What 28mm lens?

What 28mm lens?

  • CV Ultron 28/1.9

    Votes: 99 43.6%

  • Konica Minolta Hexanon 28/2.8

    Votes: 36 15.9%

  • Zeiss biogon T 28/2.8

    Votes: 92 40.5%
  • Total voters
    227
I like the Biogon 28 for contrast, sharpness, freedom from flare, and size.

If price is an issue, or the extra stop is required, the Ultron is OK, but not great IMHO.
 
have shot sharp landscapes with plenty of infinity detail with the Ultron 1.9, no complaints there. reliable, contrasty and crisp to the edges without lossiness. soft at widest aperture, but most are a bit. f8-11 sit well with me.

dj
 
I own the Ultron. I also own the Biogon 35.
Never shot the Biogon 28. If it is in the same class as the Biogon 35, though, there can be little doubt that it is a far superior lens to the CV Ultron.
The Ultron is IMHO a B or perhaps B+ performer, the higher note being awarded if you like low contrast.
To me, though, it somewhat lacks personality, clarity and punch, especially when I compare images taken of the same scene with my Biogon, which I'd easily award an A, or, if I were doing more color work, where it really excels, an A+.
 
The Ultron. Its really an f2 because the difference between f1.9 and f2 on the blade movement is more like a pre-engineered latitude for temperature variation then an actual f.stop...

The lens is sharp as a razor, and punchy too. I think its as good as the 28 Summicron ASPH, -GREAT color rendition.
 
I have a question regarding the Ultron vs. Biogon standoff on this thread:

Would anyone suggest that a Voigtlander lens would be optically superior to a Zeiss at the equivalent focal length?

I own all CV but would assume superior general optical performance of any Zeiss equivalent. A better question might be how much better is the Zeiss relative to the CV. Depending on the CV lens, that quality difference might be small or very large. The price difference speaks for itself.
 
I have the CV Ultron and the 28mm Biogon. I've only have the later for a few weeks, so my opinion of it is preliminary.

Quite frankly right now I'm torn between the two. Ideally I would like to keep both, but my budget will probably dictate that one will have to go eventually. Right now, I'm using the CV on my RD-1 and the Biogon on my Leica M and CLE.

Comparing on the RD-1, the CV does seem to have less punch and contrast than the Biogon, but nothing that a bit of post-processing couldn't equilize. The Biogon IS sharper, but not dramatically so. It IS smaller than the CV.

One BIG DIFFERENCE between the two lenses that NO ONE has mentioned yet is that the Biogon will focus down to 0.5 meters (albeit not rangefinder coupled below 0.7 meters). I've found that if I stick my arm straigt out with my thumb pointing to the side, then the thumb is at about 0.5 meters. So I've been able to get quite good close focus with the Biogon with this method. This is a big plus for me with the Biogon, especially with film cameras (as opposed to thr RD-1), where 28mm REALLY IS 28mm, i.e., wide angle.

This is a tough one. I'm keeping both lenses for now.
 
sonwolf said:
I have a question regarding the Ultron vs. Biogon standoff on this thread:

Would anyone suggest that a Voigtlander lens would be optically superior to a Zeiss at the equivalent focal length?

I own all CV but would assume superior general optical performance of any Zeiss equivalent. A better question might be how much better is the Zeiss relative to the CV. Depending on the CV lens, that quality difference might be small or very large. The price difference speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

For me the better question is: are the lenses different enough that I notice
it in my photography ?

Also, there are clearly a series of CV lenses that have no equivalent on
the Zeiss side, which happen to be the one I am interested in most,
like 40/1.4, 28/1.9, 28/3.5.

The Biogon might be as good as any lens. But with 28/1.9 you can
take photos (shallow DOF) you cann't take with a 2.8 lens, period.

sleepyhead said:
One BIG DIFFERENCE between the two lenses that NO ONE has mentioned yet is that the Biogon will focus down to 0.5 meters (albeit not rangefinder coupled below 0.7 meters).
Click to expand...

Thanks for mentioning that - I didn't know and it does make a big difference.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
irq506 said:
The Ultron. Its really an f2 because the difference between f1.9 and f2 on the blade movement is more like a pre-engineered latitude for temperature variation then an actual f.stop...

The lens is sharp as a razor, and punchy too. I think its as good as the 28 Summicron ASPH, -GREAT color rendition.
Click to expand...

Temperature variation? No way. That's a myth. Same myth as AF lenses focusing beyond infinity we're engineered for temperature variatins.

If this was true, imagine how the rangefinder cameras would go out of whack multiple times yearly. They'd simply not sell anywhere north of Georgia State and sout of Miami.
 
I guess what irq506 said was ment to be a joke rather than fact since the aperture change in the Ultron from 1.9 to 2.0 really is a joke (only when looking through the lens from the front I can make out a very slim chenge between f1.9 and 2..if you look through the back, even at angles there´s no change at all) a marketing f-stop..as they say :)

I own the Ultron and find it´s a very handsome lens. It´s rather on the large side but not too big and to me it fit´s better on the M than the Nokton 50 allthou the latter is shorter (without hood) and lighter then the ultron.
in terms of picture quality I´m happy with the Ultron, very nice rendering of tones and good flare resistance plus the f2.0 aperture is a big plus for me :)
I have done some landscapes on Maco Ort Asa25 film with the Ultron and needed to print them to see all the details because my Scanner couldn´t touch the details on the neg. (at 3200dpi !) so for me it´s really sharp enough :))
 
I have the Canon 28mm/3.5 and the Rokkor 28mm/2.8 and both lenses are superb lenses.
 
I was seriously interested in the CV 28mm f1.9, I have heard it is a good lens and I like fast lenses very much. But it is not a very cheap lens (one of its qualities you could say) and it is a bit big.

I recently bought the Nokton 35mm f1.2 lens (very heavy, and expensive for a Voigtlander lens). I love it, have no complaints and think it is brilliant in low light.

I have the Zeiss 25mm Biogon f2.5 and thought this would cover the 35mm equivalent range on an M8. But I am afraid I became too tempted by the new Elmarit. It is a beautiful little lens - with emphasis on the little. It's also very good quality. I never thought I would buy a new Leica lens, and although it is considerably more than the other lenses you mentioned, for a new Leica lens it is affordable - and remember it comes ready coded for your M8. I got 50 pounds off mine too.

Just took it to Italy at the weekend and I am sure it will now become my standard walkabout lens - it is just the right range and it is so compact it's great.

Happy shopping
 
Last edited:
So what is on the market regarding 28mm lenses?

Kobalux 28mm/3.5
Canon 28mm/3.5
Canon 28mm/2.8
Rokkor 28mm/2.8
CV 28mm/1.9 Ultron
Leica 28mm/2.8 Elmarit
Leica Summicron 28mm/2
Biogon 28mm/2.8
Hexanon 28mm/2.8


Which other 28mm lens is out there?
 
Last edited:
irq506 said:
The Ultron.
The lens is sharp as a razor, and punchy too. I think its as good as the 28 Summicron ASPH, -GREAT color rendition.
Click to expand...

The Ultron is really a superb lens. I can't compare it to the Summicron but I have compared it to my new Elmarit Asph at f2.8. While I give the newer designed Elmarit the edge, it is subtle and the Ultron can do everything you should need it to.

I prefer the size of the new Elmarit but otherwise, the Ultron is a wonderful lens! True at f2 contrast is lower, but still very usable, and it is an f2 to be used!

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top