Used Elmarit 28/2.8 Vs New Zeiss ZM 28/2.8

J

Jochan

Established
Local time
7:48 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
57
If picking a 28mm, which one you prefer? A used elmarit 28 or a new zm 28? This question keep asking to myself, but still has no clue. Please help me out! :confused:
 
I don't recall seeing any comment anywhere from anyone saying that they have used the new ZI. Price wise, would the ZI and used Elmarit be the same, or would the ZI still be less? In the end I suspect that the ZI will be an excellent lens, as we know the Elmarit is.
 
Jochan, I agree with Rover. Both are/should be excellent lenses - although it is hard to imagine a better 28 mm lens than the current Leica Elmarit.

Much depends on your needs. What price have you seen for a used Elmarit? The Zeiss Biogon new is cheaper than anything I've seen for a used Elmarit even from 2 generations ago.

Is size an issue? The Zeiss is more compact than the Elmarit. If size is not an issue, it would be hard to go wrong with a Voigtlander 28/1.9, although it is much bigger than either of the other two.

Is close focusing an issue? The Biogon is capable of focusing down to 0.5 meters vs 0.7 m for the Elmarit.

If proven performance is what you are looking for, it's hard to go wrong with the Elmarit.
 
Unless you were planning to get a 3rd or 4th version elmarit, I would strongly consider the Ricoh 28/2.8 in the GR-1 series cameras. If you are not familiar with it, you may want to read Erwin Puts' review:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.htm

I haven't seen the ZI, but for $300 used, the ricoh is a pretty good alternative. Aside from the excellent lens itself, you also have a nice P&S, flash, etc. I pretty much just carry that in its leather case on my belt while travelling, and an M body with a 50.
 
I have a 25 year Elmarit that I bought new at the time. It seems to get better and better with age. I can't imagine a better lens. Every time I enlarge negatives from this lens, it just blows me away.

My 2 cents......
 
Last edited:
Let's give more information of these two lens.
Zeiss M mount 28mm/2.8 --- US$770 (Hongkong price)
Leica Elmarit 28mm/2.8 (used) --- US$800 (eday price found a mth ago)

I have this hypothesis. If I buy a used Elmarit 28 now, 10 yrs later it may still has the same value as now. Instead, a 10 yrs old used ZM 28mm maybe only half of the value as now. Of course this is assuming two lenses have the same quality in the image.

There are pros and cons here....still difficult to make up my mind yet...

Actually, it is difficult to describe what kind of lens I am looking for. I like mostly the Leica lens can produce. I.e. The subtlety colors on the shadow, the superb range of tone and gradation, etc. This can't be done by the Ultron 28 which I am having it.
 
Jochan, it depends on which version of the Elmarit you are getting for $800 & whether you want the "look" of that lens. Looking at it purely as optics, the Elmarit took a big jump in performance with each version, although less so from the third to the fourth. (The primary goal of the redesign for the fourth version was to make this lens more compact.) $800 is a great price for any of these lenses with a serial number over 2,000,000.

If you are looking at it as an investment, Leica has a proven track record, so Leica would seem to be the way to go. It is, however, difficult to predict where the values of any of these things will be in 10 years.

Since all of your reasons support a Leica purchase, go for it! I doubt that you'll regret it.
 
I have the Biogon 28mm in Contax G mount and it surprises me every time. I haven't used a Leica Elmarit-M 28, so I can't compare.
The Contax G Biogon 28 is nearly flareless, I haven't seen any vignetting and for my needs resolution and sharpness is as good as it can get.

I don't think the new 28mm Biogon in M-Mount will be worse, probably better, and I'd buy the new lens with warranty instead of a used one without.

Here is an uncropped example, Fuji Sensia 100 in a Contax G2 with Biogon 28 @f2.8
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huck, thanks for your information about the Elmarit. Well I think, at this moment, I would check for the recent price of a used Elmarit 28mm with the serial no. over 2,000,000 first. Maybe it is out of my budget already. Then, the choice is simple.

Socke, thanks for your lovely photos. I know Zeiss lens are good and believe ZM-mount would be better too.
 
My Elmarit 28 is a keeper. It's a 3rd gen I think. Very nice lens.

I don't know what the ZI prices are like. I think the Biogon 28 on b&h listed at $1,100. I got my Elmarit for $750. I think I can probably turn it for a profit today, and possibly down the road.

I can't think of any good reason to NOT get the Leica glass, but it all comes down to your personal preference.
 
Yes, Christopher, the Biogon is selling for $1042 at B&H, but USA prices are very high on this product. Jochan lives in Hong Kong, where I have a quote for $895 for the same lens & have seen reports that some stores are selling it for even less.

If he can find a third generation Elmarit 28 for $750 or anything close to that, he should jump on it. I haven't seen prices that low from dealers or on ebay lately. So, I think you could turn it for a profit today.
 
From the published MTF curves, the current Elmarit looks slightly better, especially in the zone 1/2 way to the edges, but the difference isn't huge. It's unlikely that you'd see a difference on that basis. Neither is nearly as good as the Summicron at f/2.8; in fact the Summicron at f/2 is as good as the Elmarit at f/2.8 overall.

As far as size goes, the Leica lenses are heavier but smaller than the equivalent Zeiss lenses for the most part. The Elmarit is about 10mm shorter than the Zeiss lens. Only the diameter of the 25 and 21 Zeiss lenses is less than the equivalent Leica lenses, but they are significantly longer.

The lenses might have different looks, but I think whether one prefers one or the other is probably more a matter of taste than quantifiable performance differences.

Henning
 
HenningW said:
From the published MTF curves, the current Elmarit looks slightly better, especially in the zone 1/2 way to the edges, but the difference isn't huge. It's unlikely that you'd see a difference on that basis. Neither is nearly as good as the Summicron at f/2.8; in fact the Summicron at f/2 is as good as the Elmarit at f/2.8 overall.

As far as size goes, the Leica lenses are heavier but smaller than the equivalent Zeiss lenses for the most part. The Elmarit is about 10mm shorter than the Zeiss lens. Only the diameter of the 25 and 21 Zeiss lenses is less than the equivalent Leica lenses, but they are significantly longer.

The lenses might have different looks, but I think whether one prefers one or the other is probably more a matter of taste than quantifiable performance differences.

Henning
Click to expand...

Henning, I agree with your read on the MTF information. Well said.

With the exception of the 35 Summicron, the Leica lenses are not smaller their Zeiss counterparts for the most part. This is a very frustrating issue because the published specs lead one exactly to what you have stated. However, Zeiss & Leica measure their lenses differently. Leica only mesures the portion of the lens that protrudes from the camera body. Zeiss measures the entire lens, including the lens mount. Sheesh, you'd think that there would be an industry standard. :rolleyes:

Fortunately Cosina measures their lenses the same way as Leica & since they assembled the Zeiss lenses, they report the Zeiss specs on their website (www.cosina.co.jp), using the Leica measuring system. Using this information, you can see that the 50 Planar is identical in length to the 50 Summicron, the 35 Summicron is more compact than the 35 Biogon, & the 28 Biogon is more compact than the 28 Elmarit.

Cheers,
Huck
 
Hmmmm.... I should have paid more attention. I handled all of the Zeiss lenses at Photokina and shot about a week with the 50. The 21 Zeiss is definitely longer than the Elmarit, and the 50 seems larger than the Summicron, and in fact about the same size as the 50/1.4 ASPH. The others didn't make that much of an impression on me, although I did think that the 35 was quite large at Photokina. I had my 35/1.4 ASPH with me, and put the 35 Zeiss lens on the camera and shot some with it. It seemed quite large for an f/2.


At Photokina the 15 and 85 were locked under glass, but those two were _huge_.

In any case, thanks for pointing the measurement system out to me.

Henning
 
Hasselblad USA had the 85 out (a prototype no doubt) last fall in NYC. It was a can of soup for sure.
 
I faced a similar dillema and found a mint 28/2.8 M Hexanon for $550. Sharpness and imaging rivals my 35/2 Asph. Summicron. Build quality equals or exceeds anything Leica makes now with no expense spared in it's construction. Optically, it's design is a virtual clone of the current 28 Elmarit M. Photodo rated slightly it better than the Elmarit. I suspect that the Biogon will image equally well or better but may not be as super heavy duty as the Leica or Konica lens on hard knocks. Only time will tell in that aspect
 
Like awilder, if Konica had better marketing with her Hexar RF, and her lenses, probabbly today, all my lens were Hexanons. For me, its the best compromise between, construction/quality/priced. IMHO Konica have the best quality/priced in the RF world. Better even Canon, Voigtlander and Zeiss.

I think that none RF´s photograph will be able to say that Leica lens are better in one photgraph paper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom