dfoo
Well-known
I'm in the market for a 28mm lens. I've done some looking around, but haven't really seen an comparisons on these two lenses. I know the 2.0 is slightly smaller than the 2.0, but what other differences are there?
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
In my experience:
1.9 is softer wide open or at f:2 than the 2.0 is wide open -- I perceive this as a drop in contrast and an increase in abberation. The f:2 lens tends to shift focus at 2.8-4-5.6 and you have to learn to compensate for this in practice -- which I have not found to be a big deal, but must be done for optimum performance. By f:8 the problem is covered by depth of focus. I have not noticed a focus-shift with the 1.9, but it does have lower contrast.
The 1.9 comes with a cloth lined lens-cap that slips over a removable tulip shade; the f:2 has a Zeiss pinchy-style lens cap that slips under the shallow round built-in shade. I prefer the 1.9 approach on this, for what it's worth.
I have both lenses in black and the finish tends to wear to the brass with repeated handling. This is consistent with other Zeiss/CV lenses that I own.
Sean Reid has excellent write-ups on these lenses, including test photos at his (IMHO worthwhile) paid site reidreviews.com. Tom Abrahmson also likes his f:2.0 lens and you can see many examples of images made with it on his excellent flickr site.
If I had to choose one, I'd chose the 2.0 as I tend to use lenses wide open in interior spaces, but that's just me. Good luck with your choice.
1.9 is softer wide open or at f:2 than the 2.0 is wide open -- I perceive this as a drop in contrast and an increase in abberation. The f:2 lens tends to shift focus at 2.8-4-5.6 and you have to learn to compensate for this in practice -- which I have not found to be a big deal, but must be done for optimum performance. By f:8 the problem is covered by depth of focus. I have not noticed a focus-shift with the 1.9, but it does have lower contrast.
The 1.9 comes with a cloth lined lens-cap that slips over a removable tulip shade; the f:2 has a Zeiss pinchy-style lens cap that slips under the shallow round built-in shade. I prefer the 1.9 approach on this, for what it's worth.
I have both lenses in black and the finish tends to wear to the brass with repeated handling. This is consistent with other Zeiss/CV lenses that I own.
Sean Reid has excellent write-ups on these lenses, including test photos at his (IMHO worthwhile) paid site reidreviews.com. Tom Abrahmson also likes his f:2.0 lens and you can see many examples of images made with it on his excellent flickr site.
If I had to choose one, I'd chose the 2.0 as I tend to use lenses wide open in interior spaces, but that's just me. Good luck with your choice.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I too have both the 28f1.9 and the 28f2.0. Of the two I prefer the f2.0 version. It is smaller and has better overall performance. Particularly wide open and also close up.
I did a test shoot between the Summicron 28f2 and the Ultron 28f2. Corners of the Ultron are slightly softer at f2 (not enough to cause a problem) but center sharpness is better with the Ultron. By the time you hit f4 - i could not tell the difference between them! I am still looking for that much discussed focus shift at f4-5.6. Still haven't found it! It could be something that only shows up with M8's = I am still shooting film only.
I did a test shoot between the Summicron 28f2 and the Ultron 28f2. Corners of the Ultron are slightly softer at f2 (not enough to cause a problem) but center sharpness is better with the Ultron. By the time you hit f4 - i could not tell the difference between them! I am still looking for that much discussed focus shift at f4-5.6. Still haven't found it! It could be something that only shows up with M8's = I am still shooting film only.
__hh
Well-known
Canon someone please explain to me - what does "focus shift at X-Y" mean?
thomasw_
Well-known
Focus shifting occurs at an aperature when your rangefinder tells you are in focus but you aren't. The focus shift can be backward or forward of the intended object, too. At f4-5,6, I have not noticed this on any ultron f2 version images made with film.
__hh
Well-known
Thanks Thomas.
So, does it mean that I could be focusing accurately at, say, 2m at F2. However, changing to F4 will mean that the result will be slightly out of focus?
So, does it mean that I could be focusing accurately at, say, 2m at F2. However, changing to F4 will mean that the result will be slightly out of focus?
rocheung
Established
If it can be forward or backward,, it could be normal
jky
Well-known
...haven't noticed focus shift on my f2.0 ultron...
I don't particularly go out of my way to look for it though - i figure if I notice it then it's bad. So far so good...
I don't particularly go out of my way to look for it though - i figure if I notice it then it's bad. So far so good...
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Given the amount of DOF a 28mm produces at f4.0 - 5.6 I think anyone is going to be looking for a very long time to find that focus shift...
I saw your pics, Tom and am seriously thinking about getting one of these. I had the 1.9/28, but it intruded too much on the viewfinder, so I sold it. I would like a 2/28 ASPH, but unfortunately I would first have to rob a bank. Oh, wait. They are also broke.
Never mind.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I have had the 1.9 version for a while, got a bad case of GAS for the 2.0 when it first came out, then I farted and felt better . The 1.9 flares when the sun comes into play...sometimes. IMHO it adds something to the shot. I haven't taken any "brick wall" portraits yet so I cannot comment on that part. For handheld shots it a great lens with more possibility then I am capable of wringing out of it. Either one will make you happy so get it, shoot it, and be happy.
1.9 at f1.9
somewhere around f8-f11
Todd
. The 1.9 flares when the sun comes into play...sometimes. IMHO it adds something to the shot. I haven't taken any "brick wall" portraits yet so I cannot comment on that part. For handheld shots it a great lens with more possibility then I am capable of wringing out of it. Either one will make you happy so get it, shoot it, and be happy.1.9 at f1.9
somewhere around f8-f11
Todd
T
tedwhite
Guest
Todd, #2 - the biker guy with the dog - really gives one the opportunity to see what a great lens it is. I borrowed the 28/1.9 from fellow RFF member desertshooter and loved it - almost. What I didn't love was the protrusion of the lenshood into the viewfinder. I think I'll get the 2.0 just for that reason. I can't imagine it would be any less of a lens. What do you think?
Turtle
Veteran
Given the amount of DOF a 28mm produces at f4.0 - 5.6 I think anyone is going to be looking for a very long time to find that focus shift...
I saw your pics, Tom and am seriously thinking about getting one of these. I had the 1.9/28, but it intruded too much on the viewfinder, so I sold it. I would like a 2/28 ASPH, but unfortunately I would first have to rob a bank. Oh, wait. They are also broke.
Never mind.
Maybe up close you would see it - portraits/environmental people shots. Even at 28mm, f4 still has a pretty narrow DOF at short range - say a metre. No idea whether this really is visible in practice on this lens, but whereas at range such things might not matter, nailing a portrait up close is another matter. I would imagine (I do not know) that shift would be evident with both film and sensor, but could be worse on sensor due to lacking the depth of an emulsion. An inch or two of shift is not going to matter a bit though if shooting 'scenes' a good few metres away at f4-5.6 though. You can get away with zone focus is you know a moderately accurate estimation of where the subject will be at 5.6 on a 28mm. I used f11 on my Mamiya 65mm like this recently and it has the same DOF at this aperture as the 28 at 5.6. At f16 it was easy. My only worry with this lens would be close up at f4-5.6. Its odd; some users say no problems at all and others have said they are really frustrated.
T
tedwhite
Guest
As my M6 has no frameline for a 28mm lens, should I simply assume that - slightly more or slightly less - the entire viewfinder picture is an approximate equivalent to what the lens sees?
I hope someone will answer this question as I'd like to make a decision tonight.
I hope someone will answer this question as I'd like to make a decision tonight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Photon42
burn the box
A normal M8 does have the 28 framelines. Do you have the .85 finder built-in? In this case, I don't know by own experience. I'd assume, however, the full finder would be an acceptable approximation for the 28 field of view. Don't you have a SLR with a 28mm focal length (or comparable in case of APS-sized digi sensors), where you can compare, what you see and what you are supposed to see?
Regards
Ivo
Regards
Ivo
T
tedwhite
Guest
That's a good idea, Ivo. And yes, I do have a Super Takumar 28/3.5 and a Pentax Spotmatic body, so I can do the comparison. I ordered the lens from the bartender last night.
ruilebreiro
Member
wow Tom, very high standart you are putting here for the Ultron
have to do some research on this ultron
rui