Which M 28mm Lens?

[Todd.Hanz]

get the VC 28/2 or the 28/1.9 if you can find it, spend the savings on Tri-X and Rodinal.

Todd

 

[Todd.Hanz]

get the VC 28/2 or the 28/1.9 if you can find it, spend the savings on Tri-X and Rodinal.

Todd

oh, I see you're using digital... use the savings for batteries and SD cards I guess.

Todd

 

[ferider]

If you aren't trying one of the 3 CVs you are missing out.

 

[maggieo]

If you aren't trying one of the 3 CVs you are missing out.

I concur. They're just marvelous lenses.

 

[sanmich]

I had a VC 1.9 that was a lemon.
Got a Hex, and I'm really happy with it.
I'm getting the VC 3.5 that seems to be excellent, for a light combo on the IIIf.
(Also had the minolta, but albeit a good lens, it didn't bring the right frame on the M's...)

 

[The Meaness]

I had high expectations of the ZM, and it has officially blown me away. I haven't tried the Hex, so I can't compare, but the Zeiss is warm, contrasty and super sharp. It is more of all of these things than my 40 'cron, which as I understand is pretty close to the Minolta in look. The Zeiss has the look I've been hunting for, though I seriously considered the VC 3.5 for being smaller, similar in contrast, and cheaper.

 

[kermaier]

Which frame lines does it bring up on M-body? as far as better built than Hex - I'd be surprised at that. While I have never had Rokkor 28, I did have several 40mm's and while they are built well - I would never say that they were better built than Hexanons.

It bring up the 35/135 frame lines on a Leica M body. Doesn't matter to me, since I'm using it on an R-D1. If/when I get Leica body, I'll have it modified to bring up the 28mm frameline.

I've handled two examples of the M-Hex 28/2.8 and, while they seemed strongly built, didn't like the way the focus and aperture actions felt, and the finish wasn't what I'd hoped. I have a UC-Hex 35/2.8, which is the best-built and finished lens I've ever used, so maybe the bar was raised a bit too high fo the M-Hex. (I also have an M-Rokkor 40/2, and the 28/2.8 is better made, for some reason, to my eye and hand.) I've never used the M-Hex, so I'll take the word of all here that it's a great performer.

BTW, I have four 28mm lenses, and they rank (for me) in this descending order for performance: M-Rokkor 28/2.8, CV 28/3.5, Canon 28/3.5, Canon 28/2.8.

Ari

 

[rbrooks]

the v3 was most appealing: medium contrast, sharp enough, nice bokeh, great DOF scale.

Yep. Once you get over the big size, slow f2.8, and the lens hood. This is really a sweet lens.

 

[brianbek]

I have the Voigtlander 28 f2 ultron on a Leica M6 ttl. It is not f2.8!
I like the build and image quality.
And the price will not result in angry calls from the bank 🙂
/Brian

 

[alex_g_2000]

I am debating the same question (which 28mm) and am glad that some much good advice is on this thread.

My comment may not answer the question but maybe help on making a decision. following the previous post.

I have used the VC 28mm f1.9 for over a year on an R-D1 and an M8, probably taking over 1,500 pictures.
The ones that came out of the cameras were very pleasing. They were sharp overall, in the centre even more, with no significant distortion and somehow drew beautifully when fully open. I usually take pictures of people and of landscapes: people (not portraits) were always successfully photographed with this lens.

My main issue with this 28mm was its size, which for me defeated the purpose of having a rangefinder.
I just sold it and I bought the CV 28mm f3.5 but haven't had a chance to test it.

From what I read, the Biogon, in which I am most interested, is rasor sharp in a "clinical" way and this doesn't suit everyone's taste, so this lens seems to be one that you want to have in addition to another one, providing more of a feel.
I hope to soom be able to own this lens to provide a better feedback.

All the best,

Alex

 

[jsrockit]

If you aren't trying one of the 3 CVs you are missing out.

Well, outside of the 28mm f/2 maybe... 😉

 

[DNG]

get the VC 28/2 or the 28/1.9 if you can find it, spend the savings on Tri-X and Rodinal.

Todd

Ditto on the CV 28mm f/1.9 ASPH.....
I sold my VM 28mm f/2 (A very nice lens and small.... nice rendering too)
But, When I was ready to get a 28 again... I chose the CV 28/1.9 ASPH with M adapter. (I got lucky and found a used one at B&H New York in E+ to mint, when I ready to buy....(They don't come on the market too much, and when they do.. Pull the trigger quickly!)

 

[maddoc]

Some years ago, I had the 28/2.8 Elmar pre-ASPH (vs.3) but was not so impressed with the performance (and size of the lens) and sold it.

Since a couple of weeks I have the CV 28/3.5 (in S-mount for Nikon) and I have to say that I am quite impressed so far. Very good performance (colors, contrast, and sharpness) for a very reasonable price. 🙂

 

[ramosa]

Hmmm ... The poll is somewhat odd. I understand that the poster must want to ponder just these lenses, but--in the process--so many 28mm lenses are being left off.

I have the Elmarit 28mm, which--again--isn't on this list. It's a fine lens, quite sharp and (for Leica) reasonably priced. What's your upper end (in regards to price)?

 

[thomasw_]

OP, you don't state a price range, or whether price is a consideration. If it is, I'd go with the rather large CV 28/1,9 -- very nice rendering. If price is not a big limitation, I'd go with the tiny Elmarit 28/2,8 ASPH -- again, very wonderful rendering w/o noticeable distortion. It is a versatile, very compact performer, and I found I can shoot it in rather low light with 1600/3200 ASA film and get very satisfying results. Many users love it on the M8

 

[leicashot]

If anyone cares, or even believes me i briefly took some test shots using the V3 and V4 Elmarits and the distortion was the same, center sharpness same, but corners were noticeable sharper on the V3 - all wide open. I know people won't believe me, but it's true, at least from the samples I used, which were both mint....I wasn't surprised.

 

[jsrockit]

So, it appears the OP went for the ZM Biogon 28/2.8 ... not a bad choice.