Mornnb Posted July 7, 2015 Share #21 Posted July 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Here's a good visual example of the difference between 28mm, 35mm and 50mm, IMHO it makes sense to own one of each. But I think the compact Elmarit is better choice than a Summilux for this focal length. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Hi Mornnb, Take a look here Please convince me that i don't need new 28 Summilux!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rodluvan Posted July 7, 2015 Share #22 Posted July 7, 2015 I'll give you the best of reasons; the world doesn't need more bokehography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted July 7, 2015 Share #23 Posted July 7, 2015 Here's a good visual example of the difference between 28mm, 35mm and 50mm, IMHO it makes sense to own one of each. But I think the compact Elmarit is better choice than a Summilux for this focal length. That is quite a good suggestion. Using the dimensional field of view (instead of the fuzzy focal length concept), if I use the spacing of 3 (i.e. the narrower view has three times less coverage area than the wider view), a 4-lens kit would be 15, 28, 50, 90. If the spacing is 2, the kit would be 16, 24, 35, 50, 75. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 7, 2015 Share #24 Posted July 7, 2015 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 Buy a Q instead or get a 28/2.8. How many 1.4 or faster lenses do you need these days with higher ISO cameras? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock Posted July 7, 2015 Share #25 Posted July 7, 2015 My 28/2.8 is my most used lens and I have yet to be in the position of needing a faster lens. As ever, YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted July 7, 2015 Share #26 Posted July 7, 2015 I'll give you the best of reasons; the world doesn't need more bokehography But a masterfully done bokeh-graphy is a big creative challenge. Sadly, my collection of favorite shots do not have any with shallow DOF. Till then, I would try my luck with bokeh-graphy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark T Posted July 8, 2015 Share #27 Posted July 8, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The best reason not to buy it, is that you don't need it. You have survived all these years without it and will similarly continue into the future just fine without it. Seriously though, if you must have a 28mm as well as a 35mm, the Summicron is a much better fit with your 35mm Summilux. It is smaller and lighter (the reason you bought an M in the first place, right), it blocks the finder significantly less, and it has the same filter size as your Summilux. As a film shooter - this last factor ought to be a priority? With regard to 28mm lenses generally; they are best suited to a 0.58 magnification finder. I would not want to use a 28mm lens without one. Others will undoubtedly say something else. However, after struggling to use a 28mm lens for several years with a 0.72 magnification finder - that's what I think. With regard to boke; for most of the ~160 years of photography, people have striven for more depth of field, not less. Shallow depth of field was the result of slow film and larger formats than so-called "full frame". Boke is a relatively un-creative fad and it will pass. After all, it is easy to find a subject and blur everything else away. Shoot everything "wide-open" at 1/4000th of a second in daylight. Awesome. It takes skill to compose a subject, with a meaningful foreground and background, in good light etc. However, I digress. Buy what you need and be done with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted July 8, 2015 Share #28 Posted July 8, 2015 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. I call BS on that. The same BS about how the M9 was designed around the Kodachrome colors and how the Noctilux glass took 10 years to cool down under Mandler's bed. The truth is more like he designs for sharpness and contrast and the rest falls into place wherever it falls and he calls it a day. The Leica marketing department takes care of the "leica magic" that people need to own. Remember, there's a Micron particle of HCB's hair in all Leica lenses right in between the first and the second glass elements. It's there to preserve his Soul and presence throughout all your shots. Talent dust. It's true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2015 Share #29 Posted July 8, 2015 Lens design is a bit more subtle than that. Do you really think the focal plane is the only aspect considered when designing a lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted July 8, 2015 Share #30 Posted July 8, 2015 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 You don't need this expensive beast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted July 8, 2015 Share #31 Posted July 8, 2015 ejaborov, Of course you need that new lens, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.. Your Post is a cry for help! Pop yourself on the couch (of course we take plastic) now let's see, tell me about your very first Leica lens:: 1hour later & $250 lighter!! Now Off to the Leica Store!! Next client please .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 8, 2015 Share #32 Posted July 8, 2015 Too large a lens for a rangefinder IMHO but i would be tempted if i used the EVF more than i do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardM Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share #33 Posted July 8, 2015 My first lense on my M9 was 50 Summicron and i spent about a year with that purist glass. Still like it a lot. After, I robbed my bank account and aquired 35 Summilux FLE which is my all around lens almost for 3 years. And most of the time in my travels i used it as universal glass. Thought about 90 cron but honestly I am not a portrait guy and 90 cron is extremely heavy lens.The idea to get 28 is to use it as "wider 35 Lux". I like the idea of 28 cron as well as the middle decision btwn 28 elmarit and 28 lux. Actually, i think that extra stop in Lux makes sense - (bad example) its the same when you buyng 300 h/p car and rarely use it full power, but in extreme situations where you need to accelerate sharply, you know that you have a power reserve. So, 1.4 is your power reserve for lack of light situatuions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2015 Share #34 Posted July 8, 2015 I'll give you the best of reasons; the world doesn't need more bokehography Vincent van Gogh: "Exaggerate the unusual, blur the ordinary," He may have been mad, but he knew a thing or to about creating images ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardM Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted July 8, 2015 Vincent van Gogh: "Exaggerate the unusual, blur the ordinary," He may have been mad, but he knew a thing or to about creating images ... Jaapv, i have seen your photo - great pictures! And I see you are using 28 Elmarit most of the time for landscape. What would you add to 28 Elamrit in terms of perfomance? Extra stop for sure, but what else do you think could be better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2015 Share #36 Posted July 8, 2015 The one I use is an old Version three Elmarit. My favourite wideangle is actually the Summilux 24. I think that most impact on wideangle photography comes from the composition, not the lens specs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted July 8, 2015 Share #37 Posted July 8, 2015 Shallow depth of field is really not that problematic when focusing a 28mm at 1.4. It all depends on how close you are to your subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted July 8, 2015 Share #38 Posted July 8, 2015 Lens design is a bit more subtle than that. Do you really think the focal plane is the only aspect considered when designing a lens? True, here are some quotes from the man, Peter Karbe, himself as interviewed by the wonderful Thorsten Overgaard (about the 50mm APO). http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html “Perhaps it is the sharpest lens in the world,” he smiles, “I don’t know! Sharpness is far from the only concept behind this lens.“ “This precision you always see in Leica lenses reflects in bokeh (out of focus). It is not always the lens design; but it is always a matter of high quality production.” .... "You look at the light and the focus point with the much higher contrast. I know your pictures, and you work with depth of field. You need a certain level of sharpness." "On axis the old Summicron II is perfect. It has color aberration, but on optical axis there is no doubt about it. On the optical axis (symmetry) the old and the new Summicron are very similar, so this was not a target for the APO. In fact there is not a very big difference on axis between them.” If I have a photo with a soft lens and increase the contrast in Lightroom, I increase the contrast in the picture overall. You are talking about only high contrast where the focus is. “Yes!” Peter points a finger in the air and I feel like the student who finally got it, “the contrast has to fall off very fast in terms of depth of field. That’s it. That is the idea – and the ideal. The fall off has to be very fast!” “You point the lens and shoot, and where the focal plane is, the contrast should be high. The front and behind should fall off very fast. That is the difference between the older Summicron lenses and the APO-Summicron. Not in terms of sharpness but in terms of contrast behavior.“ He also refers to how the design goal of the APO lens was low light behaviour, in terms of picking up details in low light and shadows: “In my opinion the 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH f/2.0 is a new interpretation of no light photography. It has nothing to do with available light or low light. You have structures like black leather with structures inside,” Peter Karbe says and point at the black leather sofa in the reception at the Leica Camera AG reception. “Let’s compare it to sailing,” he adds: “If there is much wind everybody can sail. If there is not much wind, it is hard to sail. “It’s the same with low light. You don’t have so much light so the contrast is low. So you need a lens that sees structure and details.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted July 8, 2015 Share #39 Posted July 8, 2015 There are too much variables to satisfy and every variable is at the expense of the other: sharpness, contrast, falloff, size, focus color correction, blabla. Karbe doesn't like the 75 lux. Karbe killed the Noctilux f1's personnality with the new 0.95, not a particularly nice boke on the 50 apo, not a particularly nice boke on the 35lux fle. How can you explain that? Sure, in the interview he talks about his work in a way that every artist talks about his work during an exhibition. But I maintain what I said: He tries to do the best possible job on the foremost variables (SIZE, COLOR, SHARPNESS, CONTRAST) and many secondary variables simply fall where they fall (boke is absolutely a second variable). The rest is all marketing and myth. Just as the M9's color palette being engineered to match Kodachrome's color palette is pure myth (Oh yeah? So why can't they do that for the M8, Q, M240...??). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2015 Share #40 Posted July 8, 2015 Not that difficult to explain at all .It appears that the more precise a lens draws, the less you like it. You are simply an aberration-lover. Actually the Kodak colour thing is claimed for the M8, carried over to the virtually identical M9. The simple reason being that these sensors were designed by Kodak, who obviously went for their particular colour dyes. The other sensors were not designed by Kodak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.