Can anyone tell me witch one is a better lens? I am in the market for a 28mm M lens, thanks!!!

-- Mitch Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), October 09, 2001

Answers

Mitch,

According to Erwin Puts' test, the 28/2 Summicron is the better.

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), October 09, 2001.

Although according to many, the voigtlander 28/1.9 is a damn good lens for a fraction of the price.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 09, 2001.

What kind of techniques do you use? Is the end result 4 x 6 prints with the occasional 8 x 10 or do you produce poster sized prints? Are you prepared to use a tripod? In order to get the minute improvements that Erwin discusses you would have to use a weighted tripod and produce output where the dimensions are measured in meters. The only practical differences between the Elmarit and the Summicron are the size of the aperture and price. If you shoot handheld with 400 speed film and produce small output, you would have to be nuts not to buy the Voigtlander lens. You can buy another body with the price difference.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 09, 2001.

At f/2 the Summicron is unquestionably superior. And that's the ultimate question, do you need the extra stop? If you do a lot of low light, max aperture photography, then the 28 Summicron is worth the extra money. If you need a 28 for broad daylight (f/4-f/11) photos of rocks, trees and "urban landscapes," or even, for that matter, street photography, the Elmarit is an outstanding lens. The hundreds of dollars you save will buy a large quantity of film and processing.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.

FWIW, I just returned from the LHSA meeting in San Antonio where I saw three photographers with the new 28 f2 - each had either sold, or were trying to sell their 2.8's - they all LOVED the new lens. After seeing some images produced by the new 28, I must admit that I was also VERY impressed - it may just be the sharpest M lens ever produced by Leica. The only complaint I have is that the hood seems quite large, and when attached to the lens makes the package look a bit akward - larger than the 35 Summilux asph with its hood. But that aside, the results are exceptional!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 09, 2001.

One aspect of an f/2 vs f/2.8 lens in that focal length is the decreased DOF at the wider aperture, for selective-focus. The effect is more pronounced than between an f/2 and f/2.8 on a 90mm lens. Especially among Leica afficionados there seems to be a tendency for sterile clinical performance to make headlines while other siginificant issues of lenses as photographic tools get buried on page 10, so-to-speak.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 09, 2001.

Hi dear all! It appears, according to Cosina/Voigtlander Web site (http://www.cosina.com), that they don't make the Ultron 28 mm with M mount. So what, is there an adaptor for the M system? -- Saluti, Marco.

-- Marco Maria Colombo (mcolombo@iol.it), October 09, 2001.

Marco,

The Voigtlander lenses are in thread mounts, but yes there is a ring which has the Leica M bayonet mount on the outside, while the inside has the threads that match the lens.

This was started in the 1950's when Leica introduced the M series camera, and wanted to support the many Leica thread mount lenses still in use. The rings are even marked for the proper focal length, so that if you mount the 28mm lens, the frame lines for the 28mm lens comes up in your camera, (assuming you have that focal length in your model). These adapters are offered from independant sources today, as the true Leica models are hard to find.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 09, 2001.

There is no question that the 2/28 is in all respects better than the 2.8/28. Better has to be interpreted as having less residual aberrations. That is the 2/28 is better corrected for chromatic aberrations, especially the lateral ones, it has less coma, much less spherical aberration, less curvature of field. . At aperture 2, the 2/28 is better than the 2.8/28 at 2.8, not in the central area of the image but in the outer zones. Compare the aperture 2.8 for both lenses and you will note that the 2/28 has a more even performance over the whole of the image field, Specifically the rendition of the very fine detail is visibly more crisp, and this performance holds over the whole image field with the 2/28 where the 2.8/28 drops in contrast a lot. The most interesting characteristic of the 2.8/28 is when stopping down one or two stops. Now the 2.8/28 introduces a zonal error, that is the contrast and definition of fine detail in the center area drops, improves in a zone from 6-9mm from the center and then rapidly drops. This characteristic is typical of the previous generation of Leica lenses and indicates a focus shift (spherical aberration) and a neglect of correction of curvature of field. The newer 2/28 has a different fingerprint, that is a very high performance in the center, gradually becoming lower when approaching the corners. At aperture 4, the new 2/28 has an exceptionally high contrast and an outstanding definition of very fine detail. The 2.8/28 lens is not that good. Do you notice these improvements? It is easy to remark that only a tripodbased picture taking environment and the use of a low speed emulsion will bring these differences to the fore. That is not the case. My comparison pictures in handheld shooting show a visible and important improvement of contrast, and specifically the rendition of very fine details improved a lot. Of course a coarse grained APX400 BW picture at 1/15 from a moving subject in a catch-it-or lose-it situation will not reveal these differences. But we talk here about visible improvements that are ready to be exploitable when you need it. There is a remark too that the 2/28 is only of interest when and if you need an f/2 lens. Partly true but this remark does not cover the improvements of the 2/28 at smaller apertures outlined above. The Voigtlander at 1.9 is no match for the 2/28: its overall contrast is quite low at the wider apertures and that is why you would want a wide aperture 28mm (in fact any wide aperture lens). Again, the easy answer is that a lower contrast lens can be compensated by a higher contrast grade or might be of advantage in high contrast situations. The general question whether you indeed see improvements in lens correction and if so, under what conditions, is an extremely interesting topic. My experience, for what is worth, indicates that these differences are more visible that you often are prepared to assume. It is a bit like learning to taste good wine. At first you do not taste a big difference, but once you get the knack, you are lost. So with current Leica lenses too: once you have seen the results (and do not assume to easily that a tripod is a necessity) and have compared them at ease and for a longer period with the results from other lenses, you get the idea. But it takes time: I have series of pictures of older lenses that are impressive, looked at in isolation. And series of pictures of new lenses, that are bad and mediocre in the image quality. Over a longer period however, the new ones consistenly will win: you need to fine tune your picture taking abilities to the quality improvements of the lens: that is the challenge: if you are not willing to improve, than there is no way to go: even in harsh reportage situations, there are improvements to be noted with the new lens compared to the 2.8/28. But not always and not under all circumstances. If you want instant success wit a new lens, do not buy Leica. These are challenging lenses to use and evaluate.

Erwin

-- Erwin Puts (imxputs@ision.nl), October 09, 2001.

You have to be careful, if you are using Leica screw-BM adapters to make sure you get the one that says 90 mm: this will key in the 28 mm frame, which comes up along with the 90 frame. Leica also made an adapter that says 28 - 50. That is good for the 50 mm frame but will NOT key in the 28 mm frame, which hadn't been developed when the adapters were marketed.

Re: 2.8 vs 2.0. My first 28 mm lens was the third version (introduced in 1979). This was such a terrific lens, I was very surprised when Leica announced they had a better one, the current 28/2.8 introduced in 1993. Now Leica has introduced the 28/2.0 Summicron, which they (and Erwin) say is even better. I just got one, and it is a terrific lens. But I think the improvements were made on a recent lens that was already excellent-outstanding.

Thus, I can't imagine there is much to choose from based on performance criteria alone. If you need F/2 and can afford it, go for the 28/2.0. I can tell you that the 1979 version of the 28/2.8 Elmarit is so good, your technique would have to be superlative, to see any better performance from the two newer lenses.

My comments do not apply to earlier versions of the 28/2.8 Elmarit. I have the first version (with protruding rear element) introduced in 1965. This lens is very sharp, but its contrast is no match for version 3 and later. You can tell when you project slides made from slow speed color slide film, that the images lack pop. They are just not as snappy, though distortion is well corrected.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), October 09, 2001.

I'd just gotten over the hump of wanting the 28/2, and now you guys say all this!! :-(

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

my "new" 28/2.8 III just impresed me for itīs contrast wide open; so I belive I can live with this for a wile, of course there is once in a wile times when I wish I had some asphs.

I think my "student level" snaps can stand my older lenses.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Saturday, 10/13: Local store just loaned me a 28 f/2 Summicron ASPH for a walk-around test shoot.

The most amazing thing about the f/2 is that the shots don't look like "28 f/2" shots. I've used SLR 28 f/2s (manual-focus Nikon, Canon, Contax) and the fast aperture always showed up in wide-open pictures- butterfly coma near the corners when in 'focus'; glaring "half-moon" parabolas in out-of-focus backgrounds (a la Noctilux) and either a soft image or an overlay of sharp and soft images at f/2 even at the center.

The Summicron has none of this. It is, as advertised, at least as sharp/contrasty at f/2 as most other 28s are at f/4. And it has a nice soft background that is absolutely consistent from center to corner. The background is much cleaner and more smoothly diffuse than with my 'Mark III' 28 Elmarit. And like the 90 Summicron pre-ASPH, it has a delicate transition from the sharp ares to the soft ones (e.g. sharp eyes in a portrait shading gently to OOF ears).

I'm generally a big fan of the 1980s-era Canadian lenses - but the 28 Summicron ASPH is the first of the "new" redesigns that really tempts me.

However, I tried a different 28 Summicron a couple of months ago and it was just miserable - not really sharp anywhere wide open - low contrast. Based on today's results I have to assume the previous lens just had an element out of position or something else wrong. So test the individual lens before buying - or at least have exchange privileges.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 14, 2001.

hooo no!

they didnīt got satisfided, they had to make it that good...

Thankīs Andy!

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 15, 2001.