. I dont use 28mm that often ( i didnt in DSLR days when I had my canon 1Ds, 35mm was always my "tool" of choice , and it is today with my rangefinder ) so I dont want to go into a Leica 28 F2 ASPH route.. sure, must be better but at a price that, forseeing the amount of times Im going to use it, will not be justified. I did my research and the problem is, both seem very good lenses. Can someone shed some light here ? From photos, ( never seen any of them ) the ZI albeit a 100 pounds or so more expensive, seems with much more quality finish. And what about pictures ? Often if not almost all teh time will be taken with a polarizer.. I just dont feel the reach of the 35 'cron I have to be enough.
Other upgrade path will be trading my 90 F2 ASPH for a new 75 2.0 : i've seen and talked that the 75 has a more creamy bokeh and better defined subject vs background ( which was the reason I bought the 90 F2 in the first place, since I thought that increasing the focal lenght and with the same minium aperture, the 90 should throw the subject vs background more easily ). I found that the 90 F2 sometimes, even wide open, renders things sharp ( background wise ) that I would like to see with bokeh and not almost sharp
ButI also read that the 75 2.0 and the older 1.4 are very critical to focus ( thin dof ) at wide open... Which can pose a problem ( I use them for facial portraits ). Ideas ?
Last but not least, Im seriously ( the third optionhere ) trading my 35 F2 ASPH for a 35 1.4 ASPH.. I use 90% of the time my 35 and sometimes the 1.4 vs 2 would make a difference.. weight seems the same, size a bit bigger ( which I consider a plus, first because its a pain to get a decent 39mm polarizer and second because focus and aperture selectors are too close ), Im missing something in this equation ?
Cheers,
Goncalo
Im contemplating my next purchase. Christmas bonus kicked in and Im torned between two ( well actually three ) options :
I want a wide angle lens that i dont want to carry a external viewfinder. 24mm would be my first choice but there isnt such framelines. So I gues im going 28mm.
I found out two candidates >
Zeiss Ikon 28mm Biogon 2.8
or
Konica M Hexagonon 28mm 2.8
I dont want a Leica lens.. I dont use 28mm that often ( i didnt in DSLR days when I had my canon 1Ds, 35mm was always my "tool" of choice , and it is today with my rangefinder ) so I dont want to go into a Leica 28 F2 ASPH route.. sure, must be better but at a price that, forseeing the amount of times Im going to use it, will not be justified. I did my research and the problem is, both seem very good lenses. Can someone shed some light here ? From photos, ( never seen any of them ) the ZI albeit a 100 pounds or so more expensive, seems with much more quality finish. And what about pictures ? Often if not almost all teh time will be taken with a polarizer.. I just dont feel the reach of the 35 'cron I have to be enough.
Other upgrade path will be trading my 90 F2 ASPH for a new 75 2.0 : i've seen and talked that the 75 has a more creamy bokeh and better defined subject vs background ( which was the reason I bought the 90 F2 in the first place, since I thought that increasing the focal lenght and with the same minium aperture, the 90 should throw the subject vs background more easily ). I found that the 90 F2 sometimes, even wide open, renders things sharp ( background wise ) that I would like to see with bokeh and not almost sharp
ButI also read that the 75 2.0 and the older 1.4 are very critical to focus ( thin dof ) at wide open... Which can pose a problem ( I use them for facial portraits ). Ideas ?Last but not least, Im seriously ( the third optionhere ) trading my 35 F2 ASPH for a 35 1.4 ASPH.. I use 90% of the time my 35 and sometimes the 1.4 vs 2 would make a difference.. weight seems the same, size a bit bigger ( which I consider a plus, first because its a pain to get a decent 39mm polarizer and second because focus and aperture selectors are too close ), Im missing something in this equation ?
Cheers,
Goncalo
peter_n
Veteran
I've seen plenty of pictures from the ZI 28mm Biogon and they are terrific, but I use an M-Hexanon 28mm and love that lens - incredible build quality and beautiful optically. Very difficult choice and I would compare the pictures on flickr if you haven't already.
The 90 and 75 are very different focal lengths; you sure you want to swap one for the other? The 75 is kind of like a 50 in many ways, I mean if you have a 50 that doesn't close focus to 0.7M the 75 is definitely worth thinking about. I would want both of those focal lengths in my bag though, not one rather than the other.
WRT the 35/1.4 ASPH I would recommend you get it, it is an amazing lens with more a look of the older lenses than some of the other ASPH lenses. And it focuses down to 0.7M so go can get in really close! It is my standard lens and I can't recommend it enough.
The 90 and 75 are very different focal lengths; you sure you want to swap one for the other? The 75 is kind of like a 50 in many ways, I mean if you have a 50 that doesn't close focus to 0.7M the 75 is definitely worth thinking about. I would want both of those focal lengths in my bag though, not one rather than the other.
WRT the 35/1.4 ASPH I would recommend you get it, it is an amazing lens with more a look of the older lenses than some of the other ASPH lenses. And it focuses down to 0.7M so go can get in really close! It is my standard lens and I can't recommend it enough.
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
Another 28mm to consider, if you're flush, is the Leica 28mm/2.8 Elmarit M ASPH that recently came on the market. It's smaller and lighter than any other 28mm M mount lens, and has very good image qualities. It's 39mm filter mount size, and at only 180 grams is lighter than the 35mm/2 ASPH, so it fits comfortably in a pocket or tiny camera bag.
Like the Zeiss Biogon 28mm ZM, the new Leica 28mm has very high resolution and contrast, and smooth defocus blur characteristics. The 28mm/2.8 ASPH is far more flare resistant than the Biogon or Hexanon in my experience.
For pictures from some 28mm lenses see my previous post:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30622
and some other examples are in the City, Landscape and Photojournalism section of my website at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~keirst/
Like the Zeiss Biogon 28mm ZM, the new Leica 28mm has very high resolution and contrast, and smooth defocus blur characteristics. The 28mm/2.8 ASPH is far more flare resistant than the Biogon or Hexanon in my experience.
For pictures from some 28mm lenses see my previous post:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30622
and some other examples are in the City, Landscape and Photojournalism section of my website at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~keirst/
telenous
Well-known
Goncalo,
The Summicron 75 focuses down to 0.7m and combined with the focal length it gets closer to the subject than any other rangefinder lens, in any focal length, save for the Summicron 50 DR and the Macro Elmarit 90. Effectively that means that you can take portraits, where the face is slightly cropped on the forehead and the chin. It is very sharp, sometimes to a fault, and its fingerprint is close to the modern Aspherical look of the Summicron 35 Asph. and the Summilux 50 Asph. Considering the FL it's a quite compact and light lens. At closest distance the depth of field is indeed critical - so much so that I have often thought of buying the x1.25 magnifier just for use with this lens. All in all I 'd say it is one of the best lenses available, at any focal length, but milking the goods does require an effort from the part of the user. The Summilux 75 is also a great lens but it is bigger and heavier and its fingerprint seems to nod to the older Leica look. I based my choice between these two on the principle of cross-focal-length proximity of fingerprint. (NB Others don't believe there is such a thing; I do).
The Summilux 35 Asph. is nothing short of outstanding much for the reasons mentioned by Peter in reply #2. I don't think there is any other Leica lens that blends so succesfully the older with the new look.
I have not much to say about the 28 focal length; I have used it very briefly on an SLR and it wasn't a focal length I was comfortable with. All the lenses mentioned above seem very good.
Have a look in this recent flickr group of ours for samples of all the lenses (scroll down to choose the link that will take you to samples from a particular lens of your choice):
http://flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
The Summicron 75 focuses down to 0.7m and combined with the focal length it gets closer to the subject than any other rangefinder lens, in any focal length, save for the Summicron 50 DR and the Macro Elmarit 90. Effectively that means that you can take portraits, where the face is slightly cropped on the forehead and the chin. It is very sharp, sometimes to a fault, and its fingerprint is close to the modern Aspherical look of the Summicron 35 Asph. and the Summilux 50 Asph. Considering the FL it's a quite compact and light lens. At closest distance the depth of field is indeed critical - so much so that I have often thought of buying the x1.25 magnifier just for use with this lens. All in all I 'd say it is one of the best lenses available, at any focal length, but milking the goods does require an effort from the part of the user. The Summilux 75 is also a great lens but it is bigger and heavier and its fingerprint seems to nod to the older Leica look. I based my choice between these two on the principle of cross-focal-length proximity of fingerprint. (NB Others don't believe there is such a thing; I do).
The Summilux 35 Asph. is nothing short of outstanding much for the reasons mentioned by Peter in reply #2. I don't think there is any other Leica lens that blends so succesfully the older with the new look.
I have not much to say about the 28 focal length; I have used it very briefly on an SLR and it wasn't a focal length I was comfortable with. All the lenses mentioned above seem very good.
Have a look in this recent flickr group of ours for samples of all the lenses (scroll down to choose the link that will take you to samples from a particular lens of your choice):
http://flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
I looked at the charts on the Zeiss site and the 28 (which I own) lags a bit behind the 25 and 21. The 28 is however smaller, light, cheaper and focuses as close (so as it is a longer FL good for exagerating near far relationships if the foreground thing is small!). For utilmate peformance the 25 is the winner, but seeing as I dont own one I will never see if it is really any better than the 28 in practical use. I have not even developed any film with 28mm shots yet (recently took some and will develop soon) so cannot even comment on this lens on its own! According to the MTFs the 25 is still appreciably better even at 2 stops down. The downside of teh new 28 Elmarit M is that some have criticised its wide open performance, not a criticism levelled against the new wide biogons (aside from the 35 which whilst it has astounding edge performance is a touch behind the rest on centre wide open). The Leica 28 is also over twice the price. I think you are right to be looking at the 28 biogon or Hexanon as a practical good value choices. As soon as I have my 28mm shots under the loupe I will be able to add some more!
nyx
Established
proenca said:
Well, I have 28mm hex and 35mm biogon and biogon feels quite cheap when comparing build quality.
Optically, that hexanon is wonderful - it gets a little bit soft in the EXTREME corners (and it doesn't get better at 5.6, I didn't really try at larger apertures).
This example was made at 5.6
http://nyx.nyx.cz/pics/mtest/mtest-01.jpg
http://nyx.nyx.cz/pics/mtest/mtest-02.jpg
Biogon might be better, but even with this level of performance...who cares?
Turtle
Veteran
nyx said:Well, I have 28mm hex and 35mm biogon and biogon feels quite cheap when comparing build quality.
Optically, that hexanon is wonderful - it gets a little bit soft in the EXTREME corners (and it doesn't get better at 5.6, I didn't really try at larger apertures).
This example was made at 5.6
http://nyx.nyx.cz/pics/mtest/mtest-01.jpg
http://nyx.nyx.cz/pics/mtest/mtest-02.jpg
Biogon might be better, but even with this level of performance...who cares?
I recall one magazine reviewer stating that he felt the Hexanon M lenses felt more solidy and better built than Leica equivalents. That floored me but similar sentiments have come up quite a few times!
Your comments on 28 hex vs biogon reflect mine on the 25 biogon vs 28. The 25 is better on paper, clearly, but I dont know if I would see it on a print. Maybe? It would be interestesting to find out but unless I can get my hands on a 25 I doubt I will ever know!
back alley
IMAGES
my zm lenses feel as well built as my 90 hex, sorry.
once again i think because the zm lenses might be lighter in weight they are mistaken as cheap.
once again i think because the zm lenses might be lighter in weight they are mistaken as cheap.
nyx
Established
back alley said:
Well, after few more days with biogon, I still have the feeling. Focusing ring on my biogon is a tiny bit loose (not of any significance, but I know it's there
) and it doesn't have the nice heavy fluid feel those hexanons have (I can sense some light scratching near infinity focus). Maybe it's just my sample, but it feels worse and it spoils my joy as it doesn't feel "right". Crappy lens cap just completes the impression...on the other hand, I really like it's bayonet hood...I'd really love to have it on my 28mm hex.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Nachkebia
Well-known
75 comes from 50 so does 90 from 75 also 35 lux from 35 cron or visa versa right?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request