Suggestion for 24-28mm lens?

M

mdwsta4

Matty Westside
Local time
3:42 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
464
I primarily shoot at 35 and 50mm focal lengths on my M9, however I am traveling to Europe for a few weeks in September and was looking for something a little bit wider.

At the moment I'm considering the following for various reasons:

perar super triplet 28 f4
CV 28 f2
Zeiss Biogon 28 f2.8
elmarit 28 f2.8
elmarit 24 f2.8


I threw the 24 in there because it would be the largest difference from the 35mm focal length, however I'd need to get an external viewfinder or guesstimate what's in the frame.
What would you recommend and why? As it's not a focal length I will likely use very often I'm staying within a budget. Ideally that'd mean $800 or less.

Thank you
M
 
At the $800 price point, you might try a Kobalux/Avenon/Pasoptik 28mm f/3.5. It's a fantastic lens and is as big as a collapsed 50mm f/2.8 Elmar.
The 28mm CV lens is great but seems hard to find these days.

If you're considering an Elmarit then I'd say go for a Zeiss lens in the equivalent focal length. The Zeiss 25mm or 28mm are the best optics you can get in this focal range for the price. Triple their cost and you're in Leica territory. Both of these are the shining stars of the Biogon line and you'll not be disappointed.
If you're looking for a bit wider, I'd go for the 25mm but that's just my personal taste.

Phil Forrest
 
I thiink the step from 35 to 28 is too small. I would go for 24. The Summilux is superb, I am absolutely taken with it, but astronomical in price and heavy,
The 24 Elmarit is one of the best lenses Leica ever built, if you can find one for a reasonable price, go for it.
The Elmarit 28 version III is excellent, Version IV even better and the asph excellent and wonderfully compact.
 
mdwsta4 said:
I primarily shoot at 35 and 50mm focal lengths on my M9, however I am traveling to Europe for a few weeks in September and was looking for something a little bit wider.

At the moment I'm considering the following for various reasons:

perar super triplet 28 f4
Click to expand...

Tpirlet you mean... The power of this forum, people already lust after this otherwise unknown lens!

mdwsta4 said:
CV 28 f2
Zeiss Biogon 28 f2.8
elmarit 28 f2.8
elmarit 24 f2.8


I threw the 24 in there because it would be the largest difference from the 35mm focal length, however I'd need to get an external viewfinder or guesstimate what's in the frame.
What would you recommend and why? As it's not a focal length I will likely use very often I'm staying within a budget. Ideally that'd mean $800 or less.

Thank you
M
Click to expand...

New I would go for the Zeiss, I really cannot see any difference with Leica glasses but at a much lower price. This CV I don't know but I had problems in the past with some Barnack lens and I would think that the fact the same company makes the two lines and sell at different prices has something to do with quality control. Used any of them, probably if you find the good one also the CVs are quite good.

GLF
 
ha! Yeah, if I were to get one of the original batch lenses, you're right. Funny misspelling.

giellaleafapmu said:
Tpirlet you mean... The power of this forum, people already lust after this otherwise unknown lens!

GLF
Click to expand...

I've been able to find the leica, CV, and Zeiss (used) focal lengths listed above for between $600-800 so price-wise there isn't too much of a difference. The Zeiss 25 is nearly double that from what I've been able to find.
 
Elmar-M 24/3.8, this is a slower lens but I find its images to be very nice. Very light But somehow harder to find.
 
+1 on the 24 Elmar, which I have and love (more than the ZM 25 I had), but the price difference may not be worth it.

BTW, the M8 has frames for a 24, so there is no need for an external finder.
Among the original choices my vote goes to the ZM 28.

The OP could also consider a CV 25...
 
Another vote for the Elmar 24 if speed is not a concern. My sharpest wide so far. Less bulky than the Elmarit 24, it does not block the viewfinder more than a Summicron 28.
 
Since 35mm is my main FL on the M9, I have only one 28mm, which I can recommend: The M-Rokkor 28/f2.8 which was made for the Leica CL and Minolta CLE.

It's a cheap lens, but really excellent optics. Problem can be the white spots and Schneideritis, which can lower contrast. I had mine cleaned from that and the quality is excellent. Also it's small and light.
 
I own and use the Zeiss 28/2.8 (and have tried the CV 28/2.0). The Zeiss is very modern - sharp and contrasty. The CV is a little less modern, but seems to me better for B/W work.

What 35 and 50 do you use? If you want a consistent "look and feel" to those lenses you already have, that might be a good starting point in narrowing down what will work for you. I personally think there is enough difference in the FOV between a 28 and a 35 to carry and use both.
 
If you can afford it a 24 2.8 elmarit sounds the ticket.

IMHO 24 is better separated from 35mm, tho I shot 28 and 35 for years. They are v different, just not as much as 24-35.

The 28 Biogon is superb, but I prefer the images from my 24 lux and will sell the 28.
 
I had a 28 Elmarit at some point of time but I never started to like it. Sold that and got a ZM 25 and as mentioned by others it's a great lens, on film and now also on the M9.
 
I think if you shoot landscapes stay towards the wider end 24 and if you shoot street scenes stay towards the 28 side. It depends on how much real estate you are looking to grab at one time and at what distance to subject. 4mm is not much but it really is a big difference sometimes.
 
mdwsta4 said:
......................... What would you recommend and why? As it's not a focal length I will likely use very often I'm staying within a budget. .................
Click to expand...

I suggest you buy the cheapest 28mm (or 24mm) lens you can find. It will still be an excellent lens of a quality that will not detract from your photos.

If after using whatever lens you buy, you then decide it has some specific weakness, you can sell it and buy whatever solves the problem you have then identified. You may decide that it is just not a focal length that works for you. In that case, you have saved money. Or, you may find that the lowest cost lens still satisfies all your needs after using it. Also a case where you have saved money.

Now if you are one of those who believes a more expensive lens will cause you to make better photos, find the one that comes closes to sucking up all the money you can afford to spend.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I suggest you buy the cheapest 28mm (or 24mm) lens you can find. It will still be an excellent lens of a quality that will not detract from your photos.

If after using whatever lens you buy, you then decide it has some specific weakness, you can sell it and buy whatever solves the problem you have then identified. You may decide that it is just not a focal length that works for you. In that case, you have saved money. Or, you may find that the lowest cost lens still satisfies all your needs after using it. Also a case where you have saved money.

Now if you are one of those who believes a more expensive lens will cause you to make better photos, find the one that comes closes to sucking up all the money you can afford to spend.
Click to expand...

Yes, this makes total sense. Only I'd go with the 28 to avoid the external VF
 
listen to bob, hear the voice of reason.

i know a CV 28mm that is available - drop me a message if interested.

cheers,
sebastian
 
Johann Espiritu said:
I own and use the Zeiss 28/2.8 (and have tried the CV 28/2.0). The Zeiss is very modern - sharp and contrasty. The CV is a little less modern, but seems to me better for B/W work.

What 35 and 50 do you use? If you want a consistent "look and feel" to those lenses you already have, that might be a good starting point in narrowing down what will work for you. I personally think there is enough difference in the FOV between a 28 and a 35 to carry and use both.
Click to expand...

Great timing on this comment, Johann. I just got an M8 and looking for a 35mm FOV equivalent lens. I think the Biogon comment helps me finally decide on the ZM 25. I'll also end up keeping my CV 25/4 in case it works better for B&W
 
Depends on your budget, as always, but ....
I suggest going as wide and fast and small size as you can.

eg. get a 24mm/25mm: you dont need an external VF, and its just another trinket that will get in your way. Mount the 24mm lens,
then just use the 28mm in-M9 VF to guestimate. You have an M9 for chrisssakes, so its easy to shoot a few pics, look at the LCD,
and learn the difference b/w the 28mm VF and the 24mm lens you are shooting.


But if you have to have a 28mm, I have had the Bio 28/2.8, great lens but modern characteristics, too modern for me.
I replaced it, quite happily, with a CV 28/1.9 Asph (better than the CV 29/2 IMO), and like Johann said, less modern character, which i like.
I took that idea a bit further, and got a LTM Canon Serenar 28/2.8: awesome lens with more of a 60's character but sharp as h*ll. Its my 28mm of choice,
but I would take the faster CV 28/1.9 if travelling.
happy travels!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom