ho_co Posted October 9, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/elmarit28asph/elmarit.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Hi ho_co, Take a look here E Puts 28/2.8 M ASPH review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted October 9, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 9, 2006 Interesting ! Thx for this link. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted October 9, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 9, 2006 Notice this is a no distortion lens. I abhore distortion. But this is now easily fixed with Photoshop or PTLens or Undestort. Why give up other corrections for something the user can accomplish himself? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted October 9, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 9, 2006 Notice this is a no distortion lens. I abhore distortion. But this is now easily fixed with Photoshop or PTLens or Undestort. Why give up other corrections for something the user can accomplish himself? I read this before going to bed last night, and the comment about performance wide open made the decision between it and the 28 Summicron a no brainer for me. ("Wide open (2.8) the lens does not show the crispness of the 2/28mm (at 2.8) or the previous 2.8/28mm wide open.") Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 9, 2006 Same here Bill , one thing if you just have a M8 is to ignore the corner issues becuase of the crop but it sounds like a F4 lens in general Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 9, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 9, 2006 Erwin seems to have done a good and fair review of the lens, I think. I've used it on the M8 and it performs beautifully. I will need to do the side by side tests of the 28 mm lenses to be able to say more than that but I certainly would be quite happy to own and use the new 28/2.8. I've looked closely at many samples I made with this combo and they're very satisfying. I also love the size and light weight of the lens. Though I have sometimes have serious reservations about Erwin's writing about digital cameras, I do certainly enjoy reading him on lenses. I also like that he's increasingly cautioning photographers against placing to much emphasis on "line counting". I applaud that. The job of a lens is to draw an image on a sensor or piece of film, not to win a statistical contest. BTW, it's not an F/4 lens which is to say that it does very well at F/2.8. Is the Summicron a little more contrasty on center wide open? Maybe, I'll know when I do my own tests. If it is, will that make the Cron a better lens than this little one? I would say not necessarily. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree lenses fine , digital I totally disagree with him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 9, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 9, 2006 I have several questions about this review. Looking at the MTF graphs I don't see the so called "flatness of field". The 28/2 ASPH is far more uniform from center to corner. When I first saw the MTF graphs I noticed a strong drop of contrast beyond the 16mm from center in the new Elmarit. Erwin also claims that the fine detail wide open has lower contrast than the rendering of fine detail at 1:2.8 from the 28/2 ASPH and 28/2.8 pre-ASPH. However, I cannot see this in the MTF graphs. The 28/2.8 ASPH has the same performance of the 28/2, except for a drop beyond 16mm from the center, and much better performance than the old 28/2.8. For instance, in reference to this last lens, the new Elmarit keep the 30lp/mm at 80% contrast until 16mm from the center, whereas the old Elmarit falls bellow 80% at 12mm from the center. Erwin Puts' claims contradicts what I see in the graphs, to some extent. It is remarkable the abscense of distortion. I am considering a 28mm lens for my M8, and I was waiting for Puts' comments. My doubts have not been clarified. The 28/2 ASPH is much more expensive than the new Elmarit, but I seems to be one of the best lenses for M leicas ever made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted October 9, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 9, 2006 Rubin: I think I calculated the DMR crop put the corners of the frame out to 17mm on the MTF curves, probably putting the M8 at 18mm or so. At f2.8 new 28mm Elmarit-M drops in quality quite drastically at 12mm, so it is likely going to be soft in the corners/edges of the frame. As you have suggested here and on earlier threads, the 28mm Summicron will be the clear choice for people seeking the highest quality images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 9, 2006 ...it does very well at F/2.8. Is the Summicron a little more contrasty on center wide open? Maybe, I'll know when I do my own tests... High contrast is not necessarily a panacea wih digital cameras. This cute 28/2.8asph could make a great compact combo with the Summicron 50/2 on the R-D1. Would you say that those 2 lenses have a similar fingerprint, Sean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 9, 2006 The lens seems to be currently in stock in Germany: http://shphoto.de/cgi-bin/shphotoe.pl?f=NR&c=12246&t=temartic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 9, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 9, 2006 High contrast is not necessarily a panacea wih digital cameras.This cute 28/2.8asph could make a great compact combo with the Summicron 50/2 on the R-D1. Would you say that those 2 lenses have a similar fingerprint, Sean? Hi LCT, High contrast is not a panacea with digital cameras? That was my point, but you know that already. Hmm, if only some reviewer would talk about lens contrast and dynamic range. <G> I really have not done any comparative lens testing on the M8 that I can talk about yet but am in the midst of review copy requests for the various lenses I will be testing. So, soon I'll know more based on production cameras and I have several lens comparison reviews planned. I really need to make examples that I can look at side by side to be able to make meaningful comparative comments about the 28s, 35s, etc. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfleica Posted October 9, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 9, 2006 Sean I am sure there are many, like me, who are waiting anxiously for your views on the 28/1.9 Ultron vs Summicron 28/2:) . As you have said a couple of times, an important factor is the complement of lens contrast and M8 dynamic range etc. Can't wait for your review...the 28mm focal length will almost certainly be my most used lens (i am going to ditch my 35 lux asph and keep my 15 heliar, 50 nokton and 90 summicron). Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 9, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 9, 2006 Looking at the MTF graphs I don't see the so called "flatness of field". The 28/2 ASPH is far more uniform from center to corner. Flatness of field and corner MTF are not identical. A lens can be "flat-field" in terms of focusing yet still have fuzzy corners due to other lens aberrations (coma, astigmatism) - e.g the pre-ASPH 35 'cron. Conversely, a lens that is not flat-field may be sharp in the corners - just not in the same plane (subject distance) as the center of the image - e.g. the 400mm/560mm f/6.8 Telyt lenses. A drop-off in corner sharpness revealed in an MTF chart may be due to curvature of field, or to other aberrations, or a combination of the two. No way to tell without considering other data, such as real pictures. The 28/2 ASPH is much more expensive than the new Elmarit, but I seems to be one of the best lenses for M leicas ever made. Agreed! As to lens contrast and dynamic range - this is precisely why I am holding on to my 1980's 21/28/50/90 lenses to use on the M8, even though I also added a 28 'cron for the f/2 aperture (a "37mm f/2.8" is just TOO "1958" for my taste). After a few months of serious experience I may make a choice between the two 28s - and then again, I may just keep both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share #15 Posted October 9, 2006 Notice this is a no distortion lens. I abhore distortion. But this is now easily fixed with Photoshop or PTLens or Undestort. Why give up other corrections for something the user can accomplish himself? Tobey-- I respectfully disagree. You are correct that distortion can be corrected in post-processing, but that is a waste of time if the lens can get it right to start with. I use the same argument you make when talking to people about the Nikkor 18-200, but it's a waste of 30 seconds to a minute on each and every image: Yes, it can be fixed, but that gets old. As for giving up other corrections, all lenses are compromises as you know, and Erwin is a stickler for identifying every characteristic of a lens. Both he and S Reid say the lens is great to work with. You can see the quality of the image Erwin has published with the review. It looks good to me, and I see no reason to condemn it with nitpicking. Its performance looks superb, even without comparing performance and price. As Puts says, taking pictures is far more important than second-guessing lens design and performance graphs! My opinion, of course. And your point is actually well taken. Before digital, no manufacturer could have got away with a lens showing as much distortion as the Nikkor 18-200. Now we've got a previously unavailable, incredible range of focal lengths, with the cost of having to correct every image for excruciating distortion. There's a place for both viewpoints. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share #16 Posted October 9, 2006 Rubèn-- Forgive a bit of disagreement: Do you see a quality problem with the photo Erwin published from the new 28? I know, it's his image, we don't know what film, we don't know what aperture, we don't know what scanner etc, so we can't compare ... Would you see a difference with the 28 Summicron? It's nice to know "I have the best 35mm Leica currently offers," for example--but is anyone likely to see the difference? Is the 28/2 a 'better' lens? Doubtless in some respects. And there's no reason not to own it if you want it. Is the 28/2.8 a breakthrough for Leica? Definitely! Exceptional performance at a reasonable price. Frankly, I like what I see in this lens. Next, someone will pick up on Erwin's phrase "leans a bit in the direction of the Zeiss philosophy of lenses" and say, "See? Leica is deserting us! Wish I still had my Contax IIa." --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 9, 2006 Share #17 Posted October 9, 2006 SeanI am sure there are many, like me, who are waiting anxiously for your views on the 28/1.9 Ultron vs Summicron 28/2:) . As you have said a couple of times, an important factor is the complement of lens contrast and M8 dynamic range etc. Can't wait for your review...the 28mm focal length will almost certainly be my most used lens (i am going to ditch my 35 lux asph and keep my 15 heliar, 50 nokton and 90 summicron). Robert Hi Robert, I'm curious myself because I obviously haven't done careful side by side comparisons with the various lenses on a production M8 yet. I sent my test request list to Leica earlier today and here are the sets (organized by time priority): 1. 24/2.8 (compared with Zeiss 25) 2. 28/2.8, 28/2.0 (comp. with Zeiss 28/2.8, CV 28/1.9, CV 28/3.5) 3. 35/1.4 and 35/2.0 (comp. with Zeiss 35/2.0, CV 35/1.7, CV 35/2.5) 4. 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar and 21/2.8 (comp. with Zeiss 21, Zeiss 15, CV 15) 5. 75/1.4 and 75/2.0 (comp. CV 75/2.5) 6. 50/1.4, 50/2.0, 50/2.8 Elmar and Noctilux 50/1.0 (comp. with Zeiss 50/2.0, Zeiss 50/1.5, CV 50/1.5) 7. Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 Obviously, the usability of the Zeiss 25 would improve with a change in the lens so that it triggers the 24 mm frame lines. I'm going to test it on the hunch that somebody will get that figured out. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted October 9, 2006 Share #18 Posted October 9, 2006 The lens seems to be currently in stock in Germany: Leica - M Lens*2,8/28mm ASPH. Elmarit-M NEW! 11606 with EU warranty - SH photo So does the M8 and new tri-elmar Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 9, 2006 Share #19 Posted October 9, 2006 So does the M8 and new tri-elmar... Have you got a link Bob? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfleica Posted October 9, 2006 Share #20 Posted October 9, 2006 Hi Robert, I sent my test request list to Leica earlier today and here are the sets (organized by time priority): 1. 24/2.8 (compared with Zeiss 25) 2. 28/2.8, 28/2.0 (comp. with Zeiss 28/2.8, CV 28/1.9, CV 28/3.5) 3. 35/1.4 and 35/2.0 (comp. with Zeiss 35/2.0, CV 35/1.7, CV 35/2.5) 4. 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar and 21/2.8 (comp. with Zeiss 21, Zeiss 15, CV 15) 5. 75/1.4 and 75/2.0 (comp. CV 75/2.5) 6. 50/1.4, 50/2.0, 50/2.8 Elmar and Noctilux 50/1.0 (comp. with Zeiss 50/2.0, Zeiss 50/1.5, CV 50/1.5) 7. Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 Sean absolutely excellent! any idea/aspiration for when these reviews may be ready? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.