Please convince me that i don't need new 28 Summilux!

[EdwardM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thats getting insane, i badly want that lense after i have tried at Leica store.

I have 35 Lux FLE which is my to go  lens and i like it a lot. 
But 28 Lux angle of view is so addictive.
Please tell me that i dont need this expensive beast

[BjarniM]

If you need to convince yourself why and that you don't need it, i would guess it's only a question of time before you buy it.

 

Just my guess and two cents. Therefore: Jump in the water and get it straight away, and don't punish yourself waiting 

 

That being said, will you be able to get any picture(s) with the 28 Summilux that you can't get with your 35 Summilux?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Thats getting insane, i badly want that lense after i have tried at Leica store.

I have 35 Lux FLE which is my to go  lens and i like it a lot. 

But 28 Lux angle of view is so addictive.

Please tell me that i dont need this expensive beast

Examine your images. what percentage would have been better taken with the 28 Summilux? What number were you unable to take due to lack of the lens? If these numbers are insignificant you don't need it. Which is not the same as saying you don't want it..

[freitz]

I think if you take 1-3 steps back you have a 28 FOV.

 

But in all seriousness. There is no need for both 35 and 28. I find them too close. I prefer the 35 FOV as it is more versatile for me and the way I shoot.

[EdwardM]

the thing i like about 28 is that i can see all vewfinder area in my M

[Mornnb]

I think if you take 1-3 steps back you have a 28 FOV.

 

But in all seriousness. There is no need for both 35 and 28. I find them too close. I prefer the 35 FOV as it is more versatile for me and the way I shoot.

 

I disagree, there is quite a large difference between 28mm and 35mm in terms of angle of view. The angle of view of 28mm is 76 degrees, 35mm is 63 degrees. 50mm is 47 degrees. The difference between 28mm and 35mm, is comparable to the difference between 35mm and 50mm.

 

However, I would argue that a Summilux has less benefits on 28mm. It is not the ideal focal length for razor thin depth of field, hence the main ability of the Summilux is low light performance. This greatly diminishes it's value compared to a 35mm or 50mm Summilux. I think a 2.8 Elmarit is perfect for 28mm.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Mornnb

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not think that is quite true. On my Summilux 24 I find that wide open shots have a special look that cannot be obtained otherwise. The Summilux 28 should be  bit similar in that respect.

 

I do agree with the small step theory, for me it applies to 50-35 as well. I think 35-24 or 50-28 (or 75-35) are ideal combinations.

It all depends whether one leans towards the 2x focal length steps side or towards the 1.4 steps side

[NB23]

However, I would argue that a Summilux has less benefits on 28mm. It is not the ideal focal length for razor thin depth of field, hence the main ability of the Summilux is low light performance. This greatly diminishes it's value compared to a 35mm or 50mm Summilux. I think a 2.8 Elmarit is perfect for 28mm.

A summilux is not about "razor thin" depth of field. I hope the boke fad is gone and that it will never return. That was an ugly trend.

A summilux is about low light performance.

[tobey bilek]

You may buy all the fast lenses you want.  Depth of field is too small and focus is too fussy

[NB23]

I do not think that is quite true. On my Summilux

 

I do agree with the small step theory, for me it applies to 50-35 as well. I think 35-24 or 50-28 (or 75-35) are ideal combinations.

I don't believe in these combinations at all.

 

So let me get it straight: if one person likes the 35mm fov he should get two lenses that average out a 35mm? Like 24 and 50? Now that's nonsense.

 

If a person likes 35, then the second best option is to own another 35 because that's the sweet spot. Or at least stay very close to 35. No point of going 24 and 75. I just don't get it.

[wattsy]

There is no need for both 35 and 28. I find them too close. I prefer the 35 FOV as it is more versatile for me and the way I shoot.

 

The fact that you have a clear preference for 35 suggests that the two focal lengths aren't actually that similar. I agree with the others that 28 and 35 are different and, personally, I would be quite happy with just those two focal lengths.

[lct]

the thing i like about 28 is that i can see all vewfinder area in my M

 

With 14% to 18% VF blockage though (10% to 15% w/o hood) according to Sean Reid. If you prefer small lenses, this one is not for you. 

[NB23]

Jaapv, I misunderatood you. Yes, I am for the small steps theory as well.

[Matlock]

I think if you take 1-3 steps back you have a 28 FOV.

 

 

Rather depends where you are standing

[Peter H]

You don't need it but you do want it so you'll end up buying it.

 

Enjoy!

[nelly]

I can think of 5950 reasons why you don't need it

[bobbywise]

You need the Q instead.

[EdwardM]

You need the Q instead.

To be honest I hardly believe that 28 lux in Q can substitute summilux 28. 

And it's not about the 1.4 vs 1.7. It's just about glass quality itself 

[LeicaPassion]

The obvious question: Have you compared the Lux vs. Cron. vs. Elmarit?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mornnb]

A summilux is not about "razor thin" depth of field. I hope the boke fad is gone and that it will never return. That was an ugly trend.

A summilux is about low light performance.

 

Peter Karbe's Summiluxs are very much designed with bokeh in mind, he remarks about his design goals being fast focus fall off and low contrast in out of focus areas compared to very high contrast for in focus areas. This is how people shoot today and the lenses are being designed for it.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mornnb