35mm R f/2.0 or f/2.8 - which is best?

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder if the 35mm f/2.0 or the f/2.8 is the better one. I had both but lost the f/2.0 and in looking for a new I noticed hot much more expensive the f/2.8 is.

 

Made me wonder. Have anybody done any comparisons between the two?

[earleygallery]

I think you mean how much cheaper the 2.8 version goes for?

 

I've not done a direct comparison but from what I've heard and read there is almost no difference between the two other than for the extra f stop, which for me is worth having for the shorter dof mostly.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Overgaard]

No, I actually meant the other way around. The f/2.0 is less expensive 2nd hand than the f/2.8. And that's why I wonder.

 

My f/2.8 shots look great, but I had the f/2.0 for so short I really haven't tested it against the f/2.8. I just considered the f/2.0 the classic because that's what it is in the M class. And I too like the extra f-stop.

 

I haven't used the f/2.8 that much when I was doing film, but with digital it could be used more often.

 

... which reminds me I should look what Erwin Putts write. He must have compared them, at least on a theoretically level.

[earleygallery]

No, I actually meant the other way around. The f/2.0 is less expensive 2nd hand than the f/2.8. And that's why I wonder.

 

That's not my experience but I've not watched prices recently. The Summicron is definately the better overall lens, but if you don't need the extra stop the Elmarit is no worse AFAIK

[zapp]

In the big book (Leica lens compendium, by Erwin Puts), the Summicron is the better lens. The Elmarit is smaller and I would assume not visibly worse than the Summicron. In my opinion the Summicron is rather long and heavy for a 2/35 mm lens.