Looking for new lenses

[Annibale G.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I'd like to take new lenses for my M7. Now i got just the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/2.ò

I was thinking about buying a 28 mm f/2 or f/2,8 ; I really don't know which one should be better, the same happened with the 35 f/2 and f/1,4. I look also to 24mm but I have to buy the viewfinder as well and I don't know how much I'm confortable with.

Any suggestion?

[Guest leica_mage]

Hi, I'd like to take new lenses for my M7. Now i got just the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/2.ò

I was thinking about buying a 28 mm f/2 or f/2,8 ; I really don't know which one should be better, the same happened with the 35 f/2 and f/1,4. I look also to 24mm but I have to buy the viewfinder as well and I don't know how much I'm confortable with.

Any suggestion?

The differences between the 28/2 ASPH and 28/2.8 ASPH are differences in signature and differences in depth of field.

 

The 28/2 ASPH draws in unexciting, lacklustre fashion to this eye. Forget sparkling shadow detail à la 35/2 ASPH with this lens, for it tends to muddy the shadows. On the other hand, the shallower depth of field than the 28/2.8 ASPH at the same f-stops is a distinct advanatge whilst its relative limitedness in the 2.8 lens is annoying to me. Signaturewise, the 28/2.8 has more character, having some sparkle and a certain grittiness not unakin to that which the 50mm Elmar (current) displays. Having said that, for this poster f/2.8 is too little for a lens that would see mainly indoor and low-light use, and DOF is a major consideration.

 

The 24/2.8 ASPH's signature, on the other hand, is right up there with that of the 35/2 ASPH, if not surpassing it in sparkle of shadow detail and overall brilliance, without falling into the realm of the clinical - which makes it a pity that this user cannot get used to the 24mm FL but is a natural 28mm user...

 

I also feel your choice of 35/2 over 35/1.4 was correct from a lens-signature perspective.

 

Try them out if you can, you'll see what I mean.

[cbretteville]

The 28/2 and 24/2.8 are both exceptionally nice lenses. The 24 gives a fresh perspective on film. Not as wide as a 21, easier to manage in my opinion. The advice of trying them out is a good one although you will not be disappointed with either.

 

As far as a finder is concerned you might consider a Voigtlander 25mm finder. At $128 from CameraQuest Home they're unbeatable for price/performance.

 

- Carl

[peter_n]

Annibale try the 28 and compare with your 35. Some people don't see too much difference between the lenses and it may be like that for you. I have a 28 and a 35 but the 28 doesn't get used that much because I have a 24 and apart from the lens' FOV being very usable as pointed out by Carl above the lens itself is absolutely brilliant. It must be one of the best lenses Leica has made.

[Eoin]

The differences between the 28/2 ASPH and 28/2.8 ASPH are differences in signature and differences in depth of field. The 28/2 ASPH draws in unexciting, lacklustre fashion to this eye. Forget sparkling shadow detail à la 35/2 ASPH with this lens, for it tends to muddy the shadows.......

 

I'll agree the signatures are very different, but more akin to the more contrast the 2.8 imparts IMO. But to say the 2.0 is unexciting is an opinion I'm surprised with. I find the Summicron very pleasing to the eye, although it's an Asph, it doesn't seem to have the Asph signature of strong contrast. Shadow detail is very good, with subtle tones and graduations without blocks of black. I also find the lens holds the highlight details without burning them out. Of course my experience of these 2 lenses is based on the M8 only and film may be different. But of all my lenses leaving the focal lengths aside, this summicron has the most pleasing rendering to my eye.

[Guest leica_mage]

I'll agree the signatures are very different, but more akin to the more contrast the 2.8 imparts IMO.

True.

 

But to say the 2.0 is unexciting is an opinion I'm surprised with.

And one I'm very frustrated with, because 28/2 is a necessity in my books. It boils down to what you say below - compared to the 24/2.8 ASPH and 35/2 ASPH I find it almost anaemic. And somewhat clinical.

 

I find the Summicron very pleasing to the eye, although it's an Asph, it doesn't seem to have the Asph signature of strong contrast.

Very true.

 

Shadow detail is very good ...

But alas, not great - the 35/2 ASPH is the master here.

 

I also find the lens holds the highlight details without burning them out.

Very true; that is one of the qualities of this type of lens. The trade-off is the shadow detail. The 35/1.4 ASPH is similar in this respect; it doesn't blow out highlights the way the 35/2 ASPH can (ruthlessly) do at times, but its shadow detail lacks the sparkle of the 35/2 ASPH.

[budrichard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally I would spend a year or two taking pictures with what I have and then figure out what you can't do with what you have or how another lens would have improved the photography that you are attempting to do.

Of course if you just have GAS, then just buy what strikes your fancy.-Dick