Which CV 28?

[ambientmick]

I recently got an R-D1S and I am trying to decide between the CV 28 1.9 and CV 28 3.5. I've read Sean Reid's lens roundup and he clearly prefers the 1.9 but what is the opinion here and how much of the viewfinder is blocked by the lens hood? Does it cover any of the 28mm frame? I mostly shoot B&W and the vignetting difference is not much of an issue for me. I guess the 1.9 would be a better lens but the size difference bothers me as I currently have the 40mm 1.4 which is tiny. Is it practical to use the 28 3.5 in lowish light? Thanks.

 

[ambientmick]

They have both very different characteristics. The 1.9 significantly intrudes in the viewfinder. Depends what you shoot, landscapes vs. street vs. portraits, B+W vs color, etc.

The correct RFF answer is "get both" A good combo is also the 28/3.5 and the 35/1.7 (the 35/1.7 behaves very similar to the 28/1.9).

Roland.

Thanks for the reply. I mostly shoot street. Getting both is not an option because having 2 lenses of the same focal length means carrying more 'stuff'. I'd rather have a good allrounder rather than have to change lenses often. The 40/1.4 I already have, a 28 and possibly something wider (15mm maybe) are probably all I'll ever want. The 35/1.7 seems a lttle pointless given I have the 40/1.4.

You say that the 1.9 'significantly intrudes in the viewfinder' but does it cover any of the 28mm viewfinder area and if it doesn't intrude with the hood off, how prone is this lens to flare?

 

[ambientmick]

I just tried on my M6: the 1.9 without hood intrudes into the 28mm lines far enough to just about touch the 50mm framelines. I don't know about flare since I always use the hood. It's difficult to answer since both lenses are very good. The 3.5 is better built than most CV lenses.

I guess for B+W street photography, if you want high contrast and normal DOF, the 3.5 is the better answer. I'm not a street shooter, maybe Ray, can you comment ? The 1.9 is a real big lens but has great OOF behavior. Here are four example photos:

1.9:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/197491/1/53320365

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/196931/2/68973552

3.5:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/196931/1/11876432

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/1647713

Roland.

Great pictures. If the 1.9 intrudes that much on the R-D1S, it is too much for me so the 3.5 is a better choice. Unless there is a better option that is reasonably priced. Anybody compared the CV options with the Zeiss 28/2.8. I guess I could save up for the 'right' lens.

 

[jvr]

Thanks for the reply. I mostly shoot street. Getting both is not an option because having 2 lenses of the same focal length means carrying more 'stuff'. I'd rather have a good allrounder rather than have to change lenses often. The 40/1.4 I already have, a 28 and possibly something wider (15mm maybe) are probably all I'll ever want. The 35/1.7 seems a lttle pointless given I have the 40/1.4.

You say that the 1.9 'significantly intrudes in the viewfinder' but does it cover any of the 28mm viewfinder area and if it doesn't intrude with the hood off, how prone is this lens to flare?

Hi,

I have the RD-1s, had both lenses and still keep the Ultron. Without the hood, it does not block the 28 framelines. WIth the hood, it blocks a bit vertically (maybe 1/6th to 1/5th of the framelines) and more horizontally (around 1/4th to 1/3rd), when focused on the 0.7m mark. When focused on infinity, it blocks a lot less, still a bit horizontally.

The Skopar is _much_ lighter and smaller. It's sharp enough but it vignettes a lot on the Epson. And it's much slower than the Ultron. Mechanicaly speaking, the Ultron is also more robust and build quality is better generally speaking. Moreover, the rendering I get from the Ultron is very unique: lots of detail but low contrast and I like that kind of image for B&W: it's easy to bump up contrast in Photoshop and it gives beutiful tones. I was expecting the 28 Skopar to perform as the 35 Skopar PII (which I own), but at least my sample didn't. So, the Skopar went.

Regarding flare, the Ultron does not show ghosts either with spot sources in the image or just outside the frame. Flare appears a global "haze", lowering the contrast, more than anything else. It behaves like my old Leica lenses in that respect.

This is different from my two other CV lenses and even the Zeiss Biogon: they tend to keep contrast even with flare but show some "ghost" image around the spot light (see pictures I took for this post, all at f/8. I can post the images wide-open but they are more or less the same regarding flare, or even better). I'm posting only pictures of the 35/2.5 Skopar, the worse of the three "new lenses" I own in this regard (but not very different from the Biogon 21/2.8 or the Nokton 50/1.5...).

I always keep the hood on, not because I see a big difference regarding flare (again, see images, the difference is small) but because it protects the lens from bumps. I could use a filter instead but filters tend to be much worse regarding flare.

Please notice that these are "torture" tests that most lenses would not be confortable with. And that they were all done in aperture priority: light conditions are not exactly the same so exposure is different. But you can see the points (I hope!).

If you don't really need a f/2 lens, the new Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit (or the Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon) is probably worth the difference, if you can spend it: more contrast and saturation, not to mention the size: it's much smaller and light. BTW, I don't have a problem with weight but the Ultron is longer than most 28s, which makes it a bad lens to carry in a small bag/briefcase.

Otherwise, the Ultron is a very good lens in absolute terms and a steal regarding price: the 28/2 Summicron ASPH is much more expensive.

As I have the Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon almost always on the Epson, and switch to the Skopar 35/2.5 or the Nokton 50/1.5 for tighter crops, the Ultron is really useful (for me) in two situations:

1) When using flash and trying to cover the largest possible field (the 21/2.8 or the 12/5.6 require an external viewfinder on the hotshoe). In those occasions, I tipically use the lens between f/5.6 and f/8 and you can cut yourself on the sharpness of those high-constrat 200 ASA shots...

2) When I'll be shooting B&W for sure. The Ultron has a wonderful rendition in B&W on the Epson. It requires a bit of contrast "bump" when used wide-open but tonality and detail are lovely. The Ultron is my "most-used" lens for B&W.

The Ultron is perfectly capable of very good images, even wide-open, if you enjoy the lower contrast it gives you. It even can be "Photoshoped" to look similar very easily to other lenses, with a small bump of local contrast. And it matches very well the 28 framelines of the RD-1s.

I only find it lacking in low-light, low-contrast situation, where the "flat" rendering can become too flat.

 

[ambientmick]

Hi,

I have the RD-1s, had both lenses and still keep the Ultron. Without the hood, it does not block the 28 framelines. WIth the hood, it blocks a bit vertically (maybe 1/6th to 1/5th of the framelines) and more horizontally (around 1/4th to 1/3rd), when focused on the 0.7m mark. When focused on infinity, it blocks a lot less, still a bit horizontally.

The Skopar is _much_ lighter and smaller. It's sharp enough but it vignettes a lot on the Epson. And it's much slower than the Ultron. Mechanicaly speaking, the Ultron is also more robust and build quality is better generally speaking. Moreover, the rendering I get from the Ultron is very unique: lots of detail but low contrast and I like that kind of image for B&W: it's easy to bump up contrast in Photoshop and it gives beutiful tones. I was expecting the 28 Skopar to perform as the 35 Skopar PII (which I own), but at least my sample didn't. So, the Skopar went.

Regarding flare, the Ultron does not show ghosts either with spot sources in the image or just outside the frame. Flare appears a global "haze", lowering the contrast, more than anything else. It behaves like my old Leica lenses in that respect.

This is different from my two other CV lenses and even the Zeiss Biogon: they tend to keep contrast even with flare but show some "ghost" image around the spot light (see pictures I took for this post, all at f/8. I can post the images wide-open but they are more or less the same regarding flare, or even better). I'm posting only pictures of the 35/2.5 Skopar, the worse of the three "new lenses" I own in this regard (but not very different from the Biogon 21/2.8 or the Nokton 50/1.5...).

I always keep the hood on, not because I see a big difference regarding flare (again, see images, the difference is small) but because it protects the lens from bumps. I could use a filter instead but filters tend to be much worse regarding flare.

Please notice that these are "torture" tests that most lenses would not be confortable with. And that they were all done in aperture priority: light conditions are not exactly the same so exposure is different. But you can see the points (I hope!).

If you don't really need a f/2 lens, the new Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit (or the Zeiss 28/2.8 Biogon) is probably worth the difference, if you can spend it: more contrast and saturation, not to mention the size: it's much smaller and light. BTW, I don't have a problem with weight but the Ultron is longer than most 28s, which makes it a bad lens to carry in a small bag/briefcase.

Otherwise, the Ultron is a very good lens in absolute terms and a steal regarding price: the 28/2 Summicron ASPH is much more expensive.

As I have the Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon almost always on the Epson, and switch to the Skopar 35/2.5 or the Nokton 50/1.5 for tighter crops, the Ultron is really useful (for me) in two situations:

1) When using flash and trying to cover the largest possible field (the 21/2.8 or the 12/5.6 require an external viewfinder on the hotshoe). In those occasions, I tipically use the lens between f/5.6 and f/8 and you can cut yourself on the sharpness of those high-constrat 200 ASA shots...

2) When I'll be shooting B&W for sure. The Ultron has a wonderful rendition in B&W on the Epson. It requires a bit of contrast "bump" when used wide-open but tonality and detail are lovely. The Ultron is my "most-used" lens for B&W.

The Ultron is perfectly capable of very good images, even wide-open, if you enjoy the lower contrast it gives you. It even can be "Photoshoped" to look similar very easily to other lenses, with a small bump of local contrast. And it matches very well the 28 framelines of the RD-1s.

I only find it lacking in low-light, low-contrast situation, where the "flat" rendering can become too flat.

Thanks for such a detailed reply and for the pictures. It's particularly interesting regarding B&W rendition of the Ultron as I almost exclusively shoot B&W. I agree that the hood is useful for protecting the glass as well as flare so removing it is not really an option but it seems that you and others can put up with some of the finder being blocked. It's a pity I can't try before I buy to see if I can handle it. I think the Zeiss 28/2.8 might ultimately be the best choice for me but if it is substantially more contrasty than the Ultron that might be a mistake. After all I got the single coated version of the 40/1.4 for its B&W rendition and the Ultron is a lower contrast lens..... Then there's the speed of the Ultron. I'll never decide at this rate

 

[pfogle]

Check out the hood I use on the 28/1.9 in this thread here (link). The third photo in the first post shows the lens with the hood on. It's a heliopan 46mm screw in, very nicely made in black metal. It doesn't block the viewfinder, and gives very good protection, unlike the supplied hood, which is more or less useless on the R-D1, as it's much too wide for the cropped format.

 

[ambientmick]

Check out the hood I use on the 28/1.9 in this thread here (link). The third photo in the first post shows the lens with the hood on. It's a heliopan 46mm screw in, very nicely made in black metal. It doesn't block the viewfinder, and gives very good protection, unlike the supplied hood, which is more or less useless on the R-D1, as it's much too wide for the cropped format.

Is this the same hood?

I found it for sale just now and will buy it if it the right one. Apart from the colour it doesn't look the same as the one on yours but is described as a Heliopan 46mm screw.

 

[Sailor Ted]

something wider (15mm maybe) are probably all I'll ever want.

Think long and hard regarding the 15mm on the Epson- I shoot with the 12mm and light fall off at the edges is much less with the 12mm then with my CV 15mm, in fact the CV 12mm is my favorite lens for the R-D1s (and I hardly ever used the lens before getting my R-D1s).

just my 2 cents

 

[Adam-T]

I gave up on the 15 due to the heavy vigging and I wouldn`t use a 12 enough to warrant the cost -
A 21mm or 25mm F2.8 with the lack of Vigging of the Ultrons but with more Microcontrast would be perfect for the RD1 but CV don`t make either - you only get the very slow F3.5 Vigging Skopar or the big and fast Ultron in a 28 too.
Leica and Zeiss make both the ideal lenses above but even the ZMs aren`t anywhere near CV money.. the problem is that CV make the two ZMs mentioned so it`s unlikey they`re going to make "their own" all we can hope for is a coupled version of the 25mm F4 at best I guess.

 

[bunkawen14]

It would be great if we could get a clear shot of that Heliopan hood!
Last thing I need for my Ultron is another viewfinder blocking hood...

 

[RayPA]

If you're looking for shooting street, the 3.5 is great. It's incredibly compact and built really well. I have both. The 1.9 is very nice. I would agree that it is the better lens, but for street I prefer the 3.5. Its size is irresistable. I thought the speed would be a limitation, but it hasn't really happened. On a RD-1 this should be less of a concern. I've several 28/3.5 images in my gallery. Here's a couple:

Low light building shot

One shot around 500 @~5.6, IIRC.

I don't know if you have the 35/2.5, but it and the 28/3.5 are a nice street combination. The cost of both is probably below or near the cost of the 28/1.9.

good luck.

 

[jvr]

Think long and hard regarding the 15mm on the Epson- I shoot with the 12mm and light fall off at the edges is much less with the 12mm then with my CV 15mm, in fact the CV 12mm is my favorite lens for the R-D1s (and I hardly ever used the lens before getting my R-D1s).

just my 2 cents

I fully agree: the 12mm on the Epson is just great (pity about being 5.6 for low-light shots) and quality is better than expected: vignetting is low (for the focal...), shapness is more than acceptable, a bit of ghosting with spot lights but nothing offensive. I even use it in my M3 and the coverage is awesome (and the 12mm finder is a jewel...). When I shot film with SLRs, I liked very much my 18-35 Nikon on a F-801s. The 12 on the Epson gives about the same coverage and fun potential.

I was about to write at the end of my post that the 40 and the 28 are probably near enough rgd coverage so that you could consider buying something wider, such as the 21/2.8 Biogon (still a 32 in the Epson...), which is a wonderful lens...

My "full" lineup is 12, 21, 35, 50. When I carry the 28, the 21 and the 35 are too close to be really useful. But the 28 gives me around 42mm and I'm a wide angle man. In 35mm, my 50 is a tele... So the 28 in the Epson is not a really good compromise.

If you like a 35mm focal on a Leica, the 21 is ok on the Epson (a tad wider)...

Maybe buying the 21/2.8 takes you out of your indecision regarding the 28s...

 

[Ken Ford]

I have a 28/3.5, and have been very impressed with the quality of the lens. However, I've been bumping into speed limitations as of late, and am thinking about trading it off for a 28/1.9 since a 28 Cron isn't in the budget...

 

[pfogle]

Is this the same hood?

I found it for sale just now and will buy it if it the right one. Apart from the colour it doesn't look the same as the one on yours but is described as a Heliopan 46mm screw.

no -that one looks pretty rubbish. If you look at the photo I posted, it's black and completely cylindrical, no flared end, so it doesn't block the finder. And beautifully made. I bought mine new.

ps - the shot of the hood on the 50mm Nokton in the same link (here) - shows the shape better - they're almost identical, but the Nokton takes the 52mm, and the Ultron takes the 46mm...