sean_reid Posted January 9, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would always prefer a good used 28/2.8 over any new VC lens in that range As mentioned before, they are priceworth but require 2 stops-down before really performing. From the 28/1.9 ultron I know it is pretty soft, lacks overall sharpness and is sensitive to flare, certainly at f1.9-2.8. Above I hear a similar story about the 25. In general stopped down and in normal daylight VCs will give excellent results. But when brought to their limits there is no way they can compete with the Leica glass. If you can live with that and now the limitations, by all means you will be happy with them. That has not been my experience having very extensively tested RF lenses for the past five years. Except...the 28/1.9 is indeed prone to flare (though the 25 is not). Otherwise, I'd have to disagree with most of what you've written. Many of the CVs are far better wide open than you're suggesting. Is it possible that you haven't yet tested them? There has not been a lot of objective and controlled testing of the CV, Zeiss and Leica lenses side by side. But there is a lot of misinformation about all three of them on the web. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 9, 2009 Posted January 9, 2009 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here Which 28mm or 25mm with M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ShyTot Posted January 9, 2009 Share #22 Posted January 9, 2009 That has not been my experience having very extensively tested RF lenses for the past five years. There has not been a lot of objective and controlled testing of the CV, Zeiss and Leica lenses side by side. But there is a lot of misinformation about all three of them on the web. Cheers, Sean Sean, perhaps you could share the benefit of your experience with us here on these pages, rather than just these unsupported innuendos that keep us all begging for more? Shyt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted January 9, 2009 Sean, perhaps you could share the benefit of your experience with us here on these pages, rather than just these unsupported innuendos that keep us all begging for more? Shyt "Unsupported innuendos" is a very mistaken comment in this case but I suppose you really don't realize why that is so. Those lens comments are, in fact, much better supported than most lens comments anywhere on the web - as many people here know first-hand. But, no, I am not going to reproduce my articles on a forum. I write about lenses, cameras and photography professionally and my work is my work. Answering some of these questions properly would take tens of pages and hundreds of illustrations. But if you have a couple specific lens questions, I (and others here, I imagine) would be happy to answer them. It doesn't matter to me whether a photographer chooses to read my site or not but it does bother me when some of the same old prejudices and cliches about RF lenses keep getting passed around. People are welcome to their opinions and we are all welcome to rebut - as I'm doing here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 9, 2009 Share #24 Posted January 9, 2009 The 28mm Ultron is a very good lens - or at least the sample I have is. I recently bought a 28mm ASPH Elmarit and my opinion at the moment is that the Leica lens is better. However I have no intention of selling the Voigtlander. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 9, 2009 Share #25 Posted January 9, 2009 That has not been my experience having very extensively tested RF lenses for the past five years. Except...the 28/1.9 is indeed prone to flare (though the 25 is not). Otherwise, I'd have to disagree with most of what you've written. Many of the CVs are far better wide open than you're suggesting. Is it possible that you haven't yet tested them? There has not been a lot of objective and controlled testing of the CV, Zeiss and Leica lenses side by side. But there is a lot of misinformation about all three of them on the web. Cheers, Sean Not my experience either with my 25 and 35 Skopars, both perform excellently, open or stopped down. I really don't find any fault with either lens and I have compared my 35 with a couple of Leica 35's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 10, 2009 Share #26 Posted January 10, 2009 Not my experience either with my 25 and 35 Skopars, both perform excellently, open or stopped down. I really don't find any fault with either lens and I have compared my 35 with a couple of Leica 35's. That 35 Skopar, in particular, is one of my favorite lenses and I use it a lot. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted January 10, 2009 Share #27 Posted January 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would always prefer a good used 28/2.8 over any new VC lens in that range As mentioned before, they are priceworth but require 2 stops-down before really performing. From the 28/1.9 ultron I know it is pretty soft, lacks overall sharpness and is sensitive to flare, certainly at f1.9-2.8. Above I hear a similar story about the 25. In general stopped down and in normal daylight VCs will give excellent results. But when brought to their limits there is no way they can compete with the Leica glass. If you can live with that and now the limitations, by all means you will be happy with them. My experience says that this is nonsense. I have used both the CV 28/1.9 and 28/3.5 quite extensively both wide open and stopped down and have achieved excellent results with them. The ultra-compact 28/3.5 is especially convenient as a 'walk-around' lens on an M8 and produces pin sharp results with good contrast. I also have CV 12, 15, 21, 35 (Skopar and Ultron) and 50mm (Skopar and Ultron) lenses and have no complaints about any of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted January 11, 2009 Share #28 Posted January 11, 2009 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/people/113709d1227310073-last-shisha-tehran-last-shisha-tehran.jpg I like my 28/1.9 ultron 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/73521-which-28mm-or-25mm-with-m8/?do=findComment&comment=773784'>More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 26, 2009 Share #29 Posted June 26, 2009 That 35 Skopar, in particular, is one of my favorite lenses and I use it a lot. Cheers, Sean I just bought the pancake 2 and it is awesome. Got it to compliment the 35 f2 biogon I have and could not be more pleased. Overall performance is darned close to the biogon, but it is half the size and a third of the price. If you want something compact and f2.5 is good enough, it is about as good as it gets. I own leica lenses, albeit not a comparable 35, and I very much doubt the summarit 2.5 has much if anything over this comparing it to my ZMs and other leica glass. I honestly did not expect so much. As for the bokeh, sorry 'lct' it is fine. And I have tested it. Turns out it is almost indistinguishable from the biogon at the same apertures and I know this bec I bothered to put six rolls through it at all distances, apertures and lighting conditions (including extreme contrast, specular highlights at distance etc).The biogon is fractionally smoother and I do mean fractionally. You literally would not know which lens was which without notes. The biogon vignettes less at wider apertures and is a touch sharper in the corners at 2.5/4, but everywhere else the CV right up there with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted June 26, 2009 Share #30 Posted June 26, 2009 The 24mm has become by favorite focal length on the M8 by a wide margin. I also have a 21ASPH and 28 Summicron, but I rarely use them and instead the 24 is pretty much glued on to one of my M8 bodies. The 21 is great but I prefer not to use an accessory finder, and the 28 is not wide enough for me on the M8 to be my main lens. I'm selling my 24 Elmarit ASPH as I decided to go for the 24 'Lux. But my point is you may want to check out a 24mm if you tend towards wide lenses in general. I've heard great things about the Zeiss 25mm but never used one. Obviously the 24 Elmarit is wonderful but I'm sure you won't find one for under $1k. But some say the Zeiss is better, so if I were you I'd give it a look. It's not a tiny lens but not huge either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 26, 2009 Share #31 Posted June 26, 2009 This thread has been going on for a while. So that Zeiss bayonet made its return trip across the Atlantic, and I painted in the code (as a 24mm Elmarit) and screwed the piece back in place. The lens is now in regular use and I can confirm all the good opinions about it. As for CV lenses, you do run the risk of being saddled with a lemon; QC varies more than with Leica or Zeiss lenses. But if this does not happen, you may well find that you have got yourself a very good optic. Build quality is traditional, i.e. way above the plasticky products of Nicanon. I have had good experience with the 35mm Skopar in LTM mount (on a thread mount camera). I have just purchased the M-mount model, and it is really good on the M8. I agree with Sean's opinion of the lens. The old man from the Age When Lenses Stayed Screwed On Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted June 26, 2009 Share #32 Posted June 26, 2009 This thread has been going on for a while. As for CV lenses, you do run the risk of being saddled with a lemon; QC varies more than with Leica or Zeiss lenses. I have had good experience with the 35mm Skopar in LTM mount (on a thread mount camera). I have just purchased the M-mount model, and it is really good on the M8. I agree with Sean's opinion of the lens. The old man from the Age When Lenses Stayed Screwed On Whoa there, I had focus problems with my Zeiss 21/2.8. I sent the lens to Zeiss in Germany and they thought it was within tolerance. It was not, My tests showed that it front focused by 6 inches at its closest focus point. DAG was able to fix this problem but I was less than impressed with Zeiss corporate. My take on this was that the German office did not want to take responsibility for the Japanese manufacturer's mistake. True, problems with Zeiss lenses are rare, but they do occur. After all, assembly takes place in the Cosina factory. And that is not to say that there are problems at the Cosina factory - like yours, my 35/2.5 Skopar is an excellent lens - but their reputation could benefit from the hiring of a new QC manager. Some one needs to test and reject the lemons before they get on the market. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 27, 2009 Share #33 Posted June 27, 2009 Tom, every manufacturer does produce lemons. The question is, how often? And, as you point out, what do they do about them? I bought a Zeiss Distagon ZM 18mm from Leicashop in Vienna. It front-focused by about a meter at mid-distances. I returned it (and e-mailed a couple of pictures) and Leicashop replied, dammit, the other lens on our shelf front-focuses too! So they returned the lenses to Oberkochen and got good lenses back, I assume, because they sent me one. A dealer has more clout than an individual customer, once removed. That said, Zeiss have been invariably polite and contstructive. And yes, Leica does produce lemons too. I found an Elmarit-M 90mm that was obviously mis-focusing. It was a second-hand lens so, no guaranty. It AND the M8 spent a long honeymoon in Solms, getting married. I paid the bill. I trust some manufacturers more than others, but I do never trust an individual piece of goods until I have subjected it to the Holy Inquisition. The old man from the Age When Lenses Stayed Screwed On Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom.w.bn Posted June 28, 2009 Share #34 Posted June 28, 2009 I don't know how you operate the 25mm on a M8? I still have the old CV 25mm with screw mount from my M6 with an adaptor that shows the 24/35mm framelines on the M8. I don't like it, when the framelines are wider than the focal length, because framing is just guessing. And then the 24mm framelines are obviously not aligned correctly. Did some tests. Framed the left and right corner of a house exactly with the 24mm lines. On the picture, the left corner is visible, a lot from the right corner of the house is not on the picture. When I use my 35mm lens and the 35mm framelines they perfectly match. Strange behaviour of the 24mm framelines in combination with the 25mm lens. Not usable at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted June 28, 2009 Share #35 Posted June 28, 2009 Just curious, why not the Leica 24? $$$$?PS> I am wondering the same thing as you right now. However, I do have the Leica 28f2.0 But it's just not wide enough and I don't like dealing with the external finder for my 21. I used a Leica 24mm for 2 years, its a wonderfull lens, but the 28mm is more versatile. I also have the feeling that the internal finder is not very comfortable for the 24mm. So is sold the 24mm and if I really need something wider i will go for the 18mm. 24 and 28 are too close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted June 28, 2009 Share #36 Posted June 28, 2009 ...I'm selling my 24 Elmarit ASPH as I decided to go for the 24 'Lux. But my point is you may want to check out a 24mm if you tend towards wide lenses in general.... The 24Lux and 21 Lux are amazing lenses..even if nobody (neither Leica) up till now showed as a picture where you really neede the biggest apperture. At leicas homepage you can see for the 21mm a picture taken with LEICA M8.2, ISO 320, f/2, 1/90 s and for the 24mm M8.2, ISO 320, f/2,8, 1/90 s. Why do the use ISO 320 and f/2.8 if they could use f/1.4 instead ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted June 28, 2009 Share #37 Posted June 28, 2009 ...but the 28mm is more versatile. This is very much a matter of opinion. To me the 28mm is a bit boring on the M8, not quite wide enough and not quite long enough. To me the 24mm is more versatile by far. It's hard to beat a 24/50 combo with the M8, which is the setup I use for pretty much all of my personal work and assignments. But that's just my opinion:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampguy Posted June 28, 2009 Share #38 Posted June 28, 2009 I've used most of the 28's, and have owned about 6 of them. I may have had a bad example, but the Zeiss 28/2.8 wasn't among the best. It had more CA, and exhibited more flare than some of the others mentioned here. I do like the M-Hexanon 28/2.8, which is an 8 element copy of the pre-asph V4 Elmarit, but smaller and newer, (as well as sharper than the 28 Cron according to photodo and Puts), and I also like the old 60's Canon 28/2.8 for b/w. The older CV 28/1.9 is good, but pretty large, the smaller CV 28/3.5 is small, but slow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 28, 2009 Share #39 Posted June 28, 2009 The 28mm Summicron ASPH may well be the best lens Leica ever made. It is nothing short of amazing, and the only excuse for not using it with your M8 is that you cannot afford it. The Elmarit is also very good, though some people complain about it being too sharp ... Its contrast is indeed a little bit higher than that of the Summicron. Now about framing accuracy with the M8 and a 25mm lens: No rangefinder can frame any lens with total accuracy at all subject distances. The reason is that as you focus the lens, it changes its magnification. You can easily see that phenomenon with a SLR camera. There has been lots of complaints that the M8 takes in quite a lot more at infinity and other long focusing distances, than the frames show. This is because frames are intended to be most accurate at close focusing distances, where framing is most critical. Then they must of necessity be less accurate at longer distances. If that is a mental problem for you -- if you simply cannot consider cropping an image a bit -- change over to a view camera, because SLR cameras too do in most cases show a cropped viewfinder image! So using a 25mm lens with the 24mm frame may actually be an advantage, unless you use the lens for extreme clos-up work, which I find unlikely. There is less 'surplus image'. You must accept that rangefinder finders are aids, not the True Word of God. We have lived with that since the beginning of the 1930's. Do not create mental hangups where no physical ones exist. The old man from the Age of the Brilliant Finder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljclark Posted June 28, 2009 Share #40 Posted June 28, 2009 25mm Zeiss f/2.8? Killer sharp! Took a shot in a museum at 1/30th (on a monopod), printed up a quick and dirty 13 x 19 (cropped a bit) and showed it to my dealer. HE was surprised. (I use the 35mm round hood, btw.) This lens, plus a 35mm Summicron ASPH (fearless wide open) are my two totally-count-on-them lenses. Throw in a pre-ASPH 50mm Summilux and I'm happy camper and no external finders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.