? re. difference between the canon 28/3.5 and 28/2.8

[back alley]

there seems to be little written about the canon 28's but from what i have read and noted from different forums it seems the canon 28/3.5 is considered to be the 'better' lens in terms of sharpness and contrast.

has anyone tried both and would you care to comment?

also if you have a net source of info i'd appreciate a heads up.

i know cameraquest has a few comments, maybe the stella brothers as well.

joe

 

[aizan]

i've got to get around to comparing my 28s, but when i'm done, i'll send you one to do a test. how about that?

 

[back alley]

which 28's do you have?

 

[back alley]

bump for the morning shift

 

[John Shriver]

I've heard the 28/3.5 disparaged, with kudos reserved for the 28/2.8. My 28/3.5 is soft in the corners, that's for sure. I don't have the 28/2.8, so I can't compare.

 

[JJW]

I've had both 28s

I've had both 28s

I've owned both Canon 28s. The f/3.5 is definitely a much better lens. The 2.8 was "hot" for a while because legend had it that Garry Winogrand used it for his 60s street shooting and a lot of the pictures that were published in his 1977 classic book "Public Relations".

The one I had was a disappointment... it was soft even when stopped down and very flat in the contrast department. The f/3.5 was pretty good out to the corners when stopped down to 5.6.

Whatever the legend, the 28mm f/3.5 and f/1.7 Voigtlanders blow both the old Canon 28s out of the water. The Ultron is right up there with Leica glass in terms of its image quality.

If you're a shooter, save your money and let the collectors have the Canons.

 

[back alley]

one of my favourite shots (in my gallery) was taken with the 28/3.5.
i like the lens enough to shoot with it.

it's not always about ultimate sharpness, for me anyway.

i appreciate your comments though as it's hard to find info on some stuff like the canon 28's.

joe

 

[aizan]

i have two 2.8s. i'll shoot a comparison roll tomorrow. actually, today.

 

[Sonnar2]

The Canon 28mm are interesting historical stuff. The f/3.5 starts 1951; the f/2.8 1957. So both are "old". The f/3.5 is a Gauss Type 1 (Biotar/Planar) whereas the f/2.8 follows the Gauss Type with cemented groups outwards (Typ II). From optical design theory Canon overstrained the Gauss-type with both these wide angles, visible at soft edges. Gauss types doing best at angles of about 30°. 80° are hard to correct.
HOOPER don't mention the performance of the f/3.5, but compared the f/2.8 with the Leitz Summaron 5.6/28mm of the same optical design period: "comparable optical quality although it does suffer significant loss of performance off center". They had to pay the price for 2 stops faster speed.

cheers, Frank

 

[Jacob]

I hope You don't mind me broaden the discussion regarding 28's a bit, but I am very curious about the Ricoh GR 28/2.8 LTM. It seems almost as sharp as leitz glass (according to Putz), compact as a 3.5 and fast as a ...2.8! But how about the availability (=price), has anybody seen it, ever?
Best
Jacob

 

[rover]

one of my favourite shots (in my gallery) was taken with the 28/3.5.
i like the lens enough to shoot with it.

it's not always about ultimate sharpness, for me anyway.

i appreciate your comments though as it's hard to find info on some stuff like the canon 28's.

joe

If you like it that is all that counts. You don't see the 2.8 that often and the one that sold just a week or so ago closed for more than $300. I have seen the 3.5 with finder sell for as low as $150 but that price varies greatly. For just a half stopish increase in speed..., you are happy with the 3.5, that is a very good thing.

 

[Sonnar2]

Jacob, sorry whom do you mean? E. Puts and his website with usefull information on camera topics?

 

[back alley]

If you like it that is all that counts. You don't see the 2.8 that often and the one that sold just a week or so ago closed for more than $300. I have seen the 3.5 with finder sell for as low as $150 but that price varies greatly. For just a half stopish increase in speed..., you are happy with the 3.5, that is a very good thing.

this is true, but my curiosity always gets in the way.

joe

 

[kbg32]

I have the Canon 28 f3.5. The only lens I can compare it to is my Leitz 28 f2.8 Elmarit. I sometimes carry the Canon when I want to carry a camera in my coat pocket. But there is no comparison. The Elmarit is a far, far better lens. In terms of resolution and contrast, it wns hands down. The Canon is fine, but it's resolution and contrast is definitely softer.

 

[Jacob]

Sonnar2,
yes, thats right, Puts, not Putz. If I remember right he compares the Ricoh Lens with the Elmarit 28. He finds the Leica lens theoretically better (of course...) but I think that he also says that the Ricoh lens is equal in many practical situations. Sounds like it would suffice for me.
Jacob

 

[JJW]

The Ricoh 28mm was a limited edition lens sold in 39mm LTM. It was a very nice looking piece and resembled the old 35mm chrome Wetzlar Summicrons.

Ricoh took the lens mounted on the GR-1 point and shoot and put it in a barrel for Leica screw mount cameras. They did the same thing with the 21mm lens on the GR-21. That one is a collector's item, too.

The lenses were produced in the late 1990s and mostly sold in Japan. A few managed to make it over to the UK. Other than that, they are very scarce.

Why are you guys talking about this stuff? The best 28s for the money in history are the Voigtlanders. The Color Skopar 28 f/3.5 is really tiny, too. So it's about the same size as the Canon lenses.

For the record, the same story holds true for the Canon 25mm vs. the Voigtlander 25mm. No contest. The Canon is NOT a very good lens, especially against the Snapshot Skopar.

 

[kbg32]

I hope You don't mind me broaden the discussion regarding 28's a bit, but I am very curious about the Ricoh GR 28/2.8 LTM. It seems almost as sharp as leitz glass (according to Putz), compact as a 3.5 and fast as a ...2.8! But how about the availability (=price), has anybody seen it, ever?
Best
Jacob

Jacob,

I don't believe this lens ever came in LTM. As far as I know, it is only available as part of the GR1.

 

[rover]

For the record, the same story holds true for the Canon 25mm vs. the Voigtlander 25mm. No contest. The Canon is NOT a very good lens, especially against the Snapshot Skopar.

The benefit of 50 years of techological advancement. While classic standard and long lenses are excellent, the challenge in the 1950s was the wide angle view. Also where CV shines and truely has little competition, new low priced wide and super wides.

 

[Sonnar2]

Hi Jacob, the Ricoh 28mm was tested in German FotoMagazine against the C/V 25mm some years ago (when there was no 28mm C/V issued yet), It received quite good credits, but not at the same high level as the C/V 25mm both mechanically and optically. And this at a more expensive price.
cheers, Frank

 

[raid]

What is a reasonable asking price for either of the Canon 28mm lenses? I don't own either, but I have seen one for sale for $495. Isn't this too high?