The 28 or the 35 for the G1?

[Spluff]

Unfortunately, my rangefinder procurement habits show no sign of slowing down. I'm now looking at the Contax G1 to add to my collection. However, I'm not sure whether to go for the 35 or the 28. Typically, I shoot mainly between 25mm and 45mm and usually in B&W (so the out of focus elements are important to me).

I have the 45mm on a Contax Aria - which I absolutly adore - so I'm not sure if I want another lens at that focal lens (although I would be curious to hear from anywone who has compared the 45mm on the G series to the 45mm on the C/Y series).

Anyway, any thoughts/opinons on whether to go for the 28 or the 35 would be appreciated.

Cheers!

 

[jaap]

get them both they're so cheap and both outstanding!

 

[kbg32]

I'd recommend the 28. It is an outstanding lens. The 35 G series is not that great of a performing lens. It has been selling for a good price though.

 

[adonf]

Go for the 28 (and add the 45 later) ! This is really a stunning lens, and perfectly supported by the internal viewfinder : much precise framing and more compact setup than with a wider lens and an added viewfinder (yet, I also adore my 21 😉 ).

Here's a picture I made with the 28 :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=70393

 

[KoNickon]

The 28 is great, but there's nothing wrong with the 35 either. 35mm is more of an all around focal length, as you know.

 

[jaap]

they are both sharp from corner to corner at f4 with very high contrast

 

[Finder]

What angle of view do you want? Then get the focal length that gives you that.

 

[harmsr]

The 28 is a much better lens than the 35 optically.

I have a G2 but if I remember correctly, the G1 had to be modified or have the Green sticker inside the film compartment in order to use the 35.

Best,

Ray

 

[Quinn Porter]

I'd go for the 35mm for the extra stop. Everyone seems to believe the 28mm is optically superior, but the results from the 35mm are quite good.

 

[matthew J Shaw]

I'd go for the 35mm for the extra stop. Everyone seems to believe the 28mm is optically superior, but the results from the 35mm are quite good.

Too True!

I Love my 35mm!

I know people say the qaulity is not as good or its not so sharp, and in some awkward lighting I'v found this to be true, but never the less the 2 lenses I keep coming back to are my 35 and 21, I have the 28, but its probably my least used.

 

[charlesfoto]

My thought would be to get the 28, and after realizing just how good the G cameras are with those fabulous Zeiss lenses, you could add the 45/2, which may be one of the best lenses made, bar none.

 

[Joe Vitessa]

My vote is for the 28mm. One of the best wide angles I've ever used. Of course, I don't own the 35mm so I can't comment on that one!

Joe

 

[sepiareverb]

I'll agree with the majority that the 28 is a much better lens than the 35. I had all but the 16 & the zoom from the G series, the 35 was certainly my least used one of the bunch. My testing showed the G28 to be the near equal of the ZM28, one with a very good reputation.

 

[jaap]

I'll agree with the majority that the 28 is a much better lens than the 35. I had all but the 16 & the zoom from the G series, the 35 was certainly my least used one of the bunch. My testing showed the G28 to be the near equal of the ZM28, one with a very good reputation.

The difference between the G biogon an d Zm biogon is not mutch. But could it be the G Biogon is a little better ?🙄

 

[Doug]

I have both, and I'll bet you end up with both. 😀
I have absolutely no complaints about either the 28 or 35, and both can produce lovely results.