M8 and 28/2.8 ASPH or pre-asph 35/1.4: Which to hold on to?

D

drec

Rangeflounder
Local time
8:03 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
128
Hi all,

I've been shooting with an M8 for the past month or so-- love the camera, sold my Sony A7s because as good as that was, I like how the M8 renders b&w-- but necessity might be coming in which I need to get rid of one of the two lenses I have for it: a 28/2.8 ASPH or a pre-asph 35 Summilux.

If you had to keep one, what would you keep? (Obviously, it is up to my personal preference; please indicate what YOU would do!)

Here are my thoughts:

28/2.8 ASPH:
-noticeably sharper at 2.8 than the pre-asph from what I see
-I have a UV/IR cut filter slapped on it already; coded properly
-handling is a bit better than the pre-asph, as it's easier to access the aperture ring than the 1.4 with the 35 Cron Asph shade on



35/1.4 pre-asph:
-1.4
-that glow at 1.4 that you can't get with an ASPH lens. Moreover, I've figured out my lens' front focus issue in that focus was optimized for infinity at 2.8; at 2 or 1.4, I focus closer than the rangefinder indicates and get better results
-I can always sell this and get similar/better quality (in some ways) with a CV35/1.4
-I actually bought the Series VII IR cut filter and retaining ring, but must outlay an additional $75 for a Series VII shade

Re FOV on the M8, both are useful-- I consider the 35 to be 50fov--and I would eventually want to get the length that I would sell in a cheaper lens or save up...

Basically, it comes down to absolute sharpness vs glow and 1.4.

Thanks
 
It's almost an entirely personal decision, of course. What look do you prefer? Sharp and clinical, but slow? Or faster, but with a more classic, glowy look? 35ish vs 50ish equivalent FOV? If you often shoot in low light, 2.8 won't be fast enough, no matter how sharp it is, whereas I'm sure the Summilux is good enough stopped down for daylight use.

That said, both lenses are worth roughly the same amount, so I wouldn't worry about that. Ergonomics, however, are probably more of a concern.

Personally, I've never liked the look of classic lenses like the Pre-ASPH's or Sonnar's on digital. They're fantastic on film, but have a subtlety that the perfectly flat plane of a digital sensor can't capture.
 
lonemantis said:
It's almost an entirely personal decision, of course. What look do you prefer? Sharp and clinical, but slow? Or faster, but with a more classic, glowy look? 35ish vs 50ish equivalent FOV? If you often shoot in low light, 2.8 won't be fast enough, no matter how sharp it is, whereas I'm sure the Summilux is good enough stopped down for daylight use. That said, both lenses are worth roughly the same amount, so I wouldn't worry about that. Ergonomics, however, are probably more of a concern. Personally, I've never liked the look of classic lenses like the Pre-ASPH's or Sonnar's on digital. They're fantastic on film, but have a subtlety that the perfectly flat plane of a digital sensor can't capture.
Click to expand...

I agree about classic lenses on digital.
It never seems to look right.
I used nikkors and Zeiss sonnars on film and love them. In the m8 they just look like they are poorly performing.

I suggest you keep the 28 since you like it. Personally I like the ZM Biogon 25mm for the m8. (Less dough as well).
There is no sharper 25/28mm rf lens available than the Biogon 25.

The 2/40mm M Rokkor CLE or Summicron c 2/40mm lens is one of the best 50mm fov options for the m8 (53mm w x1.33).

If you prefer a 1.4 go for the 40mm nokton.

Any of these are available for sub $400.
You could re-coup some cash and still have your 50mm equivalent.
 
I have both lenses and use the 35 pre-asph much more. Mine is a second series, and has the hood that holds the filter. While I have the IR cut filter, I rarely use it, relying instead on profiles in Capture or adjustments in Photoshop. If you have a good copy of the 35, I would keep that; it's easier to find a good 28 Asph than a 35 pre-asph. BTW, the M8 is the only camera I have that I regularly use a 28 on. I rarely use it on my film Ms. You might also look at the Leica forum for some ways to get outstanding high ISO results from the M8.
 
presspass said:
I have both lenses and use the 35 pre-asph much more. Mine is a second series, and has the hood that holds the filter. While I have the IR cut filter, I rarely use it, relying instead on profiles in Capture or adjustments in Photoshop. If you have a good copy of the 35, I would keep that; it's easier to find a good 28 Asph than a 35 pre-asph. BTW, the M8 is the only camera I have that I regularly use a 28 on. I rarely use it on my film Ms. You might also look at the Leica forum for some ways to get outstanding high ISO results from the M8.
Click to expand...

Do you have de-focussed or "hazy" images without the cut IR filters?
I was always unsatisfied with the apparent "glow" from ir pollution when shooting without IR filters.
I assume it's the different focus distance IR wavelengths we're introducing.
It made a strange de-focussed ghost on many images where strong IR was present (outdoors, halogen light ... Etc)
Yes, removing the filters seemed to increase shadow detail for B&W but... It came at a cost.

Interested to hear your experience or work around.
 
If I shoot primarily B&W, then 35 1.4 it is...but...I'd still sell it off and replace it with voigt 35 1.4 or a cheap 50 and keep the 28 ASPH. This way I have the best of both worlds.
 
From my brief time with the 35 sans filter, I haven't had an issue with ir pollution... But there is no way that it renders as sharply as the elmarit Asph. It has rendered nice enough on my M8; perhaps it'd fare worse on a FF.

It makes sense what a few of you say, that being that it is easier to find a nice elmarit asph than a nice 35/1.4. And yes, if I go FF in the future, 28 is somewhat of an orphan length for me, usually opting for 35/50 and a 21 for superwide.

Perhaps I'll get a cv35 to compare before getting rid of the 35 if I do so.
 
You can always walk a little closer but you can't always back up more. Go with the 28. But then I'm a WA kinda guy.
 
I actually have a 15/4.5 for as wide as I want to get. I don't like any wider than 28 on the M8 for regular use. So a 21 or 24 wouldn't suit me.
 
drec said:
From my brief time with the 35 sans filter, I haven't had an issue with ir pollution... But there is no way that it renders as sharply as the elmarit Asph. .
Click to expand...

Actually... IR pollution may be contributing to the glow and lack of sharpness you are seeing. ;)
 
Just getting back to you on the IR pollution without a filter. I keep a UV for protection on the 35 pre-asph. Since I shoot fires for the local volunteer fire company, that is a constant concern. When I need the 1.4 for low light, the lens performs well; I don't expect it to equal an asph lens at the wider stops. I've noticed the colors from the older lenses are better suited to my taste than the newer asph lenses. For instance, I prefer the 21 Super Angulon to newer, and probably better in many respects, 21s.
 
I like both of these lenses for the reasons I've given above... With the cv15 and a jupiter-8 for, they are all I need for what I wanted the M8 for. I'll try to hold onto both of them. Thanks for your opinions! Am getting a proper shade to go with the series vii ir cut filter to see how different the 35 renders.
 
It almost seems like you kinda answered your own question. I would say keep the 28asph and sell the 35lux. If you miss that lens, worse comes to worse, pickup a CV35. But I would have to agree with other comments.... keeping the 28asph but go for someone longer like the 50mm. 35mm & 28mm are just too close in length. Personally I love the 24mm and 50/75mm combo.
 
when i had my M8 i really liked the 28mm framelines, enjoyed shooting a ZM 28 f/2.8 as my all-around lens. so, i think i'd go with the Elmarit, between the two.
 
On the m8, 28 becomes my 35 fov, while 35 becomes around a 50mm.

It is still glow versus sharpness for me, and I'll try to hold onto both. I want to see what an ir cut can do on the 35 in terms of reducing ir pollution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom