need advice new 28mm

O

orenrcohen

Established
Local time
1:40 AM
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
72
I am looking for advice on a new 28mm lens for my R-D1.. Options I am considering are either a new CV 28mm 2.0 Ultron or a used Leica Elmarit 28mm 2.8 Pre Aspher ($800--$1200 range). Also I can't seem to find an accurate way to date Leica Elmarit as to version-- is there a database that will tell me what version of the lens it is based on the serial number?

Thanks in advance for your weighing in
 
V4 - 46mm thread an looks like a summiron asph
V3 - 49mm thread and has a pin on the barrel twds the front to locate the hood.
Other versions ??? But personally I would go for a V4. V3 is unusual filter size and big IMHO.
 
Zen-shooter said:
Excellent choices for color when shooting with R-D1, for sure. Great punchy colors. But for B&W specifically, my recommendation is look for a medium contrast lens so that the sensor is able to pick-up shadow details. A lens like the W-Nikkor 28/3.5 LTM might do the trick.
Click to expand...

Good point well taken. I shoot color film/trans exclusively.
 
i like the zeiss line of lenses especially for their punch and slightly higher contrast.

look at some shots on flickr and see what appeals to you.
 
I shoot film (B&W) and love the ZMs, but very true, if shooting on a RD-1 something with lower contrast than the biogon might be a better bet. V4 elmarit would be great I am sure, but they are hard to find at decent prices.
 
hmmmmm..

hmmmmm..

Had narrowed down to deciding between the CV 28mm 2.0 or a version of Leica elmarit 28mm but I guess I will have to look more closely at the Zeiss.. anyone care to weigh in on the comparative first two options?

Thanks for all your input thus far..
 
If you are a digi only user I would think seriously about a lens with modest contrast. The ZM is pretty hight contrast as is the 28 elmarit asph. An older elmarit or the CV 28 1.9/2 would be of somewhat lower contrast. The Hex might be a good bet too...
 
Turtle said:
If you are a digi only user I would think seriously about a lens with modest contrast. The ZM is pretty hight contrast as is the 28 elmarit asph. An older elmarit or the CV 28 1.9/2 would be of somewhat lower contrast. The Hex might be a good bet too...
Click to expand...

so i take it you don't care for the look of my 28mm images, as they are shot on the rd1. i'd appreciate your feedback as to what you see. maybe check out my flickr 28mm set if you have some time.
joe
 
Given that Leica had been offering a $300 rebate on the 2.8 Elmarit ASPH, which brought the US price down to about $1495 new, I have seen plenty of them used just beneath the top of your range. The lens is easy to handle and performs beautifully (I use mine on an M8).
 
I have a pre asph and it is all I can wish for.
Very sharp, good contrast, not too much though.
It is bigger then the asph but still a reasonable size.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
 
If you are interested, I'm selling my Hexanon 28/2.8. Its better than any CV - glass and built, and is as good if not better than pre-asph Elmarit, yet costs less.
 
back alley said:
so i take it you don't care for the look of my 28mm images, as they are shot on the rd1. i'd appreciate your feedback as to what you see. maybe check out my flickr 28mm set if you have some time.
joe
Click to expand...

ZM lenses are higher in contrast than many (CV/Pre-asph etc) lenses and will inevitably cause some issues shooting scenes with v. high brightness ranges, compared to a lens of lower contrast, when using digital sensors. It all depends on what you are doing and under what conditions..and what you like. Personally I would recommend a lens of lower contrast shooting on digital, as would some others. What a person chooses to do and why is their call; however high contrast lenses with high contrast scenes and digital sensors is regarded by many as being tough to handle. Lower contrast lenses make capturing the full range somewhat easier.

Whether or not I like your images has no bearing on whether the above is worthy of consideration, because 'liking' is subjective and does not tell you a lot about why or what factors into that. I have just looked at your 28 biogon images and some are missing the entire range of tones. The image of the hat on the table has blown highlights on the sun beaten tiles outside and a lower contrast lens would have helped control those highlights while retaining shadows (if that was your aim). The one of tree 'shadows' is another example,as is 'ripe tomato', where lower contrast might have helped, but it all depends on the look you are after. I think these images show very clearly how a digital sensor can struggle with a high contrast lens shooting a high contrast scene.
 
Last edited:
Turtle said:
ZM lenses are higher in contrast than many (CV/Pre-asph etc) lenses and will inevitably cause some issues shooting scenes with v. high brightness ranges, compared to a lens of lower contrast, when using digital sensors. It all depends on what you are doing and under what conditions..and what you like. Personally I would recommend a lens of lower contrast shooting on digital, as would some others. What a person chooses to do and why is their call; however high contrast lenses with high contrast scenes and digital sensors is regarded by many as being tough to handle. Lower contrast lenses make capturing the full range somewhat easier.

Whether or not I like your images has no bearing on whether the above is worthy of consideration, because 'liking' is subjective and does not tell you a lot about why or what factors into that. I have just looked at your 28 biogon images and some are missing the entire range of tones. The image of the hat on the table has blown highlights on the sun beaten tiles outside and a lower contrast lens would have helped control those highlights while retaining shadows (if that was your aim). The one of tree 'shadows' is another example,as is 'ripe tomato', where lower contrast might have helped, but it all depends on the look you are after. I think these images show very clearly how a digital sensor can struggle with a high contrast lens shooting a high contrast scene.
Click to expand...

not sure how i missed this post until now...
to be clear, i was (am) not arguing your point of lower vs higher contrast or asking about if you like my images. i was asking for some feedback on my images given in the light of your comments.
and you have provided just that, thank you.

as to blown highlights, i would prefer not to have them and i think i need better exposure control combined with more practice at photoshop.
re. the shadow detail, i am fine with losing that and having a higher contrast image. i don't aim for an image with 'more' tones as i don't need a piece of music with every note in it.
you are correct in saying that it all depends in the look one is after. i prefer a 'stronger' contrasty look to one that is more peaceful and includes a wider range of tones.
i appreciate your time in looking at my images.
 
back alley,

The use of a lower contrast lens would allow you to give less exposure and still arrive at the same dark shadow values you like (or give the same exposure and bet getter illuminated shadows). This would simply pull down the high values a notch but in overall terms give you more complete information to manage in PS (all of which you dont have to use). You could then still arrive at a high contrast image without a long tonal scale, but the book ends would be there so to speak.

This is essentially why Guy Mancuso and Sean Reid are both fans of the new Leica Summarit 2.5 lenses (and Sean a number of CV and Canon lenses) on the M8 when shooting under contrasty conditions.

I own a ZM 28, but shoot it on film so have much more latitude. Its a very good performer, but high contrast, which is never a problem due to the inherent flexibility in film processing. Even in high contrast conditions, I only have to drop film speed a little and reduce development if I must.

Certainly not knocking ZMs, I have four!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom