Fav sub $500 28mm lens?

rogermota · 08-27-2005

Folks, I'm in the market for a 28mm lens and cannot possibly pay more than $500. So lets just exclude all the more recent Leica glass right off the bat.

But besides the money issue, I love the way older (1950s-1960s) lenses draw. I shoot only in black and white and so more contrast is just about the last I look for in a lens. I've heard many good things about the Canon 28/2.8 (1957) but its virtually impossible to find one.

Any suggestions on your fav (old) 28mm M/LTM lenses for b&w shooting?

phototone · 08-27-2005

Well, I am very taken with the CV Ultron 28mm f/1.9. But it is a modern lens.

back alley · 08-27-2005

the canon 28/3.5 is much easier to locate, often on ebay, with case and finder included.

i think kevincameras.com had a couple last time i looked.

i have one and it definately is lower contrast. i need to use it more to fully evaluate it.

joe

photodog · 08-27-2005

Consider the 28mm f/3.5 Color Skopar. I don't have one but saw at the RFF meet a few weeks ago. RayPA had one, it was quite compact. Cameraquest sells it for $285 in screw mount. Maybe look for an old 28mm Rokkor in M mount, it was made for the CL in the 70s.

rover · 08-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by phototone

Well, I am very taken with the CV Ultron 28mm f/1.9. But it is a modern lens.

I recently bought a 28 Ultron and have fallen for it too. It hasn't come off my M6 yet. It is bigger than any other option you will find, but it is a super lens, and fast.

aizan · 08-27-2005

that's pretty much the whole list. ultron, color skopar, m-rokkor, canon 28/3.5...

i have a canon 28/2.8, but it's a keeper!

phototone · 08-27-2005

Both of the CV 28mm lenses are top performers. the Ultron is huge, the Color Skopar is tiny. As far as image quality, you probably won't be able to tell them apart. They are both great lenses, but are probably more contrasty than older designs. This does not have to be a bad thing, though. I have both and use both with confidence.

rogermota · 08-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by aizan

i have a canon 28/2.8, but it's a keeper!

*******!

I have just discovered this:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-RF-28-2-...QQcmdZViewItem

anybody know if that would be the m-mount or screw?

Seems a tad pricey tho (about twice as much as I'd expect to pay for the lens...)

rover · 08-27-2005

You are going to pay bust out retail buying from Kevin, but I am sure it is as he describes.

The Canon lenses are all LTM.

rogermota · 08-27-2005

Ok, I have no clue what to go for

There's the canon 28/2.8 I have been looking for a long time but Kevin sells it for way too much. Then there's the canon 28/3.5 that even Kevin sells for substantially less (actually selling it the price the 2.8 should be going for).
Then there's the newer CV color skopar.

If you were to pick one, which one would it be??? Maybe this should be a poll!?!

einolu · 08-27-2005

i always thought that the slower CV lenses are very contrasty and the faster ones arent?

rover · 08-27-2005

Color Skopar, I have only read rave reviews about it.

phototone · 08-27-2005

Just by the virtue of the new CV lenses being multi-coated with modern methods, they would be more contrasty and less flare-prone than older lenses. With the goal of good b/w photography in mind, the "contrast" rendition of a lens has less importance, as one can adjust contrast when one prints, or when one scans. The native "contrast" of a lens should only really be a concern if the final end product is color slides, which are a contrasty medium to begin with, and since the film you shoot is the film your project, then there is no opportunity to adjust anything after the initial exposure in the camera. Of course, if you scan slides, there is some adjustment possible.

The other think one should consider is the rendering of the out-of-focus areas. Now what is that called, bunkum, borkum, bumfuddle, whatever, and with wide-angle lenses, it is less of an issue, as more of an image is "in" focus at a given aperture setting.

aizan · 08-27-2005

the ultron is less contrasty. i'd go for that, plus the speed.

richard_l · 08-27-2005

There's the old 28mm f/5.6 Summaron (available only in screwmount), but prices are insane. The f/1.9 Ultron is sort of the opposite of the Summaron in size, speed, and vintage, but it is a fine lens, so easy to use that it's quite seductive. Performancewise it is hard to fault. It does intrude into the viewfinder a bit. It takes standard 46mm screw-in filters.

back alley · 08-27-2005

try emailing kevincameras and ask if he has a 28/2.8 in user condition for less money.

i have heard that he has some inventory that does not get to the net but is mostly for walk in business. couldn't hurt...

joe

rogermota · 08-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by backalley photo

try emailing kevincameras and ask if he has a 28/2.8 in user condition for less money.

i have heard that he has some inventory that does not get to the net but is mostly for walk in business. couldn't hurt...

that's a good idea actually. you guys have any recommendations on other trustworthy dealers i could fireup an email to re: canon 28/2.8?

rover · 08-27-2005

Ritz

http://www.ritzcam.com/catalog/frame...tegory_id=1180

phototone · 08-27-2005

The original poster was asking for an "M" mount 28mm lens. Just to clarify, almost all the lenses mentioned above, including in my posts, are actually LTM mount which would need an adaptor for "M" mount, however outside of Leica brand, and one Hexanon and one new Zeiss that are in "M" mount, ALL the older choices would be in LTM mount to which you would need to add an "M" adaptor to. Fully functional on "M" and added value of being useable on all LTM cameras as well.

rover · 08-27-2005

Good point, but it has to be mentioned that perhaps there are no M mount lenses that would be sub $500.

Oh, the Minolta CLE, but that is a bit of a risk because of the faulty coating/element separation issue.

rogermota · 08-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by phototone

The original poster was asking for an "M" mount 28mm lens. Just to clarify, almost all the lenses mentioned above, including in my posts, are actually LTM mount which would need an adaptor for "M" mount

I wasn't entirely sure if the Canon RF lenses were LTM or M. but yeah basically the idea was, what lens to use that would fit an M-mount (in which case LTM with adapter is a viable option)

I'm going to be using the lens in an R-D1 (oh the horror, no film!) and after reading up on the performance on the skopar 3.5, it's clearly outdone by the 1.9. However, the thing is HUGE. And it does leave me wondering why Sean Reid in his review of the lenses' performances on the R-D1 (link) prefers the canon. He dealt with both lenses and sure, the 1.9 is a very fine modern lens, but there's still something there that makes him prefer the canon.

back alley · 08-27-2005

he likes the lower contrast of the older lenses.

rover · 08-27-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by backalley photo

he likes the lower contrast of the older lenses.

Bingo, the dynamic range of the current digital sensors is very narrow causing high contrast lenses to either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows as they resolve beyond the sensor's capabilities.

One of the last few feathers in film's cap.

Doug · 08-27-2005

Apparently the 28 Ultron bests the Skopar on the R-D1, which is the relevant platform under discussion. (And I think Sean found the Ultron preferable even over the 28 Summicron.) But I'll defend the Skopar's honor as an excellent and gem-like lens with film.

Sample below...

Graybeard · 08-27-2005

Both of the CV 28 lenses are fine performers, optically and both are available, new, for much less than $500. If you do your own B&W darkoom work, contrast or lack thereof should'nt be much of an issue; it isn't for me.

When the CV 28mm/f3.5 was first introduced there was quite a bit of favorable comment about the mechanical build quality, that CV had improved the mechanicals over the 28mm/1.9.

I can't say that I've had a problem with either lens. I shoot quite a bit of available light and, at times, really need a fast WA. The CV 1.9 is just the thing to have then. Most recently, I used the lens to photograph the guests at a wedding rehearsal dinner in a dimly lit restaurant and the CV 28/1.9 performed quite well indeed (Tri-x pushed to ASA800 in Xtol).

If you don't need the speed, get the CV f3.5, it is tiny and readily carried. If speed is important, the faster CV lens will probably serve well.