Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 vs. Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8?

[jsrockit]

I currently own and use a Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 lens and have owned the Zeiss 28mm and the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 in the past. Out of all three, I preferred the Zeiss, but didn't like the size of it. I liked the Ultron the least. The 28mm CV 3.5 is a good lens... but it doesn't have something special about it (except the price). As my 35mm lens I use the Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 and love it... it seems "magical" compared to the CV 28mm f/3.5. I'm not interested in the older / larger 28mm Elmarit lenses.

With all of my opinion and preferences above taken into account ... will the Elmarit ASPH be a significant step up from the CV 28mm f/3.5 in regards to color, the way it handles constrast, distortion, micro-contrast, sharpness? Or, am I just chasing incremental differences at this point? I would be using this on a Leica M8.2.

 

[thompsonks]

For limited budget I'd get Zeiss. I've owned a CV that had a soft corner (poor QC) & an Elmarit, which I found unpleasantly contrasty.

See ReidReviews – worth the subscription price. His opinion is that the Elmarit isn't a very good 'sunny day' lens.

Now I use a Summicron when 'really' shooting with M9, & a Zeiss on my carry-around-all-the-time M8.

IMO you're pursuing insignificant differences until you decide to save for a Summicron.

Kirk

 

[theno23]

The Elmarit certainly is very contrasty, which can be an issue if you like softer renditions. I find the micro contrast the be excellent though, and the levels of distortion are also very good.

When shooting digital I often have to bring up the shadows, but overall I think it's very good value for money.

- Steve

 

[jsrockit]

I just feel the CV has a generic look to the images it draws. However, high contrast, while I like it, doesn't make me feel good when it comes to blown highlights on digital. I hate that the lens is f/3.5 as well... the CV that is.

 

[ferider]

Try a good 28/1.9. Can be quite amazing wrt resolution, and does have a little lower contrast. Even Puts gave it a very good review.

The special "feature" of the 28/3.5 is high micro-contrast with lower resolution. Much like a Summicron of the 70s. f3.5 and f2.8 is quite close and makes no practical difference for me. f1.9 is a different story.

 

[JeffNYC]

I currently own and use a Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 lens and have owned the Zeiss 28mm and the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 in the past. Out of all three, I preferred the Zeiss, but didn't like the size of it. I liked the Ultron the least. The 28mm CV 3.5 is a good lens... but it doesn't have something special about it (except the price). As my 35mm lens I use the Zeiss C-Biogon f/2.8 and love it... it seems "magical" compared to the CV 28mm f/3.5. I'm not interested in the older / larger 28mm Elmarit lenses.

With all of my opinion and preferences above taken into account ... will the Elmarit ASPH be a significant step up from the CV 28mm f/3.5 in regards to color, the way it handles constrast, distortion, micro-contrast, sharpness? Or, am I just chasing incremental differences at this point? I would be using this on a Leica M8.2.

John,
I tried a 28mm f2 asph on an M9 at the Expo yesterday.

I think that might be the ultimate combination...
Spectacular images in low light.

Jeff

 

[aldobonnard]

neither... I'm slightly deluded in favour of my Canon 28mm f/2.8 which has the same character as my Summilux 35mm pre-asph, and for me it's great. I would recommend that little gem.
I wouldn't have had the Canon, I would have bought the VC 28/3.5, the closest in size and character.

 

[Renzsu]

Elmarit 28 ASPH is pretty close to perfect, as in no noticeable distortion, very sharp and quite contrasty. To say that this isn't a sunny day lens is rubbish imho. I've taken perfectly fine shots with this in very bright light.
What it might lack a bit is character, but for me that's alright, since I shoot it closed down most of the times anyway, which usually tones down 'character' on any lens.
The fact that it's so small is another benefit. It's not cheap, but a pretty excellent lens I have to say.

 

[akk2]

i got both CV28/3.5 and 28/2.8apsh. 28/2.8 is near prefect except contrast is a little bit high. On my m9 and I could bring out high light and shadow details with out problem. The 28/3.5 has even more contrast and I mostly use it in shade or overcast days.

 

[peewee]

I am getting the elmarit 28mm pre ash 4th version. I think this lens is the same size as leica 28mm 2.0..versions 1,2 and 3 were larger i think?

 

[jsrockit]

Right, the only small one is the ASPH E39 version. The rest are E46 or E49 if I remember correctly. I've decided to get the Elmarit ASPH ... I just need to sell my leica If and Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 before I can do it...

 

[jsrockit]

Ok, so I was able to buy a 28mm Elmarit ASPH. I'll let you all know what i think versus the 28mm Zeiss and CV 3.5 I've used recently.

 

[MCTuomey]

very interested in your comparison of those three lenses, john. too bad the c-biogon had to go, but looks like you'll really have the 28 FL dialed now.

 

[jsrockit]

very interested in your comparison of those three lenses, john. too bad the c-biogon had to go, but looks like you'll really have the 28 FL dialed now.

Well, I haven't sold either the CV 28mm or the Zeiss 35mm yet... but I need to sell them to pay for part of the Elmarit and to pick up a "fast" (and cheaper) lens like the ones in my sig. 🙂

The Zeiss is wonderful, but as my 50mm equiv on the M8, I'd rather have speed than perfection. One day, when I can warrant more than one lens at a focal length, I will add the Zeiss again.

The most important thing is that I now have a Leica lens at my favorite focal length...and I haven't had that since the 90s.

 

[sprokitt]

I have the 28/2.8 on an M8. My only complaint is speed. While the 28 makes fantastic images its kind of slow for available light. If I had it to do again I would go for a 28/2 from either Leica or CV. Given what I've seen of the CV I would probably save the $$ and get it.

 

[jsrockit]

I didn't like the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 at all. I didn't find it to be that sharp wide open and after using the CV 28mm f/3.5 and the Zeiss 28mm (both of which I liked better than the Ultron), I knew there was only one other place to look... Leica. I won't let myself spend the $4000 to get the F/2 Leica, so the Elmarit will have to do. Plus, I like small lenses.

 

[monochromejrnl]

I didn't like the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 at all. I didn't find it to be that sharp wide open and after using the CV 28mm f/3.5 and the Zeiss 28mm (both of which I liked better than the Ultron), I knew there was only one other place to look... Leica. I won't let myself spend the $4000 to get the F/2 Leica, so the Elmarit will have to do. Plus, I like small lenses.

How does the 28/2.8 Elmarit Asph. compare with the VC28/3.5? What are your impressions?

 

[jsrockit]

How does the 28/2.8 Elmarit Asph. compare with the VC28/3.5? What are your impressions?

Well ... 😱 ... it comes in the mail tomorrow. My sig was a little premature due to my excitement. I'll let you guys know in a week or two. It'll just be my opinion and there won't be any scientific tests with 100% crops or corner shots. The CV 28/3.5 is actually a really good lens...

 

[monochromejrnl]

Ah, looking forward to it. I've never used the 28/2.8 asph and it was the only lens I was really tempted to buy but the CV stopped me. Having said that I miss the 28mm FOV and considering 'replacing' the VC28 with the Panasonic 14/2.5 (totally different animal but gives me the equivalent FOV)... looking forward to reading your impressions of the 28/2.8 asph (living vicariously through you 😉

 

[sahe69]

I wonder if you had a specific reason to exclude the Konica 28 M-Hexanon, or did you just overlook it?