Which 35 draws like the 28 2.8 Elmarit ASPH?

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I absolutely love the way the 28 2.8 draws, but i'm not crazy about the focal length. Do any of the current Leica 35's have a similar character? I have a 50 Lux and I'm thinking if I could get a 35 that looks more like the 28 2.8, it would be a good match. Many thanks in advance for any helpful thoughts.

[farnz]

Without trying to be difficult or obtuse I suspect that different people will view how the 28 Elmarit asph (or any lens) draws differently so it would be helpful if you could point out what you like and don't like about it to give us a better idea.

 

For example, from having owned the lens from its release for about four years I recall that it was very contrasty, quite sharp in the centre wide open but fell off a little into the corners and there was something like 1 to 1.5 stops of vignetting. The out of focus areas were 'okay' but not much more although with its natural depth of field they didn't appear very often.

 

I expect that from the 35 Summicron asph you'd get similar sharpness in the centre wide open but it's not nearly as contrasty (and neither are the 35 Summiluxes I've tried) and the 35 Summicron's out of focus areas are very different, and in my opinion much smoother and more pleasant than the 28 Elmarit asph. And therein lies the problem: some 35's will match some areas but I can't think of a Leica 35 that draws like the 28 Elmarit asph in all areas.

 

I don't recall the Voigtlander 35/1.4 (MC or SC) having as much contrast, nor the CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar 'pancake' lens, nor the CV 35/1.2 Nokton v1. I have no experience of the v2 but pictures I've seen shot through it didn't appear particularly contrasty either.

 

The Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2 is renowned for being lower contrast so no help there either. And the 21-35 Dual Hexanon is not a contrasty lens at all

 

Since the 28 Elmarit asph is one of Leica's most contrasty lenses, one of the Zeiss 35 ZM's might be a closer fit but I regret I have no experience with them. Anybody … ?

 

Pete.

[otto.f]

I think you must be at the Zeiss shop for that in the 35 department. That is how I see this lens

[jaapv]

Well, the Biogon C is nice and contrasty, but I don't have the Elmarit for comparison. I do know I sold mine years ago because I found it good to the point of boring.

[luigi bertolotti]

Probably, the Summarit 35, which I have not... have the Summicron 35 asph but, from some pictures I have seen here, I think Summarit is the most similar in the mix contrast/sharpness.

[otto.f]

Probably, the Summarit 35, which I have not... have the Summicron 35 asph but, from some pictures I have seen here, I think Summarit is the most similar in the mix contrast/sharpness.

 

I thought the Summarit is quite harsh and the Elmarit 28 Zeissish soft

[sdk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd say the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 C Biogon ZM is pretty similar in rendering to the 28mm/2.8 Elmarit M ASPH. The 35mm/2 Biogon ZM is also not that different in the mid apertures, but has a softer, hazier look wide open. Both Biogons use the same Zeiss bayonet hood too. The nice thing about the C-Biogon is how similar in size it is to the Elmarit 28mm, except for filter size. They are very close in all other dimensions.

 

28mm and 35mms lenses all benefit from additional color correction for corner color casts on my M9-P using the Adobe Lightroom Flat Field Plug In. I use a credit card sized piece of opaque white plexiglas (perspex, acrylic) to shoot white flat field reference photos for critical work. Works beautifully in LR5. I don't bother to code my 35mm C-Biogon on the M9-P; I just fix the EXIF and color in post.

[trickness]

Without trying to be difficult or obtuse I suspect that different people will view how the 28 Elmarit asph (or any lens) draws differently so it would be helpful if you could point out what you like and don't like about it to give us a better idea.

 

For example, from having owned the lens from its release for about four years I recall that it was very contrasty, quite sharp in the centre wide open but fell off a little into the corners and there was something like 1 to 1.5 stops of vignetting. The out of focus areas were 'okay' but not much more although with its natural depth of field they didn't appear very often.

 

I expect that from the 35 Summicron asph you'd get similar sharpness in the centre wide open but it's not nearly as contrasty (and neither are the 35 Summiluxes I've tried) and the 35 Summicron's out of focus areas are very different, and in my opinion much smoother and more pleasant than the 28 Elmarit asph. And therein lies the problem: some 35's will match some areas but I can't think of a Leica 35 that draws like the 28 Elmarit asph in all areas.

 

I don't recall the Voigtlander 35/1.4 (MC or SC) having as much contrast, nor the CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar 'pancake' lens, nor the CV 35/1.2 Nokton v1. I have no experience of the v2 but pictures I've seen shot through it didn't appear particularly contrasty either.

 

The Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2 is renowned for being lower contrast so no help there either. And the 21-35 Dual Hexanon is not a contrasty lens at all

 

Since the 28 Elmarit asph is one of Leica's most contrasty lenses, one of the Zeiss 35 ZM's might be a closer fit but I regret I have no experience with them. Anybody … ?

 

Pete.

 

Very good point, sorry for not being more specific. I guess the contrastiness is what I'm looking for, with perhaps better edge to edge sharpness and without the falloff wide open. I don't find the Elmarit to be harsh at all. The contrast of the Elmarit is I guess what I find so compelling.

 

On other systems I usually shoot with a 50 and either a 21mm or a 24, I bought the 28 Elmarit on a lark, and was quite pleased by image quality, I'm just finding the focal length to be too wide, but not wide enough So the next wide lens I get I'll go much wider, but I'd like to try a 35 also.

 

Don't mean to be a snob, but I don't care for Zeiss glass, I'm sticking to Leica lenses on my 240. Really appreciate everyone taking the time to chime in with thoughts, thanks again!

[lct]

I absolutely love the way the 28 2.8 draws, but i'm not crazy about the focal length. Do any of the current Leica 35's have a similar character? I have a 50 Lux and I'm thinking if I could get a 35 that looks more like the 28 2.8, it would be a good match.

Hard to answer this question as i find that 50/1.4 asph and 28/2.8 asph are a pretty good match yet. Among my own lenses, i would say Biogon 35/2.8 or Summilux 35/1.4 FLE preferably but Summicron 35/2 asph and Summarit 35/2.5 would fit as well. Generally speaking, Leica lenses from the same generation are made to work together.

[sdk]

I did have a Summarit 35mm/2.5 for a while with the C-Biogon 35mm, and they are both very good, with the C-Biogon being slightly better in the corners wide open to f/5.6 or so. Both are very good, able to provoke moire on the M9-P sensor in some subjects like brick buildings at a distance at f/4 and f/5.6. F/11 is good for mitigating moire when it's a problem. Eventually I decided the Zeiss lens is a hair better overall, with more contrast over the frame, and much smaller, so I sold the Leica lens. The Zeiss is such a bargain too, by comparison.

 

Many of the Zeiss ZM wideangle lenses give an almost medium format look to landscape and documentary images from f/5.6 to f/11, with smooth background bokeh, which not all Leica lenses do. But the 28mm/2.8 ASPH is one of them, with smooth out of focus backgrounds, at least until near its close focus limit, in contrast to Leica's 35mm/1.4 and 28mm/2 ASPH lenses, with their sketchier background bokeh at most distances and apertures.

 

I have a new Zeiss 35mm/1.4 Distagon ZM coming next week. I'll look forward to comparing the big new 35mm to its diminutive older sibling the C-Biogon. I suspect I'll like and keep them both for different reasons.