lct Posted August 18, 2007 Share #41 Posted August 18, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Contrast problem? I don't see it... Not a lot of highlights in your nice image Jaap. Pictures like below might be more difficult to manage IMHO. (R-D1, 28/2.8asph, f/8, 200 iso) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Hi lct, Take a look here 28 Summicron vs 28 Elmarit.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted August 18, 2007 Share #42 Posted August 18, 2007 I tested all of the current 28s in detail for a review earlier this year. There are some differences in contrast, as well as small differences in resolution, between these two lenses. Cheers, Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 19, 2007 Share #43 Posted August 19, 2007 Not a lot of highlights in your nice image Jaap.Pictures like below might be more difficult to manage IMHO. (R-D1, 28/2.8asph, f/8, 200 iso) Thanks I like boats too.. So you mean full sunlight shots. Well, the weather wasn't bad that day...No photoshop at all except web resizing, C1- I didn't touch any slider... Wideangle wheels btw.. It distorts .... So does the Summicron, I believe. The contrast is nicely handled though, check the highlights in the white balustrade against the white stonework and the chrome on my car. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 19, 2007 Share #44 Posted August 19, 2007 When discussing contrast, it is well to make the distinction between diffuse highlights (which reflect more than 85% or so of the incident light) and specular highlights, which are actual mirror images of a light source such as the sun. In the boat prow above, Jaap has lost detail in the white paint, but not in the windmill's more greyish upper wall, in the next picture. It used to be a rule of thumb that in a good B&W print diffuse highlights should hold detail. Specular highlights had to burn out however as their intensity in the subject could be many times greater than even the whitest paint. In a sense, their 'reflectance' would be seen as several hundred percent! There are situations when a bright overcast sky turns into one giant light source, and it is practically impossible to get both detail in the cloud cover and in the landscape below. Then you simply have to get rid of the sky. Shadow detail is more subjective and revolves around the diffuse notion of 'holding important detail'. With a good spot meter, it is nearly always possible in any subject to find an even deeper shadow. Edward Weston used to sacrifice enormous amounts of potential shadow detail in order to get intense detail in the brightest diffuse highlights. Actual original prints (not book reproductions) of his desert landscapes do show this. An objective discussion of the ability of a lens and a sensor's way of rendering contrast should be based on tests with a controlled subject, such as the Kodak Gray Scale. Read the instructions carefully! How far down can you discern shades of black, if you can barely see the difference between patch A (near-100% reflectance) and patch 1? Aye, that's the rub ... The old man from the Age of the Darkroom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 19, 2007 Share #45 Posted August 19, 2007 In the boat prow above, Jaap has lost detail in the white paint, but not in the windmill's more greyish upper wall, in the next picture. It used to be a rule of thumb that in a good B&W print diffuse highlights should hold detail. Specular highlights had to burn out however as their intensity in the subject could be many times greater than even the whitest paint. In a sense, their 'reflectance' would be seen as several hundred percent! The boat was not mine, but it makes no difference to the argument... The white paint, after PS,(to show the highlight, it does not improve the pidcture at all) still shows some detail. I suspect lct's boat does too. Our screens are not capable of rendering the contrast. Shadow detail is more subjective and revolves around the diffuse notion of 'holding important detail'. With a good spot meter, it is nearly always possible in any subject to find an even deeper shadow. Edward Weston used to sacrifice enormous amounts of potential shadow detail in order to get intense detail in the brightest diffuse highlights. Actual original prints (not book reproductions) of his desert landscapes do show this. That is true, but on the M8, provided you get the highlights good, the shadows can be recovered to an amazing extent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 19, 2007 Share #46 Posted August 19, 2007 Thanks I like boats too.. So you mean full sunlight shots. Well, the weather wasn't bad that day...No photoshop at all except web resizing, C1- I didn't touch any slider... Wideangle wheels btw.. It distorts .... So does the Summicron, I believe. The contrast is nicely handled though, check the highlights in the white balustrade against the white stonework and the chrome on my car... Triumphal (TR6?) picture Jaap. Proof that one can find some sun in Holland after all. Just kidding of course but yes it is exactly the kind of subject matter for which i prefer lower contrast lenses personally. Cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted August 19, 2007 Share #47 Posted August 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hmm, the deadlights seem to indicate that it is a TR5 or perhaps earlier. The TR6 had a flat hood with headlights tucked in underneath. Nice car. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted August 19, 2007 Share #48 Posted August 19, 2007 Agree i want the car , keep the lens. LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 19, 2007 Share #49 Posted August 19, 2007 Elmarit 2.8/28 asph & Triumph TR4 1963... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted August 19, 2007 Share #50 Posted August 19, 2007 While we are talking contrasty lenses, this goes to show that so-called medium contrast can be a real asset. This is the pre-aspheric 21mm Elmarit wide open. There is no fill lighting except the chandelier, which cannot have helped much! The detail in the rightmost window had to go, but note that not only the woodwork but also the curtains are intact (so where is the lense's reputed sensitivity to flare?) – I doubt that the current aspherical 21mm would have fared this well. By the way, this exposure, the best of them, was on Auto, and so was the white balance! The old man of a Certain Age Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/31158-28-summicron-vs-28-elmarit/?do=findComment&comment=333048'>More sharing options...
Guest tvleeskr Posted August 19, 2007 Share #51 Posted August 19, 2007 BillH, ALL the shoes are horrible!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tvleeskr Posted August 19, 2007 Share #52 Posted August 19, 2007 Jaapv, too much mill, not enough car! Ciao Thom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 19, 2007 Share #53 Posted August 19, 2007 Hmm, that does not produce much of a photograph,Thom, more like a pictorial record... Anyway, it IS the 28 Elmarit again, to stay on topic.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted August 20, 2007 Share #54 Posted August 20, 2007 Personally I have the 28cron and like it a lot. Why? Coming from film i was used to a 35/1.4asph - so with the crop and 28mm being the "new 35mm" lens with f2.0 I allready lost 1 stop compared to earlier times, 2.8 I find kind of slow. The size is great IMO, very easy to handle. The somewhat lower contrast I also like, thats by the way a reason for me to use the 21asph (which also has slightly lower contrast) more often than the 24asph. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted August 25, 2007 Share #55 Posted August 25, 2007 I am a big fan of the 28/2 it doesn't have excessive contrast like a lot of the modern lenses. These 2 shots required pretty wide dynamic range. The cafe was at ISO 320 the street performer 1250, both -2/3 EV. I may get one of the lower contrast CV's that Sean has reviewed or an older Leica like the rigid summicron to see how it performs on the M8. To much contrast in the raw file is a real detriment and is fatal in harsh lighting. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/31158-28-summicron-vs-28-elmarit/?do=findComment&comment=337418'>More sharing options...
Symeon Posted January 25, 2008 Share #56 Posted January 25, 2008 A Summicron when shut to f2.8 is fully corrected, an Elmarit will have to be shut to f4 for similar results. The difference in weight, however, (and price) is indeed something to consider. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Ortego Posted January 26, 2008 Share #57 Posted January 26, 2008 If you like smooth bokeh the 28/2 is the way to go IMHO.Otherwise the 28/2.8 asph is a great lens indeed with a bit more contrast than the Summicron. If i had to keep one 28 only it would be certainly the Summicron but i would miss the small size of the Elmarit... Dang, that was a lot of work to illustrate the differences and I really appreciate your efforts as it helped me too! Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillo Posted February 2, 2008 Share #58 Posted February 2, 2008 Does anybody have a side-by-side picture of both lenses? I would like to get an idea of the difference in size, and my dealer is out of summicrons... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho3hite Posted March 6, 2008 Share #59 Posted March 6, 2008 I was asking myself this question last month. I own both the new 28 Elmarit and the 28 Cron Asph. Currently my 28 Cron is for sale on ebay: item #130202617519 While most of the posters here are focusing on the image quality between the two lenses it was really the size that made my decision to sell the Cron. Also the 28 was my favorite lens on film--which I no longer shoot in 35mm. I would like to have the 28 angle of view for my M8 but w/o having to use an external viewfinder. With all the talk about possible M9 or M8 upgrades I haven't seen any discussion of a possible road that would make sense for Leica. Settling on the 1.3x chip size and starting to develop a line of digital only lenses for that format. BTW the shot below is from the 28 Cron. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/31158-28-summicron-vs-28-elmarit/?do=findComment&comment=502937'>More sharing options...
lct Posted March 6, 2008 Share #60 Posted March 6, 2008 Does anybody have a side-by-side picture of both lenses... Elmarit-M 28/2.8 asph (#11606) & Summicron-M 28/2 asph (#11604): Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.