Jump to content

Choosing a compact 28mm lens


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

If you want compact 28mm then look at LTM offerings for sure : ) 

1) Leica Hektor 28mm f6.3 (the first 28mm released by Leica, I got one and using it now and to be honest, much better than expected; f6.3 is pretty much the same as f5.6 in real use to be honest, so I simply meter this lens as if it were a f5.6 lens). 

2) Summaron 28mm (which you mentioned is a great one and you can buy the re-edition of course. Size is almost double of the Hektor though and not a huge difference in terms of rendering at least for me. Price wise Summaron is more expensive.)

3) Nikkor LTM 28mm f3.5 (as small as the Summaron, great performance and goes to f3.5)

4) Minolta LTM 28mm f3.5 (haven’t used it, but did use the Minolta T-1 which has the same lens, and it’s great)

5) Ricoh LTM 28mm f2.8 (the brightest 28mm and super small too; have never used it but it’s the same lens as in the GR cameras so should be great!) 

6) Canon LTM 28mm (haven’t use any of them so can’t really say much, but should be as good or better than Hektor / Summaron)


PS: I’ve tried the elmarit it before, don’t like it at all…so boring lol I don’t think you’ll like it either knowing your taste in lenses. If you really want f2.8 then go with the Ricoh instead, much smaller and more interesting rendering; But f3.5 and f2.8 is pretty much the same thing..it’s just half a stop difference, again no real impact when actually using the lens or metering (unless you shoot it with slide film and require precise metering at all times). 

Regarding #1... How can you recomend such things on a photography forum? You would never say “a summilux is in fact a noctilux, just meter at f1.2 and shoot at f1.4, same thing”, would you?

 

And #6, on top of having not used Canon lenses you haven’t used a Summaron. The summaron lens (reissue) is a Very sharp lens with very good contrast! Nothing to do with the Old and MUDDY canon optics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One doesn’t beat the other. It’s just different. It doesn’t have to always be a contest.

The 28 Elmarit was my first Leica lens ever. It's just outstanding. I traded for a 35 because I don't to enjoy framing and using a 0.72x with a 28mm FL. But, wow. I remember I was so impressed by the 3D pop of this pic. It's just me, or it's there? Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! It was just a snapshot of a family. But look the almost SOOC result. When I see results like

If weight/physical size is the priority concern, here is a comparison of the 28 Summaron and the 28 Lux (san lens hoods) both mounted on a couple of my M10p’s.     Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Posted Images

Posted (edited)

I have/use those muddy canon LTM optics,

the 3.5/28mm is not that muddy after all but not better or worse ( in my use just different ! ) than the contemporaneous Summaron 2.8cm.

 

Otherwise, here are four sizes...

To have an idea of how those 28mm sizes, as I have them at hand 😌

 

Konica M-Hexanon, Summicron-M, Ricoh GR lens, Canon

 

 

 

Ricoh is heavy for it's size (steel made?) and protrude more than Canon, so special rear cap.

in the bunch, of course my prefered is the 'Cron

 

 

the 'Cron is the standard to be compared to the other shorter/smaller Leica 28mm, seen here (link)

 

Edited by a.noctilux
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If weight/physical size is the priority concern, here is a comparison of the 28 Summaron and the 28 Lux (san lens hoods) both mounted on a couple of my M10p’s.

 

 

Edited by RMF
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SJH said:

Hi Steven - I've been there in the 28mm world and personally if you already have the 28 Lux then I'd just go straight to the Summaron, it has really character and you'll clearly find it very different to the Lux. The 28mm 2.8 is to my mind a good all rounder but I can't really get passionate about it the same way as I do with these two!! From your posts I don't think you want the 'average' version :)

As size is your primary issue then the Summaron is really the only currently available Leica lens that makes an M coat pocketable, it's also a fabulous lens for the film M's also.  The 28mm f2 and 2.8's I suspect will be too 'middle ground' for you i.e. all rounders but lacking just that something the Lux and the Summaron have. Of course we are are now in highly 'subjective' territory!!

Thank you for your message. 

It resonates with me a lot. It was the last drop I needed to make my mind. I will get the Summaron. Keep you posted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steven said:

I will get the Summaron. Keep you posted. 

Be careful. Considering the recent huge extension of f/stops after a life shooting wide open, getting a lens f/5.6 could be a shock 😱 And it's wonderful!

Wise choice to pair it with your 28Lux.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Super late to this party and I see the OP has already decided on the Summaron.  FWIW, I've been very happy with the Elmarit 2.8 ASPH (latest version) but have wondered how the Summicron would compare.  I was curious about the difference in contrast between the Elmarit and Summicron and asked a well respected dealer his opinion.  His response?  "All of the modern lenses have basically the same contrast, you won't see any difference" 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ianman said:

I wouldn't bet on it :)

I would! And the Elmarit will be next....

All things considered I'm certain Steven will be over the moon with the Summaron. The f5.6 max. ap. will be a shock to the system (a bit) but, hey, he has shown his f16 'from the hip' shooting skills (which I liked) so 'What's Not to Like?' will be the mindset.

Great choice and I'm looking forward to what happens next (plus images it goes without saying!).

Philip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pippy said:

All things considered I'm certain Steven will be over the moon with the Summaron. The f5.6 max. ap. will be a shock to the system (a bit) but, hey, he has shown his f16 'from the hip' shooting skills (which I liked) so 'What's Not to Like?' will be the mindset.

Great choice and I'm looking forward to what happens next (plus images it goes without saying!).

I second that!

I know I was teasing Steven about the shooting from the hip thing but I have seen some of his other work and that's why right from the start of this thread I wrote that I think the Summaron suits his style and he will love it! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SJH said:

The 28mm f2 and 2.8's I suspect will be too 'middle ground' for you i.e. all rounders but lacking just that something the Lux and the Summaron have. Of course we are are now in highly 'subjective' territory!!

The 28mm summicron asph is ‘middle ground’ and lacking in some way????

Are you serious?

This is the most inaccurate comment I’ve ever read about the 28mm summicron asph! 
 

It is not a summilux or a summaron, but it definitely has it’s own qualities that are far from ‘middle ground’ and different enough to set it apart from either of them. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go for the Summaron, except if you shoot a lot in lower light.

I had the older Summicron28 which I liked, one day got the SUmmaron and loved the look. Very "analog". It has smeared corners and vignettes a bit but I  really like the look and also the handling. f5.6 limits you though in lower light. 

Now I also have the 28/1.4 and have fun with it. I would net sell the Summaron though. It is a great lens.

The 28/2.8 is probably the more logical option, but seems a little boring to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

And #6, on top of having not used Canon lenses you haven’t used a Summaron. The summaron lens (reissue) is a Very sharp lens with very good contrast! Nothing to do with the Old and MUDDY canon optics.

This is where bullshit hits the fan.

Edit - OK, I'll explain. If a lens is now old, and muddy because defacto it must always have been muddy, then why did one of the worlds greatest ever photojournalists, Garry Winogrand, use a Canon f/2.8 as his standard lens on an M4 and the prints come out bright and looking as good as any modern lens or print? I think you could reduce it down to the photographer knowing what he is doing in the darkroom or post processing instead of buying a new lens every time he feels inadequate. 

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

The 28mm summicron asph is ‘middle ground’ and lacking in some way????

Are you serious?

This is the most inaccurate comment I’ve ever read about the 28mm summicron asph! 
 

It is not a summilux or a summaron, but it definitely has it’s own qualities that are far from ‘middle ground’ and different enough to set it apart from either of them. 

 

 

I wasn’t implying the lens was lacking in the sense you imply :) My comments where around the OP’s requirements in that he already has the 28 Lux and his primary consideration at the start of the thread was around size and weight. So for the OP such a lens (28mm Summicron) would be in the ‘middle ground’ between these two. Conversely if the OP had no 28’s and wanted something of a reasonable size then of course the f2 or 2.8’s would probably be the best choice in that scenario.

Looking at the thread above and the OP’s comment it seems that thought resonated but as I said it is of course very subjective. Having had all the current Leica 28’s from my own perspective I think owning both the 28 Lux and the Summicron would be too close a combination compared to the Lux and the Summaron for the OP’s requirements. I also shoot film on my MP and I particularly like the Summaron on that camera as well (I believe the OP shoots film also).

Shooting at 5.6 has also become less of an issue now with the M10R and M10M from a digital perspective and it also works very well with the SL2-S also. Looks slightly strange but the SL2-S in particular has superb colours and great ISO performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

The 28/2.8 is probably the more logical option, but seems a little boring to me.

I'm honestly not sure what makes a lens 'boring'. Do you mean you think it has no overt character of its own?  Aren't form and content the ingredients of an interesting photo, rather than optical aberrations imparted by a lens?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, logan2z said:

I'm honestly not sure what makes a lens 'boring'.

A photographer's personal likes and dislikes; nothing else.

A lens is merely the conduit through which a photographer can create an image. Lenses per se cannot be boring.

Philip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Aren't form and content the ingredients of an interesting photo, rather than optical aberrations imparted by a lens?  

All three are important and should be worked with as a whole. Why bother making multiple lenses of the same focal length if they didn’t each have their unique characteristics which have an effect on the image.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 250swb said:

This is where bullshit hits the fan.

Edit - OK, I'll explain. If a lens is now old, and muddy because defacto it must always have been muddy, then why did one of the worlds greatest ever photojournalists, Garry Winogrand, use a Canon f/2.8 as his standard lens on an M4 and the prints come out bright and looking as good as any modern lens or print? I think you could reduce it down to the photographer knowing what he is doing in the darkroom or post processing instead of buying a new lens every time he feels inadequate. 

Truth is the canon lens is probably a fine lens.

I bought the summaron remake and the thing that struck me was just how clear and sharp the lens was considering it was a clone of a 1956 design.

I have not been able to find out who designed the original lens as i believe its pre- mandler .

Obviously modern lenses are technically improved designs especially wide open and in the corners but the overall differences are quite marginal in my view and some older lenses have a certain signature that can be very appealing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Truth is the canon lens is probably a fine lens.

I bought the summaron remake and the thing that struck me was just how clear and sharp the lens was considering it was a clone of a 1956 design.

I have not been able to find out who designed the original lens as i believe its pre- mandler .

Obviously modern lenses are technically improved designs especially wide open and in the corners but the overall differences are quite marginal in my view and some older lenses have a certain signature that can be very appealing.

The modern version has a lot to do with glass formula, modern grinding and polishing and coatings. No really a true clone.

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...