Leica 28mm f/2

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not only a R-D1 problem (did not heard of 35/2 asph compatibility issues BTW, my pre-asph Lux and Cron v4 are OK). Leica wides are said to be poor on 4/3 bodies. Could be due to lack of microlenses with the latters. Not sure at all but could be fun to use my good old Crons and Elmarits on a G1 for instance.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Jaap, not really just in pixel peeping.

 

It really makes a big difference, which digital camera is been used for the Leica glass.

My R-D1 seriously ruins the output of the Leica 35 Summicron ASPH.

It produces extremely visible amounts of sagital coma and flare + ghost images from any bright light source within the frame.

 

This happens to such an extend, that I thought, my sample of the lens has a defect.

The 35 Cron ASPH is completely unusable in low light shots on my R-D1.

I do not know the exact reasons for that, but think a mixture of specific not ideal angle of light rays to sensor and possible internal reflection interferences within the light box of the R-D1 coincide in a not ideal fashion.

 

When I got my M8.2 I was fully surprised, the 35 Cron ASPH is one of the sharpest lenses from corner to corner with NO perceivable sagital coma, NO ghost images from bright light spots, whatsoever and quite controlled flare (not as good as the 28 Cron, and far away still from the alien like 50 Lux ASPH).

 

It can make a huuge difference, which digital body is used for the glass.

 

Since I experienced this dramatic change of character of lens, I pay close attention to the used camera body, when users/ reviewers claim a specific lens as very good or very bad.

Leica did something with the M sensor, other manufacturers might not do, so the best body and ONLY reference to Leica glass is the M8/9.

Wel, you've got a point there. My ZI Biogon ZM 21/2.8, which is as good as the best Leica glass on my M8 is decidely less impressive on my M9. It vignettes strongly, so I'm not happy with it ):

[250swb]

Not only a R-D1 problem (did not heard of 35/2 asph compatibility issues BTW, my pre-asph Lux and Cron v4 are OK). Leica wides are said to be poor on 4/3 bodies. Could be due to lack of microlenses with the latters. Not sure at all but could be fun to use my good old Crons and Elmarits on a G1 for instance.

 

All 4/3 and m4/3 lenses are telecentric and the sensor is designed for the straighter light path. So when a legacy/35mm lens wider than 40mm is mounted on an m4/3 body the acute angle of the light travelling to the corners of the sensor causes a blurring of detail. But for all other lenses the cameras work very well. Olympus m4/3 bodies also give you image stabilisation with 35mm lenses.

 

Steve

[lct]

Ah yes i'd heard something like that thank you Steve. Maybe i should try my R or OM lenses on the APS-C Samsung instead.

[menos I M6]

The Samsung camera indeed looks technically interesting among all the other later proposals for small sensor compact camera systems.

 

It might not by it's somewhat soap shaped shell design, but by it's package. I won't spring for it blindly though as the "Samsung NV7 OPS desaster" still sits deep in my neck, together with a mint NV7 OPS in a wardrobe, that never has been used above ISO200. I hope this chapter of digital sensor design is miles behind todays Samsung cameras.

 

Somehow all the EP-1, GF-1, GH-1 and whatnot leave me with a complete cold shoulder, although, I could well fit the name gear head to me.

 

They just seem not interesting at all. If only Ricoh didn't mess it up with the awkward GXR, but did an upsized GRD with proper lens mount (M-Mount - hint, hint) and large sensor (minimum x1.5 crop, better bigger + huuuge pixel and native ISO6400 for pushing mayhem).

 

Some people even call the µ4/3 camera proposals as Leica M "backup" - they are not qualified for me. Sticking an adapter and being able to physically use Leica M-mount glass doesn't make for backup, but a gear head experiment.

 

Beside all the trash talk though, I have seen some quite interesting photography with the GF-1 + Leica 50mm lenses.

 

My OT ends here now.

[holmes]

I have both the 28 f 2 asph and the 35 f2 asph. In a lot of instances I turn to the 35. It is a lens that sets between two worlds. Extreme normal and medium. All of my shooting is with both lenses using transparencies, I've not encountered any distortion or corner darkening. I like the fact that I can switch between the two depending on the activity. The 28 allows me to move right in and capture what I want. The choice of lenses is much like a painter choosing the correct brush.