which 28mm lens is the best?

[Uwe_Nds]

How interesting, and very curious. I wonder if there's any possibility of ghosting of any sort - did you have a filter on? (I know it's only a remote possibility - the "double images" look too bright to be ghosts). But (in my non-expert thoughts) that double-imaging really looks like it would need a pretty bad fault to produce.


I guess it's possible you had two bad ones, but very unlucky. Though if it really is such a badly flawed design, I wouldn't have expected Tom A to be so impressed with his example. I wonder if it's just really bad quality control?

Anyway, thanks for the example - it's enough to make me rethink my half-plan to get one.

Alan,
No filters on both lens.
And the double images were present in both copies I tried.

Tom used his copy on b&w film whereas I used mine on the M8. Maybe it's an "incompatibility" of the Ultron with the sensor?

It would be interesting to read experiences of others with the Ultron on the M8.
If you look up flickr.com, there are only 7 pictures taken with the Ultron on the M8:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=ultron+28/2+m8

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[sanmich]

Just a word about canon/serenars:

I have canon lenses, and they are great. I find only ONE thing problematic, and it is the minimum focusing distance. For me, 1m is too long for wides. I have hard times to bear it on my 35mm and keep the lens only because it's the 1.5. I would not buy a canon or serenar 28mm for this reason. OTHO, if your main photographic interest is in landscapes....

Also, If someone is interested by my VC Ultron, drop me a note...

 

[oscroft]

Tom used his copy on b&w film whereas I used mine on the M8. Maybe it's an "incompatibility" of the Ultron with the sensor?

Yes, I guess that must be a possibility - the design of the rear elements unable to cope with the higher reflectivity of a digital sensor, or something like that? That would probably fit with the double-images being in the direction away from the centre, and might also explain the lack of sharpness in the centre (an on-axis reflection might just blur the details).

If you look up flickr.com, there are only 7 pictures taken with the Ultron on the M8:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=ultron+28/2+m8

And the last one is a picture of Tom A! But yes, there's not much in the way of in-focus contrasty stuff in the corners of those to be able to tell much (and most of them aren't big enough anyway).

 

[peter_n]

It depends on your definition of "best". I guess most people go for sharpness but I go for signature or "look". I hardly use my 28 but I have a Hexanon and I like the way it draws an image. Below is an old one that I've posted here a couple times before to illustrate the look. Shot at f2.8.

 

[Krosya]

Another vote for m-Hexanon. I dont use 28mm all that much, but Hexanon is so good it almost makes me use it more than I'd normal do so:

 

[Avotius]

I am a strong supporter of the Zeiss 28 biogon because I really like the qualities that zeiss lenses lend to the image capture process. They are high contrast but they dont blow highlights as easy and they are masters of capturing micro contrast which really helps add dimensionality to the images like in this photo below which previously I would have only expected this look from a medium format negative:

 

[Avotius]

The CV 28mm Ultron f1.8 is honestly one of my favorites. I used it exclusively over the past six months and have made plenty of great images with it.

I love the classic tones you got out of the lens with these two pictures really neat stuff there and two great captures.

 

[sepiareverb]

If anything will do, get the cheapest one. If you want "the best", the 28/2.0 ASPH is my vote, closely followed by the 28/2.8 ASPH.

 

[BillBingham2]

From a size/price perspective I'd go with the old CV 28/3.5. My gut tells me the earlier comment on the new 28/2 should return it to where it came from for fixing. Everything I've seen says it's a keeper, but YMMV. I know lots of people who love the 1.8, but for me size is important, smaller is better.

B2 (;->

 

[thomasw_]

Tom A has tested the leica 28s beside the new ultron 28/2 and claims the new ultron is better then the leica 28/2,8, and slightly softer in the corners but sharper in the image center than summicron 28. I don't know what to think of the attempts to objectively define or characterize the different rendering of the 28s, but I do know I like the summicron and ultron 28/2s the most, with the elmarit 28/2,8 and cv 28/3,5 being tied in a close second. After examining images for yourself on the m-mount group, I think you've just got to choose the lens for the rendering you like and can afford.

 

[sepiareverb]

...After examining images for yourself on the m-mount group, I think you've just got to choose the lens for the rendering you like and can afford.

Precisely right. For what I'm doing, the Summicron is the best choice. But we've each got our own idea of what 'perfect' or 'best' is.

 

[kermaier]

As has been said, the Canon 28/3.5 is very good and amazingly compact. The earlier chrome version is the smallest, but even the later black/chrome version is very compact. There's another thread in the R-D1 forum with some great pics IMO) from this lens. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62729

FYI, I saw that there's a black/chrome 28/3.5 for sale by Koh's Camera right now http://www.kohscamera.com/ (no affiliation with Mr. Koh, just a satisfied customer). If I didn't already have one I'd buy it.

 

[noah b]

I think im gonna go with the canon, my main use would be for hyperfocal distancing and I'm on a budget 😛

 

[b.espahbod]

I say Summaron 28 5.6, Hektor 28 6.3 and Elmarit 28 2.8 asph (Current) all these three have NO distortion, perfect sharpness, best colour tones (Leica natural tones) and you can find them with reasonable prices. I like Zeiss Biogon 28 specially for its Zeiss-like industrial cool tones and extremely well controled flare and razor sharp images, cant beat it, its a Zeiss heritage! canon serenar 28 is a nice lens too but just nice

 

[jbf]

I am a strong supporter of the Zeiss 28 biogon because I really like the qualities that zeiss lenses lend to the image capture process. They are high contrast but they dont blow highlights as easy and they are masters of capturing micro contrast which really helps add dimensionality to the images like in this photo below which previously I would have only expected this look from a medium format negative:

Thanks, Colin! I have a horrible sense of color (and im sure colorblindness doesnt help either on my part) and am always enamored by your color work. I wish I had even half the sense of color as you did. 🙂

 

[raid]

I have three 28mm RF lenses. The Canon 28mm/3.5 was the least expensive of the three. It looks super cool, is tiny, is shiny, is very sharp.
My second 28mm lens is a Minolta Rokkor 28mm/2.8 in M mount. It is of the same optical quality as a Leica made 28mm lens of its vintage.
The more recently bought 28mm lens is a Kobalux 28mm/3.5. It promises to be a different lens from the other two. It gives beautiful rendition of people (in color).

You can't go wrong with a 28mm lens.