28mm elmarit v. 4 vs 28mm asph

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just as a point of order, why do people not use the model numbers to refer to the actual versions of lenses they are using? Such as 11809, 11677 etc? Wouldn't that make all of this a very great deal easier to be 100% certain what actual lenses people re discussing? Or am I missing something? Quite possibly I am...

[adan]

One reason would be that those 5-digit catalog numbers also designate things like silver vs. black-anodized vs. black-paint vs. black-chrome vs. titanium lenses of the exact same type and performance otherwise. Too specific for optical discussions.

Another would be that those numbers only became readily identifiable (i.e. engraved on the lenses themselves) fairly recently. 1990s probably.

Hard to know the number for, say, a 1987 28 Elmarit-M v.3.

Unless one carries around a collectors' reference list (evidence of "toxic connoisseurship" ).

I just this morning saw a great cartoon in the New Yorker.

Two young men are examining bottles in a wine shop, and one says "I wish I knew more about wine. But I am barely tolerable as it is."

 

[grahamc]

On 2/10/2022 at 3:09 AM, adan said:

One reason would be that those 5-digit catalog numbers also designate things like silver vs. black-anodized vs. black-paint vs. black-chrome vs. titanium lenses of the exact same type and performance otherwise. Too specific for optical discussions.

Another would be that those numbers only became readily identifiable (i.e. engraved on the lenses themselves) fairly recently. 1990s probably.

Hard to know the number for, say, a 1987 28 Elmarit-M v.3.

Unless one carries around a collectors' reference list (evidence of "toxic connoisseurship" ).

I just this morning saw a great cartoon in the New Yorker.

Two young men are examining bottles in a wine shop, and one says "I wish I knew more about wine. But I am barely tolerable as it is."

 

Hi Andy 

I've read your comments on 28mm v3 and v4 with interest (here and in your Mandler thread) .  I've never tried the v4 but have had my eye on the v3 for a while .  I tried one today and loved the colour rendition and overall look of the images .  So it is looking like I will get one but the drawback was the large (ish) form factor. 

Regarding the v4 , does it differ only in size or do you think there are other noticeable difference in the way v4 renders ?  I'd be particularly interested in whether colour is very close as I was really smitten with what I got out of the v3 

I have a feeling I asked you this before some time ago sorry but can't find it so perhaps I didn't 🤔

EDIT: I have just found your description of the 28:2.8 versions here

Thanks 

G 

Edited April 14, 2022 by grahamc

[adan]

Always allowing for sample variation, my 28mm v.4, compared to my v.3:

- is somewhat warmer than the v.3 (leans yellow/orange/brown - a bit like having a built-in 81A filter). The v.3 is more "cooler, cyaner Mandler 1980s."

If you are really attracted to the v.3 color specifically, make sure you have checked a v.4's color yourself before choosing it instead. Neither is in any way "bad," but they are a bit different.

- has higher overall contrast (not to be confused with optical edge-contrast) - falls in between the v.3 and the ASPH.

- is as sharp as the v.3, over a slightly larger part of the picture at f/2.8 and other wide apertures.

Non-image characteristics. Despite being more compact, the v.4 is actually marginally heavier than the v.3 (10g or so) and thus "denser." The v.4 aperture ring is thinner to grip.

I bought a v.4 last autumn because I'd never had a chance before to try one over an extended period, and ran across one already 6-bit coded.

But - true confession - I was actually today already planning a trip to my local store, where my (also 6-bit) v.3 has been sitting, unloved, on consignment for sale for 6 months.

To retrieve it.

Partly for silly reasons, such as the "LEITZ" and "Made in Canada" engravings. But also because I do like the lower contrast and slightly greener/cyan rendering in many situations.

 

[grahamc]

14 minutes ago, adan said:

Always allowing for sample variation, my 28mm v.4, compared to my v.3:

- is somewhat warmer than the v.3 (leans yellow/orange/brown - a bit like having a built-in 81A filter). The v.3 is more "cooler, cyaner Mandler 1980s."

If you are really attracted to the v.3 color specifically, make sure you have checked a v.4's color yourself before choosing it instead. Neither is in any way "bad," but they are a bit different.

- has higher overall contrast (not to be confused with optical edge-contrast) - falls in between the v.3 and the ASPH.

- is as sharp as the v.3, over a slightly larger part of the picture at f/2.8 and other wide apertures.

Non-image characteristics. Despite being more compact, the v.4 is actually marginally heavier than the v.3 (10g or so) and thus "denser." The v.4 aperture ring is thinner to grip.

I bought a v.4 last autumn because I'd never had a chance before to try one over an extended period, and ran across one already 6-bit coded.

But - true confession - I was actually today already planning a trip to my local store, where my (also 6-bit) v.3 has been sitting, unloved, on consignment for sale for 6 months.

To retrieve it.

Partly for silly reasons, such as the "LEITZ" and "Made in Canada" engravings. But also because I do like the lower contrast and slightly greener/cyan rendering in many situations.

 

Thanks for the detail Andy 

I think given your comments about colour I will go fo the v3.  I am building a little set with my 35:2 v4 an 50:2 v4 . In my test run loan today with the 28:2.8 v3 the colours , to my eye at least, were the same or extremely close (particularly the 35:2 and 28:2.8) .

All 1979 issued designs of course so perhaps shouldn't be suprising .

Thanks again this has answered what I needed to know, and nice to know the v3 is lighter.  I can tell it will be a lovely lens to own 

Good luck with the retrieval !

G 

Edited April 14, 2022 by grahamc