which 28mm lens is the best?

noah b · 10-05-2008

Hello all! I'm currently trying to find a 28mm lens for my M3 and am having a hard time figuring out which ones are good and fit the camera. I'd like to find a canon but anything would do really. Any help is appreciated.

jbf · 10-05-2008

The CV 28mm Ultron f1.8 is honestly one of my favorites. I used it exclusively over the past six months and have made plenty of great images with it.

back alley · 10-05-2008

the rokkor 28/2.8, the cv 28/3.5 are 2 small and sharp lenses.

Beemermark · 10-05-2008

I think just about any of the 28mm are very, very good. Depends on what you want and if price is a factor. I like my CV 28/1.9 but I like my 28 Elmarit even more.

wlewisiii · 10-05-2008

If you can find one, the Canon Serenar 28/3.5 in LTM is an exquisite and tiny chrome beauty that shoots wonderfully. I always wished Canon had made lenses in S/C mount.

William

thomasw_ · 10-05-2008

I assume you will use an auxiliary VF on the M3? As such, JBF's suggestion of the 'biggie' lens makes a ton of sense: the 28/1,9 CV is a sweet performer and it is a deal now, and its size won't be a big deal with an auxiliary finder.

amateriat · 10-05-2008

I would simply state that it's likely a bit of a challenge to find a truly lousy M-mount 28, so I wouldn't get awfully obsessive here.

Having said this, I wouldn't trade my 28 f/2.8 M-Hexanon for anything.

Near Herald Square, NYC, February 2002. One of the first images I made with my first Hexar RF.

- Barrett

noah b · 10-05-2008

ahh, i just found a serenar with vf...it looks promising. when you say rokkor is it the minolta?

amateriat · 10-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah booshu

ahh, i just found a serenar with vf...it looks promising. when you say rokkor is it the minolta?

Indeed. Rokkor=Minolta.

- Barrett

oscroft · 10-05-2008

I use a CV 28/3.5, and I share the general appreciation of it - I think it has to be one of the best lenses I've ever used. (So good that, now it is discontinued, I often think about getting another one while there is still some stock left).

DwF · 10-05-2008

I would agree that there are so many good 28mm choices for the Leicas. I have currently have the CV 28mm 3.5 but had the Ultron 1.9 and found it to be an exceptional lens. I recently traveled in Europe carrying a 28mm Elmarit ASPH, 21mm Elmarit pre-asph and Nokton 40mm f1.4.

I prefer the 28 Elmarit handling-wise to just about any other lens that I have used and that is important to me given that the image quality is so good. Here are links to some examples with the Elmarit and one with the Ultron wide-open, and highlighting the ability to isolate subject. There are more pics to see as well from the links.

http://www.pbase.com/image/94994811
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/94535948
http://www.pbase.com/bitonal/image/103183144

kipkeston · 10-05-2008

There are lots of good 28mm lenses. Since you asked what the best is, I think if this were a poll with the summicron in it, it would be leading.

antistatic · 10-05-2008

The new CV Ultron 2.0 also does a good job.

David

Uwe_Nds · 10-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by antistatic

The new CV Ultron 2.0 also does a good job.

David

Sorry, but I tried two copies of the new Ultron and was less than impressed with both of them:

M-Hexanon 28/2.8 @2.8 - lower left hand corner:

Ultron 28/2.0 @2.8, lower left hand corner:

Cheers,
Uwe

oscroft · 10-05-2008

Hi Uwe,

Quote:

Ultron 28/2.0 @2.8, lower left hand corner:

That looks like camera shake to me - you can clearly see the characteristic "double image" effect in the characters on the computer screen.

Best regards,

kipkeston · 10-05-2008

Well, I will admit being disappointed with the new voigt 28/2. It's no match for the pre-asph elmarit at 2.8+. I haven't seen any solid reviews of it yet, but I suspect it may fall the way of the 35 nokton classic we just saw.

Uwe_Nds · 10-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscroft

Hi Uwe,

That looks like camera shake to me - you can clearly see the characteristic "double image" effect in the characters on the computer screen.

Best regards,

Alan,
Yes, the corners to look like camera shake.
Here are crops from the centre showing no double images.
The Ultron picture was the best out of three. I couldn't get it any sharper.

I got really annoyed about the Ultron and refrained from trying a third copy.
Maybe I was just unlucky, but my M-Hex wide open ran circles around both Ultron copies stopped down to 2.8.

M-Hex 28/2.8 @ 2.8 centre crop:

Ultron 28/2.0 @2.8 centre crop:

Cheers,
Uwe

antistatic · 10-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipkeston

Well, I will admit being disappointed with the new voigt 28/2. It's no match for the pre-asph elmarit at 2.8+. I haven't seen any solid reviews of it yet, but I suspect it may fall the way of the 35 nokton classic we just saw.

Either I'm very lucky or not very discerning

All I know is that it does a much better job than my Rokkor 2.8 (my only other 28mm reference point. My copy was way too soft and took "glow" to a disturbing level).

mfogiel · 10-06-2008

I have 2 28mm lenses: the Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH and the Biogon 28/2.8 ZM, and I got the Biogon only recently, because the Elmarit shots lack something with respect to the Zeiss ZM lenses which I prefer. However, now I will have some time to test these lenses side by side, and will repost the results FWIW. Here are a couple of shots made on a 400 ISO film:
Elmarit:

Biogon:

The Elmarit shot had some sharpening applied, while the Biogon shot had not - it has more "bite" , or microcontrast, which I like, especially in these wider lenses.

oscroft · 10-06-2008

Quote:

Yes, the corners to look like camera shake.
Here are crops from the centre showing no double images.
The Ultron picture was the best out of three. I couldn't get it any sharper

How interesting, and very curious. I wonder if there's any possibility of ghosting of any sort - did you have a filter on? (I know it's only a remote possibility - the "double images" look too bright to be ghosts). But (in my non-expert thoughts) that double-imaging really looks like it would need a pretty bad fault to produce.

Quote:

I got really annoyed about the Ultron and refrained from trying a third copy.
Maybe I was just unlucky, but my M-Hex wide open ran circles around both Ultron copies stopped down to 2.8

I guess it's possible you had two bad ones, but very unlucky. Though if it really is such a badly flawed design, I wouldn't have expected Tom A to be so impressed with his example. I wonder if it's just really bad quality control?

Anyway, thanks for the example - it's enough to make me rethink my half-plan to get one.

Uwe_Nds · 10-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscroft

How interesting, and very curious. I wonder if there's any possibility of ghosting of any sort - did you have a filter on? (I know it's only a remote possibility - the "double images" look too bright to be ghosts). But (in my non-expert thoughts) that double-imaging really looks like it would need a pretty bad fault to produce.

I guess it's possible you had two bad ones, but very unlucky. Though if it really is such a badly flawed design, I wouldn't have expected Tom A to be so impressed with his example. I wonder if it's just really bad quality control?

Anyway, thanks for the example - it's enough to make me rethink my half-plan to get one.

Alan,
No filters on both lens.
And the double images were present in both copies I tried.

Tom used his copy on b&w film whereas I used mine on the M8. Maybe it's an "incompatibility" of the Ultron with the sensor?

It would be interesting to read experiences of others with the Ultron on the M8.
If you look up flickr.com, there are only 7 pictures taken with the Ultron on the M8:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=ultron+28%2F2+m8

Cheers,
Uwe

sanmich · 10-06-2008

Just a word about canon/serenars:

I have canon lenses, and they are great. I find only ONE thing problematic, and it is the minimum focusing distance. For me, 1m is too long for wides. I have hard times to bear it on my 35mm and keep the lens only because it's the 1.5. I would not buy a canon or serenar 28mm for this reason. OTHO, if your main photographic interest is in landscapes....

Also, If someone is interested by my VC Ultron, drop me a note...

oscroft · 10-06-2008

Quote:

Tom used his copy on b&w film whereas I used mine on the M8. Maybe it's an "incompatibility" of the Ultron with the sensor?

Yes, I guess that must be a possibility - the design of the rear elements unable to cope with the higher reflectivity of a digital sensor, or something like that? That would probably fit with the double-images being in the direction away from the centre, and might also explain the lack of sharpness in the centre (an on-axis reflection might just blur the details).

Quote:

If you look up flickr.com, there are only 7 pictures taken with the Ultron on the M8:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=ultron+28%2F2+m8

And the last one is a picture of Tom A! But yes, there's not much in the way of in-focus contrasty stuff in the corners of those to be able to tell much (and most of them aren't big enough anyway).

peter_n · 10-06-2008

It depends on your definition of "best". I guess most people go for sharpness but I go for signature or "look". I hardly use my 28 but I have a Hexanon and I like the way it draws an image. Below is an old one that I've posted here a couple times before to illustrate the look. Shot at f2.8.

Krosya · 10-06-2008

Another vote for m-Hexanon. I dont use 28mm all that much, but Hexanon is so good it almost makes me use it more than I'd normal do so: