What do you think of the 28/2.8

[sparkie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jack-

 

I've also had all three lenses, and I would precisely agree with your appraisal of them. I think the old Elmarit is the best of the bunch, though the size of the Summicron and one stop slower.

 

In what sense Walt. Distortion, resolving power, not too contrasty, sharpness, ergonomics?

 

I have both the last version 28/2.8 before the ASPH and the 28.28 ASPH. the ASPH elmarit is like almost half the size and weight and that includes the hood!. the pre i think has the more classic look, ie less contrast, better shadow capture because of this esp B&W, but i think has a little more distortion

[aj55]

I went for the Biogon as well. About to pick it up this afternoon, so no pictures yet.

[tjv]

The new ASPH 28mm is wonderful. I have used it on both film and digi and found that it seems more suited to digi because of vignetting on a full frame neg. Nothing bad, but I've noticed it none the less. Actually, I like it on film more. Maybe because it seems softer and less harsh.

[wattsy]

I bought the 28 Elmarit ASPH back in the spring as a smaller replacement for the 28 Summicron. I never had any complaints about the performance of the latter but I was never that keen on the physical size of the lens (for me, the Leica M should handle and feel like a slightly overgrown point and shoot - not an undersized SLR). Rather foolishly, I almost immediately sold the Summicron. I tried hard to like the image quality of the Elmarit but it always seemed a little bit too digital for my taste. The little 28 is incredibly sharp (and that might be part of what I didn't like) but it also seemed to clip the highlights much more readily than what I had got used to with the Summicron. Maybe it is too much contrast, maybe it's 'too much' depth of field? Whatever it is, it certainly has a different and less subtly look than the Summicron. I eventually bit the bullet and bought another Summicron (taking advantage of the 30% discount). Whilst I'm less keen on the size of the faster lens, I'm much happier with the way the lens draws.

[Guest Walt]

In what sense Walt. Distortion, resolving power, not too contrasty, sharpness, ergonomics?

 

I have both the last version 28/2.8 before the ASPH and the 28.28 ASPH. the ASPH elmarit is like almost half the size and weight and that includes the hood!. the pre i think has the more classic look, ie less contrast, better shadow capture because of this esp B&W, but i think has a little more distortion

 

Sparkie,

When I state these preferences, I am thinking in terms of a BW tonal scale and of the refinement of the image. The old Elmarit (46mm filter thread and plano front element) and Summicron provide delicate, nuanced, sharp images. By comparison, the new Elmarit is obviously less sharp (renders less fine detail and is more coarse) and has a lumpy, contrasty tonal scale. It is especially "thick" (dense and murky) in the lower midrange. Thinking in terms of an adjustment curve, it is very heavy in the one-quarter tone and discriminations in this area cannot be recovered with a curve correction because the tonal discrimination ("tonal separation") is not in the original data. This lack of discrimination is also visible in other parts of the curve, so that the image seems to jump from the one-quarter tone to the three-quarter tone with little gradation in between. I know that overall contrast plays a role in this, but I don't think that is the whole answer on why lenses vary in quality of tonal scale. I don't know what, technically, makes lenses different in this regard. I was hoping Sean would jump in with an answer on this.

 

On the size and weight, I very much prefer a light, compact camera. But in this case, I have trained myself to accept the weight and size of the Summicron because it is for me a much, much better lens and the 28 is my standard M8 lens, 90% of what I shoot on the M8. The difference between the two lenses is exactly 3 ounces, which is not a ton. I think the M8 looks larger and more imposing with the Summicron and I am mostly reacting to the appearance. While shooting, I of course don't see this. The extra three ounces is also on the front of the camera, so the balance is also different, but that can be acclimated to.

 

I will post a photograph shortly to illustrate what I think of as the virtue of the Summicron (though the old Elmarit is very much like it).

 

Walt

[Guest Walt]

This is an image made with the 28 Summicron. Because it relies heavily on fine tonal gradation, especially in the darker tones, and on rendering of fine detail, I wouldn't know how to make it with the new 28 Elmarit. With the Elmarit, it would just be a photograph that didn't work and I wouldn't have printed it. I don't know to what extent a screen image conveys this. Screens, uncalibrated ones particularly, are a terrible way to look at photographs. For those interested, I print from a screen calibration of 5000 K, gamma 2.2 and luminance of 80-100 cd m2. In the print, there is a luminosity to this image that the new Elmarit cannot produce.

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!

[Jack_Flesher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jack-

 

I've also had all three lenses, and I would precisely agree with your appraisal of them.

 

Walt

 

 

Hi Walt:

 

It's good to hear that --- let's me know my experience was not an anomolie

 

Also, great add-on explanations of the distinctions in the susequent posts, and I totally agree --- I was just reluctant to state it as frankly as you did! Your exemplar image above is perfect --- one picture can be worth 1000 words!

 

Best,

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I love the look of the cron and i paid dearly for it but would pay it again in a second. i wish all my lenses had this look to it up to the 50 lux.

 

 

Now you guys got me thinking of a 35 cron pre-asph version IV instead of the latest cron. You need to stop this your killing me. LOL

[sparkie]

I love the look of the cron and i paid dearly for it but would pay it again in a second. i wish all my lenses had this look to it up to the 50 lux.

 

are you talking about the 50/1.4 pre or 50/1.4 ASPH?

 

 

Now you guys got me thinking of a 35 cron pre-asph version IV instead of the latest cron. You need to stop this your killing me. LOL

 

Nice lens. No one should be without one! Everytime you post someone's piggy bank squeals. about time we returned the favour. heheh

 

 

Now this is going to sound like heresy and complete blasphemy but the day they announced the 28/2.0 ASPH and I saw the shots come through I swore I wouldnt get one as it exhibited a harsh & overly contrasty fingerprint like the 35/2.0 ASPH. Where the 28/2.8 V4 had a much more refined signature. That said I have to say I am surprised to now hear everyone now calling the 28 'cron the bees knees king of bling and the 28/2.8 ASPH as being the highlight & contrast outcast If there is one lens that B&W was made for it is the classic 35/2.8 summaron, now that lens has even better and smoother tonal gradations that the 28/2.0 ASPH. But IMHO the 28/2.8 pre is a tad better than the ASPH. though YVMV Don't noose me folkes :D

[sean_reid]

Sparkie,

When I state these preferences, I am thinking in terms of a BW tonal scale and of the refinement of the image. The old Elmarit (46mm filter thread and plano front element) and Summicron provide delicate, nuanced, sharp images. By comparison, the new Elmarit is obviously less sharp (renders less fine detail and is more coarse) and has a lumpy, contrasty tonal scale. It is especially "thick" (dense and murky) in the lower midrange. Thinking in terms of an adjustment curve, it is very heavy in the one-quarter tone and discriminations in this area cannot be recovered with a curve correction because the tonal discrimination ("tonal separation") is not in the original data. This lack of discrimination is also visible in other parts of the curve, so that the image seems to jump from the one-quarter tone to the three-quarter tone with little gradation in between. I know that overall contrast plays a role in this, but I don't think that is the whole answer on why lenses vary in quality of tonal scale. I don't know what, technically, makes lenses different in this regard. I was hoping Sean would jump in with an answer on this.

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

I think that some people claim to know all of the technical reasons why certain lenses draw as they do but I think the explanations given are sometimes either mistaken or over-simplified. (In fact, some seem to always believe that they have charts, formulas, and/or statistics that explain all). I try to avoid putting myself in that position.

 

With respect to what you're discussing, certain kinds of micro-contrast can play a role, as can lens aberrations, flare, etc. But, in the end, most of us really don't know know *all* of the reasons that a given lens makes the kind of image that it does. In fact, I think even lens designers may sometimes be surprised, to some extent, that a given lens ends up drawing as it does. I mean they plan for X, Y and Z but, lo and behold, here's visual result C that wasn't intended or predicted (for better or worse) in/by the design formula. Much like, in my mind, the way that a chef who knows all of his or her ingredients can nonetheless be surprised by the taste which results when they come together.

 

So, in the end, we trust our eyes (as you do) and realize that a given lens model's drawing can vary a bit from copy to copy, will vary according to the subject lighting, according to how the file progresses once it is captured, etc. So, you might want to try one more copy of the 28 Elm Asph and if you're still not pleased, simply count it as "not your kind of lens".

 

The 28 Summicron and the CV 35/2.5 are both lower contrast lenses than the 28 Elmarit ASPH.

 

Increasingly, I'm including more lens sample pictures/croppings and less discussion in my lens reviews. The play's the thing...

 

I also try to never forget Voltaire's caution: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[delander †]

Sometimes you need a bit of contrast - well you do in Britain at least!

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!

[sparkie]

Jack-

 

I've also had all three lenses, and I would precisely agree with your appraisal of them. I think the old Elmarit is the best of the bunch, though the size of the Summicron and one stop slower.

 

I'm hoping maybe Walt will elucidate more on this. Sounds like he's saying the 28/2.8 V4 is the best of the three? If nothing to stave off the lynch mob on my earlier opinions

[Guest Walt]

Sparkie-

 

I don't know about "the best," but it would be my favorite of the three for tonal scale and equal to the Summicron on detail. The downside is that it's as big as the Summicron. So I compromised on the the Summicron, particularly because I do frequently use the lens wide open. The Summicron is a bit contrastier than the "IV," which of course is sometimes useful, as indoors wide open or with other very flat light; and it is not so contrasty that I often get in trouble with it. As Sean says above, the light makes a big difference. All said and done, the IV is a terrific lens, and so is the Summicron in a slightly different way. I couldn't fault either of these lenses. The Elmarit ASPH has been a fairly consistent disappointment to me. It has an unattractive tonal scale, for me, and makes an image very difficult to print well. Again, this is about BW because I have no idea what one looks for with color. In BW printing I--very broadly--go for darker/somewhat contrastier or smoother/lighter/more open. The Elmarit ASPH doesn't seem to handle either of these very well, often leaving me with a dull, mushy print. Most of my work doesn't much rely on the characteristics of the image I posted above, but even in those other images an elegant grayscale never hurts.

 

Walt

[Guest Walt]

Jeff-

 

To me, these images look just fine in color. I suspect that they, and particularly the top one, would be very difficult in BW. What is muted and solid-looking in color can become murky and flat with BW. BW doesn't have then benefit of color differences for tonal discrimination. Perhaps someone else could articulate this more clearly.

 

Walt

[sparkie]

Thank you Walt for explaining. The lynch mob have gone home

 

I agree 110% about a lenses ability to capture the subtle tones. This along with smooth transitions and gradation, a balanced contrast scale will give you lucious B&W images. The telling point is how will a lens can capture and transition shadow details. (have you tried a 35/2.8 summaron, that lens is one of the best for B&W IMHO and such an underated lens)

 

The ASPH lenses have a tendency to clump up the shadows and produce spiky level histograms, clipped highlights. The 35/2.0 ASPH, 90/2.0 ASPH APO in particular are like this. However I find the 35/1.4 ASPH is quite different, it has a more elegant fingerprint. The 50/1.4 ASPH is a phenomenal lens, though I have not used it enough to conclude its shadow and bokeh characteristis, but this lens has INCREDIBLE resovling power. I have to try out the 28/2.8 ASPH a bit more, it certainly is a very 'matter of fact' lens, sharp and ZERO distortion. Some captures so far seem to suggest its not overly contrasty in every situation but the jury is still out. Which is why I am still hanging onto my 28/2.8 V4. One thing I noticed today was that the V4 was consistenly 1/2 a stop faster that the 28/2.8 ASPH on the M8. I dunno why, it looks like the lens pupil is slightly larger allowing more light through?

 

This goes to show that the pre-ASPH lenses still have a use. The 50/1.4' pre, 35/2.0's pre, 90/2.0 pre, 35/1.4 pre, 28/2.8 pre, 50/2.0 DR, 50/2.0 rigid. All classic lenses that produce images with that something special. And the great thing is that these qualities are captured on the M8 for the most part. 40+ year old lenses still working flawlessly on an M8 At the end of the day I have both non-ASPH and ASPH lenses. I see them as 'paint brushes'. Pick the brush you want to use for any given occasion

[Guest Walt]

Sparkie-

 

I would agree that the 28 Elmarit ASPH is very "matter of fact"--a perfect description I'd say. On the 35s, I have three though I've not used them enough to have a clear impression. These are the 35/2 ASPH, the CV 2.5 and the Summilux ASPH. The 2.0 ASPH is excellent wide open and in flat light and, though it's hard in contrasty light, I don't find the tonal scale problem I have with the 28 Elmarit--the Summicron has rather good tonal discrimination despite the contrast in my impression. The CV lens is tonally most like the 28 Summicron in my experience, which is to say quite good. The Summilux I just haven't used enough, but I have an inkling that it, too, is something like the 28 Summicron. It's a beast to carry around. Sean had a photograph of a woman with a necklace at a wedding (at the end of one of his articles) that had a distinctive clarity and lumimous tonal scale and I believe it was from this lens. It's worth contemplating that photograph for a while, one of the most beautiful images of a woman I've seen, and a real piece of work. The photograph probably wouldn't quite work without those tonal characteristics, or certainly not as well. You see the glow of the lens supporting the glow of the woman and it comes together.

 

On the CV lens, the focusing mount is stiff and the aperture control is a little light and fiddly--my only complaints about the lens. Wide open I think, with my limited experience, that it's probably a sharper, contrastier lens than the old 35 IV.

 

One can go on like this forever about lenses--they are different like people are different. In the end, it's important to find a lens you like and stick with it. That's why people get married. With too many lenses, you're doing an experiment with each image and it's a nuisance. Very few photographs, at least the kind I do, succeed or fail because of a lens. The image I posted above is an exception on this score.

 

If I were you, and I'm not, I'd keep the Elmarit IV over the Elmarit ASPH, without question. To me it's the difference between superb and adequate.

 

Walt

[carstenw]

Nicely worded post, Walt, and I would like to add that having the focus in the exactly right place can also be over-rated. I saw a Peter Lindbergh print today which sold for €14,500 which, at a distance of about 3m, was clearly at least 1.5m back-focused! Yet it was still great! We need to take more pictures with passion and less with the microscope on the negative, so to speak.

[sean_reid]

Sparkie-

Sean had a photograph of a woman with a necklace at a wedding (at the end of one of his articles) that had a distinctive clarity and lumimous tonal scale and I believe it was from this lens. It's worth contemplating that photograph for a while, one of the most beautiful images of a woman I've seen, and a real piece of work. The photograph probably wouldn't quite work without those tonal characteristics, or certainly not as well. You see the glow of the lens supporting the glow of the woman and it comes together.

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

Thanks very much. Those are wonderful things to hear about one's picture. The 35/1.4 Asph is one of my favorite lenses and it, indeed, was well suited to those pictures.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

 

One can go on like this forever about lenses--they are different like people are different. In the end, it's important to find a lens you like and stick with it. That's why people get married. With too many lenses, you're doing an experiment with each image and it's a nuisance. Very few photographs, at least the kind I do, succeed or fail because of a lens. The image I posted above is an exception on this score.

 

Walt

 

I strongly agree with that and have tried to make that same point often in my articles.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

Nicely worded post, Walt, and I would like to add that having the focus in the exactly right place can also be over-rated. I saw a Peter Lindbergh print today which sold for €14,500 which, at a distance of about 3m, was clearly at least 1.5m back-focused! Yet it was still great! We need to take more pictures with passion and less with the microscope on the negative, so to speak.

 

Amen.

 

Sean