Jump to content

28mm question


Zael

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm looking to buy a 28mm lens soon. There is quite a price difference between the 28mm Elmarit, the Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f/2.0, and the Zeiss 28mm Biogon f/2.8.

 

Has anyone had a chance to compare these lenses? If so, thoughts on sharpness, image rendering, strengths/weaknesses? Many thanks for your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zael, much has been written about this focal length and lens choices. While waiting for informed responses, why not try the SEARCH function on this site. You might be surprised by what you find.

 

My experience is limited to the Elmarit which is a great lens, particularly the current version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Elmarit-M 28/2.8 asph is one of my very best 28s with Summicron-M 28/2, Zuiko 28/2 and Elmarit-R 28/2.8 v2. I did not keep the CV 28/2 due to focus shift and i have no experience with the Biogon 28/2.8 which has a very good reputation but would be softer in the corners than the Elmarit asph AFAIK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DTM: I saw your thread. Great responses for the 28mm Summicron and the 28mm Elmarit. Less so comparing the Elmarit to the Biogon or the Voigtlander.

 

I did do a search and didn't see a thread that compared these three lenses head on.

Edited by Zael
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First link: compares the Emlarit to the Voigtlander 1.9, which appears to be the Voigtlander 28mm before the 2.0.

 

Second link: compares the Summicron (a lens I am not considering) to the Voigtlander.

 

Third link: most comments focus on the Voigtlander 1.9 rather than the 2.0. Some older versions of the Elmarit are also discussed. I'd genuinely like to hear opinions on the current 28mm Elmarit vs. the current 28mm / f 2.0 Voigtlander vs. the 28mm Zeiss Biogon.

 

Fourth link: No comparison with the Zeiss Biogon.

 

Is it so hard to ask for a comparison of three lenses that haven't been run down in the same thread? If you are going to offer a bunch of links, would you at least click on them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on each one, and scanned them all. :rolleyes:

 

There's lots of useful information for anyone curious about comparing, or just exploring comments on, the various lenses your cited, including references to Sean Reid's site, which provides a wealth of info…and comparisons…on each lens.

 

I won't bother to try and help you again.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on each one, and scanned them all. :rolleyes:

 

There's lots of useful information for anyone curious about comparing, or just exploring comments on, the various lenses your cited, including other references to Sean Reid's site, etc.

 

I won't bother to try and help you again.

 

Jeff

 

Part of the reason I like this forum is the appreciation of the differences between successive generations of lenses from the same manufacturer. (That is, the Voigtlander 28mm 1.9 is distinct from the 2.0.) You take a lackadaisical approach to this in answering a simple question and, when I call you out on it, you say you "won't bother try try and help" me. Well, you didn't help me to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason I like this forum is the appreciation of the differences between successive generations of lenses from the same manufacturer. (That is, the Voigtlander 28mm 1.9 is distinct from the 2.0.) ….

 

You take a lackadaisical approach...

 

I included link #3 specifically because it was started on the 2.0, and included comments by folks like Enrico who thought the 1.9 was better.

 

In link #4, Enrico expands on his thoughts. That seemed provocative enough that I presumed you'd want to research further.

 

Just because you don't have any one thread that specifically addresses all your questions, I assumed that you'd be able to string some thoughts together. The attributes for the Elmarit, for instance, have been discussed ad nauseam, and easily searched. Those could be the basis for some comparison to other lenses of interest. I provided link #1 in part because of Sean Reid's comments, whose site provides a wealth of info on all the lenses you cite, and he makes a specific comment on the Elmarit vs Ultron, albeit the 1.9 here, that was striking.

 

But that would take some thoughts and additional research of your own. Lackadaisical, indeed.

 

BTW, part of the reason I like this forum is because folks are generally appreciative when others seek to help….not sarcastic and dismissive. Welcome to the forum.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the user that Jeff links to - I much prefer the C/V 28 f/1.9 to the revised f/2. The 1.9 has higher resolution wide-open in the center. It does have some "glow" or lower contrast overlaying the sharp details, due to spherical aberration, but that is easier to correct for than plain fuzziness (however contrasty).

 

Haven't tried the Zeiss - because I find ALL Zeiss lenses to be too contrasty. And can find used older Leica lenses for not much more, with the advantage of consistent family feel and ergonomics.

 

The current tiny Elmarit is adequate.

 

If I wanted Leica (and I do), I'd pick an older 28 Elmarit (v. 3 or v.4). I just prefer the drawing and color. Otherwise, I would look for the c/v 28 f/1.9.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason I like this forum is the appreciation of the differences between successive generations of lenses from the same manufacturer. (That is, the Voigtlander 28mm 1.9 is distinct from the 2.0.) You take a lackadaisical approach to this in answering a simple question and, when I call you out on it, you say you "won't bother try try and help" me. Well, you didn't help me to begin with.

 

If you can't read through those links and come to a conclusion for your yourself I can't really see how trusting the one person in the world who may have used all three on the same camera is going to help.

 

It is easy enough to discover the facts behind each lens, such as the focus shift of the f/2 Ultron, the contrast of the Zeiss, etc. Anything else is an opinion and presumably you have your own opinions about what you are looking for? I think the thread has been very helpful and a number of people will come away from it with an opinion of what you should do.

 

Steve

 

 

Steve

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it so hard to ask for a comparison of three lenses that haven't been run down in the same thread? If you are going to offer a bunch of links, would you at least click on them?

 

My take, just say thank you and then pose your question in a different and positive way to get after the information you are seeking. You may find that the people online won't have what you are looking for but are willing to help the best they can.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...