andrew00
Established
Hey, I'm going to get an M8 soon, so many of my favourite images were taken with it and I was dumb so sell the one I had.
I've been really inspired seeing images taken with the M8 + Voigtlander 28mm Ultron combo, and that's the one lens I'm going to get.
There seem to be loads of compelling reasons to get the newer f2 version of this lens - size, weight, focusing tab etc.
However, most the images I've really liked with this combo have been taken with the older f1.9 version.
What I don't know is how much of this was down to the older lens (vs the newer one).
Was it coincidence? I.E. was it just a great photographer I was inspired by, who happened to use the f1.9 version, and whose photos would be just as good with the f2?
Or was it the lens? Is there something 'different' about the f1.9 version that can create the magic I'm seeing, that is absent from the f2 version.
Can anyone chime in on this please. I know there are differences between the lenses, contrast, flare etc.
But I'm looking for guidance on whether I should go with the f1.9 version because that's where I'm seeing the images I like. Or should I go with the f2 version because the images would still be fantastic (all things being equal) and it has it's own advantages?
What do you think?
I've been really inspired seeing images taken with the M8 + Voigtlander 28mm Ultron combo, and that's the one lens I'm going to get.
There seem to be loads of compelling reasons to get the newer f2 version of this lens - size, weight, focusing tab etc.
However, most the images I've really liked with this combo have been taken with the older f1.9 version.
What I don't know is how much of this was down to the older lens (vs the newer one).
Was it coincidence? I.E. was it just a great photographer I was inspired by, who happened to use the f1.9 version, and whose photos would be just as good with the f2?
Or was it the lens? Is there something 'different' about the f1.9 version that can create the magic I'm seeing, that is absent from the f2 version.
Can anyone chime in on this please. I know there are differences between the lenses, contrast, flare etc.
But I'm looking for guidance on whether I should go with the f1.9 version because that's where I'm seeing the images I like. Or should I go with the f2 version because the images would still be fantastic (all things being equal) and it has it's own advantages?
What do you think?
peterm1
Mentor
I can only give you a general comment on the basis that I have the f2 version but not the earlier f1.9 version. I can say I am perfectly happy with the f2 version. I bought it because while I relatively seldom use wide angle lenses I occasionally do and previously had a Summicron 35mm f2 version 4 which I sold for a whole lot more money than this lens cost. I figured it was a good deal to sell that slightly less wide lens and replace it with a much cheaper wider lens and use the difference for yet other lens purchases.
I believe the f2 is regarded as a tad better than the earlier lens but there are two reasons why I would consider that earlier one as a possibility. The first is I very much like the look of that earlier lens, especially with its crinkle finished hood mounted. That may sound irrelevant or even shallow but these things do affect many users. And I am one of them. Having said this some people prefer smaller more compact lenses. I am not one of these.
The second potential reason to consider the f1.9 is that in general I have come to a conclusion that if there is a choice between buying a lens that is merely sharp and good and one that is a "character" lens and good, go with the latter. That type of lens gives much better photographic opportunities in my view. I am not sure if this is how the f1.9 would be characterized - but it is food for thought.
I believe the f2 is regarded as a tad better than the earlier lens but there are two reasons why I would consider that earlier one as a possibility. The first is I very much like the look of that earlier lens, especially with its crinkle finished hood mounted. That may sound irrelevant or even shallow but these things do affect many users. And I am one of them. Having said this some people prefer smaller more compact lenses. I am not one of these.
The second potential reason to consider the f1.9 is that in general I have come to a conclusion that if there is a choice between buying a lens that is merely sharp and good and one that is a "character" lens and good, go with the latter. That type of lens gives much better photographic opportunities in my view. I am not sure if this is how the f1.9 would be characterized - but it is food for thought.
raid
Dad Photographer
At one stage I was about to buy a CV 28mm lens, and for some reason that I do not recall now I preferred the 1.9 version. Lens character is a very important factor to me. Just as Peter has said above. I use a version 1 35mm Summicron, for example. It is not as sharp as a aspheric Summicron. Sharpness and max contrast are not everything that is needed in a lens for your own personal experiences with a lens.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
1.9 is no character lens. It just ASPH, no focus shift lens. I have it.
And here is no significant difference in size and weight from 2.
244 vs 263 is 19 grams difference. Both are big.
I have 1.9 and it is first lens in the let go current list. Even if they say it is as good as 28/2 Cron. Won't get 2 instead. See nothing special in its rendering (IMO), but focus shift reports. Maybe 28 2.8 ZM or just 32 2.8
And here is no significant difference in size and weight from 2.
244 vs 263 is 19 grams difference. Both are big.
I have 1.9 and it is first lens in the let go current list. Even if they say it is as good as 28/2 Cron. Won't get 2 instead. See nothing special in its rendering (IMO), but focus shift reports. Maybe 28 2.8 ZM or just 32 2.8
raid
Dad Photographer
I am happy with my 28/2.8 Rokkor-M and the 28/3.5 Kobalux. I am not thinking of buying another 28mm lens in the near future.
retinax
Well-known
I recently got a 28 1.9 (cheaply, fortunately) and while I haven't developed any results yet, I'm not impressed with the build quality. I handles fine and feels precise, but I've had it it apart and there are issues that I think all these lenses have or could develop, even though mine has not been babied by the previous owner.
I've had bad luck trying to find a 35 1.7 ltm, as documented in another thread, got three specimens that all had haze. The 28 1.9 also has a little bit that I decided to live with as I got it cheaply. I tried and it does not entirely clean up, it may be an issue with the coatings or the glass itself like on some Canon RF and old Leitz lenses.
The sliding pins (that keep the whole lens from rotating while the focus ring does) are a little flimsy and shaped in a way that makes them not hold any grease on the sliding surfaces, so the lens doesn't feel very smooth - I first thought that's the helicoids but they're fine. I'll need to re-grease it soon after very little use, it's not difficult but an annoyance. There didn't seem to be any grease in there before, so maybe there used to be some sort of low-friction coating that has worn away on my specimen.
Lastly, the diaphragm has scrambled on mine. Perhaps my own fault, I may have re-assembled it incorrectly, I haven't sorted it out yet.
BTW, under the black paint there's no solid brass but some gray metal coated with brass. Not that it mattered but some people seem to care. OK with me, it's heavy enough as is, solid brass would certainly be heavier.
I've had bad luck trying to find a 35 1.7 ltm, as documented in another thread, got three specimens that all had haze. The 28 1.9 also has a little bit that I decided to live with as I got it cheaply. I tried and it does not entirely clean up, it may be an issue with the coatings or the glass itself like on some Canon RF and old Leitz lenses.
The sliding pins (that keep the whole lens from rotating while the focus ring does) are a little flimsy and shaped in a way that makes them not hold any grease on the sliding surfaces, so the lens doesn't feel very smooth - I first thought that's the helicoids but they're fine. I'll need to re-grease it soon after very little use, it's not difficult but an annoyance. There didn't seem to be any grease in there before, so maybe there used to be some sort of low-friction coating that has worn away on my specimen.
Lastly, the diaphragm has scrambled on mine. Perhaps my own fault, I may have re-assembled it incorrectly, I haven't sorted it out yet.
BTW, under the black paint there's no solid brass but some gray metal coated with brass. Not that it mattered but some people seem to care. OK with me, it's heavy enough as is, solid brass would certainly be heavier.
TR3B
Established
I have the 28mm f/1.9 for my M8, purchased here on RF about 3 yrs ago. I also have the Voigt 21mm f/1.8. These are my most used lens for the M8. The 21mm is larger but satisfies the 28mm focal length when needed.
Yes, those are close lengths but I use them for different conditions. The 21 is sharper but the 28 likes the M8 as well.
Just a vote for the 28mm f/1.9- I wouldn't sell it.
Yes, those are close lengths but I use them for different conditions. The 21 is sharper but the 28 likes the M8 as well.
Just a vote for the 28mm f/1.9- I wouldn't sell it.
rcubed
Canadian
I got the F2 rather than the ltm 1.9 for the shorter minimal focus distance. I didn't think the difference between 1m and 70cm would make such a big difference, but it does to me
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
andrew00
Established
Do you guys find the colour rendition differs between the lenses?
I know a lot depends on the photographer, light, processing etc.
But the f1.9 def seems to have something special. The f2 seems more practical, so I'm hoping it also has similar magic - I don't expect the same, but similar.
Certainly similar enough to be processed into magic, if that makes sense!
I know a lot depends on the photographer, light, processing etc.
But the f1.9 def seems to have something special. The f2 seems more practical, so I'm hoping it also has similar magic - I don't expect the same, but similar.
Certainly similar enough to be processed into magic, if that makes sense!
retinax
Well-known
I've repaired my lens now, so I'll update what I wrote there:
The mechanical issue is in fact not the sliding pins but a different part of the construction of the lens, coupled with a previous repair person with little skill. The optics are attached to the focusing mount with three little screws that should not be tightened at all (rather secured with an appropriate product, I used nail lacquer which I'm sure is objectionable in some way) or they will deform one of the helicoids enough to make focus harder. Not a very good construction, but not a problem if handled right. it now focuses very smoothly.
The diaphragm is a sound design, the unskilled previous repairer didn't put the ring that holds it in right.
So only the issue with haze remains.
As KoFe said, it does focus down to 70 cm, quite rare among ltm lenses.
Now to test it properly!
isorgb
Well-known
What pictures do you like? I think, lens is only ... lens. 28mm is 28mm I know crop etc, but who cares what lens?
From my old pictures, when I thought that lens is really important for my amateur photography...
M8 + CV 28/1.9:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=171397
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=234271
I have many photos from this lens on Epson R-D1 and I think (after some years) it is best of the best combo. Leica M8 is great too.
I know crop etc, but who cares what lens?From my old pictures, when I thought that lens is really important for my amateur photography...
M8 + CV 28/1.9:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=171397
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=234271
I have many photos from this lens on Epson R-D1 and I think (after some years) it is best of the best combo. Leica M8 is great too.