which 28mm lens?

[FrankS]

I really enjoy using the 28mm focal length with my slr cameras. So I'm looking for a 28mm lens for my RF cameras. I had a Serenar 28f3.5, loved it but traded for another lens I wanted more at the time (Summaron f2.8). Lately I've been looking for a CV28. Just now, I've found a Minolta 28f2.8 for $350 with no white spots. This is the top end of my budget. Does anyone have any comparitive experience with these lenses? Thoughts?

 

[back alley]

the minolta is a fine lens, sharp but not clinically so, less contrasty than the cv 3.5 but more than a canon 28.
i have had 2 copies of the rokkor and both worked great.

350 is not a bad price either.

 

[ferider]

The Rokkor is sharper than the Color Skopar at all f-stops, but has a little less contrast. It brings up 35mm framelines, that might bother you. Even on the M2 that would bother me, I prefer to shoot 28 on the M2 with 90mm framelines. The Rokkor focuses down to 0.8m while the Color Skopar goes down to 0.7m. The Rokkor is quite small. Unless Minolta changed the front element, white spots can show up in the future. The only smaller f2.8 lens is the Canon. A great lens with a more classic signature (vignetting, etc.). Ted/Ampguy might have one for sale. Here's for size reference:

The biggest bang for the buck, IMO, is the 28/1.9. Sharper than all three, speed is great for selective focus even for such a wide lens, not too much contrast, zero distortion (if you check flickr, you'll see that the 28/1.9 has noticeably less distortion than the CV 28/2), just all around an optically "clean" and great lens.

Both Canon 28/2.8 and Ultron might show a little more sample variation than other brands.

I've had all of them. My keepers today are the 28/1.9 and Canon 28/2.8. The only other lens that really interests me, is the M-Hex 28/2.8.

Roland.

 

[kermaier]

I have the M-Rokkor (front element cleaned by FocalPoint); the Canon 28/2.8 (CLA by DAG); the Canon 28/3.5 black/chrome (haze cleaned by Essex); and the Skopar 28/3.5.

The M-Rokkor is my current favorite. Sharp, less contrasty than the Skopar, but still "modern" in flavor, fast enough for a 28mm and quite small for an f/2.8.

The Canon f/2.8 comes out in bright sunlight, as it's much less contrasty than the others. It's also less sharp than the others, including the Canon f/3.5, but that's probably variable with individual sample. The Canon f/3.5 is also very nice, and a bit easier to find than the f/2.8.

The Skopar is all around a great lens. Maybe even sharper than the M-Rokkor to my eye, but that could be just perceived sharpness due to higher contrast. Very small and well made. If you shoot film (and can control contrast in dev), and if you don't need the extra speed, try to get the Skopar. It's maybe harder to find right now than the M-Rokkor (strangely enough), but it's a keeper and trouble-free.

I used a CV Ultron f/1.9 briefly. Great lens, but twice the size of the largest of the others we're discussing here.

Ari

 

[fbf]

I like the canon 28/2.8 a lot. I had two and both were in mint condition. I regret selling them. It's tiny and well made.
I still have the CV 28/3.5. I like how it renders but sometimes I find it too sharp and contrasty for my taste.

 

[ferider]

Here is a Rokkor vs Color Skopar comparison. Both good samples, Rokkor front is clean:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Tests/MR-vs-CS/8235689_C5d9Q

All center crops of a shot of my typical test target, a neighbor's antenna about 30m away. Differences can be seen when looking at the largest picture size ("O").

Roland.

 

[tbarker13]

Another vote for the CV28/1.9. Great lens.
I've also had a couple of the canon 28/2.8s. Hard not to like that lens, particularly given its tiny size. But there was something lacking - in my samples - in its performance wide open. If I didn't shoot wide open so much, I'd still have one.

 

[FrankS]

Many thanks! (RFF is the best.)

I'm leaning towards the physically smaller lenses.

 

[ampguy]

I love the Canon 28/2.8. Less contrasty and sharp than a modern 28 (ideal fro b/w), but smaller and lighter, and recessed lens design doesn't really need a hood (although 40-xx adapters are widely available).

I'd probably sell my M-Hex 28/2.8 w/ box and orig. hood at a loss before selling the Canon. The M-Hex is sharper and still lower contrast than say the Leica asph 28/2.8, but is huge sized, relative to the Canon.

Some color samples with RD1 and Canon 28/2.8 lens, all out of camera JPGs:

I had a 28/1.9 for awhile, and the 1.9 and 2 were really soft, could have been a bad sample, had more flare than the M-Hex and Canon. Also had the CV 28/3.5, good lens, but too slow for my needs, and oddly, it vignetted a lot. Again, maybe a weird sample.

here

bw photos here

 

[pawel glogowski]

I went for 28/3.5 CV and would switch it only for 28/2.8 ASPH.
The rest is either too big, or has something that i really don't like about it.

 

[back alley]

i just returned from flickr, where i watched several slideshows, all images made from various small 28s, and it's hard to find a loser in the bunch.
sure, they are different from each other but i think i could live with any of them.

 

[Rico]

I really like the 28mm FOV (in 135 format), and use the splendid CZ D28/2.8 for Contax RTS. There are so many intriguing choices for RF: Leica Summicron ASPH, Elmarit v3/v4, CV Skopar, Konica, CZ Biogon ZM. I also considered the Summaron 28/5.6 for classical image rendition and use on my Barnack. Finally, I went insane, and bought the Elmarit ASPH. 🙂 This arrived yesterday, and clearly fits the bill for compact size, nice DOF scale, and usability (focus tab). For current Leica product, it's decently priced - especially 2nd hand.

 

[FrankS]

My budget is much smaller than a used Elmarit ASPH.

 

[Bingley]

I am very very happy with the CV Skopar 28/3.5. It's small, rugged, and produces great results in both bw and color. I don't find it overly contrasty. I use it outdoors, so the slower speed isn't a problem. For street and landscapes, it's great. I like being able to use it on my IIIc as well as my M-mount cameras.

 

[back alley]

my canon 28 seems to have some edge softness but in only some of the images (why?) so i will likely use the cv 28 when hitting the streets.

the canon might be kinda cool for active snowing scenes

frank, you should be able to get a cv 28/3.5 within your budget.

are you selling some gear for a cash transaction instead of trying to trade?
i find trades very hard to match/make.

 

[FrankS]

I've had no luck with a want to trade ad, so I am trying to sell some gear.

Possible sale to Norway of a Rolleiflex for $200, but the shipping is high - will have to hear back.

On Craigslist, I have a Nikon FE with Vivitar 21mm listed for $150.

 

[back alley]

have you taken the flickr tour?
great way to spend some time.

 

[FrankS]

I don't see much value in trying to evaluate a lens over a computer screen.

 

[Tim Gray]

They are all pretty good. I'd go for the CV 28/3.5. It's a great lens. While I like the Leica 28/2 more, the CV is a much better bargain and is about half the size. Maybe even smaller. Great lens for outdoors.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I have 3 28mm lenses: a CV 28mm f3.5, a Hexanon 28mm f2.8, and a Zeiss Ikon 28mm f2.8 Biogon.

Here are the differences:
the CV 28mm f3.5 is very small and light
the Hexanon is larger but f2.8
The Zeiss Ikon Biogon is ContaxG mount.

All are sharp. All have contrast that becomes the same when adjusted to make a print. I cannot tell the difference in large prints made from any of the three.

They are all much better lenses than I am a photographer. I could be very happy with any one of the three.

Frank, I suggest you think about the CV f3.5 because it is the cheapest. Besides I remember you like to carry many lenses and change them so you could appreciate the size and light weight. I think I could use another stop (f2.8) only about once a year. Then I make due by squeezing off a few shots hand held at 1/15.