I recall Kiron had few close focus lenses, and there were few noteworthy M42 lenses out there, as well as cogitech's FD 24/2 convert (correct me if I am wrong).

Which do you find performing well in terms of bokeh/sharpness/sharpness fall-off and colour/contrast?

Would like to hear your experiences. Recently picked up OM Zuiko 28/2 but in a wicked twist of fate misplaced my adaptor...

It is very obvious Distagon 21/2.8 will come up, but for me personally it's a infinity focus lens rather than close up work...

Add the 28/2 Distagon to the list also

Wasn't "hollywood 28" fairly difficult to focus?

Everything is hard, but now everything is easy with live view I love my 28/2 ZF.2. Quirky but wonderful.

28/2 for me competes with 25/2. Do they differ dramatically in terms on close up performance?

Krosavcheg wrote:
I recall Kiron had few close focus lenses

Actually it was Vivitar (Komine made). The Vivitar 28/2 Close-Focus is a nice lens but not sharp enough for landscape or architecture work IMO. Nice for close-ups though (though the Nikkor 28/2.8 Ai-S should be sharper and is also a noteworthy lens).
There are also versions of the Vivitar 28/2 and 24/2 made by Kiron but they have less smooth bokeh.

Nikkor 28/2 too, great contrast signature. Feels organic, round at mid distance to close.

benchmark lenses in this category:

Leica 21mm Super Elmar ASPH
Zeiss 25mm Biogon
Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH

My personal favorite does not have performance nearly in the same league: the 21mm Super Angulon f3.4

AhamB wrote:
Krosavcheg wrote:
I recall Kiron had few close focus lenses

Actually it was Vivitar (Komine made). The Vivitar 28/2 Close-Focus is a nice lens but not sharp enough for landscape or architecture work IMO. Nice for close-ups though (though the Nikkor 28/2.8 Ai-S should be sharper and is also a noteworthy lens).
There are also versions of the Vivitar 28/2 and 24/2 made by Kiron but they have less smooth bokeh.

i like my rokkor 28/2 better than the vivitar close-focus both near and far, but it can't gen quite as close as the vivitar. the rokkor has very nice bokeh at medium distances, and quite funky at short distances, but so do all the 28s mentioned so far except the nikkor 28/2.8 ais.

a few samples (on a NEX):







i'm afraid all landscape examples i have of it on FF are on film, but here is one:

The Hollywood has a very beautiful way of drawing

Duly noted.
I just reviewed original post and realised I removed "for close up work" in edit (facepalm).

I recall Nikkors 28/2.8 and 28/2 being discussed but can't remember which performed better..

As for Leica, any 24mm worth looking up? 28/2.8 series 3 was recommended.
According to 16-9, their tests awarded 28mm crown to Zuiko 28/2, though I haven't read the entire test..

Sebboh: great rokkor shots! I been eyeing it for some time, but recently Zeiss discussions overshadow other alts

For "noteworthy" the Z* 25/2.8 should be in there, especially for close up as it focusses down to a few cm's, it is fairly quirky that close but unique.

Om 21, 24, 28. Impressed with a few Tamron zooms at 28mm, 28-70 28-80

Haven't paid much attention to bokeh with these so I cant say. My 21 24 and 28 are sc so giving up a bit of flare etc.

My 19-35 Tamron has really nice color and little flare. Sharpness an issue. I might go with that if acceptably sharp. I might have a sub par or damaged one.

My Sigma 17-35 latest at 20mm seemed to beat my 21mm om and 20 2.8 nikkor. At 24mm f/8 the look was better than 24 om but had sharpness dead spot. This was to my eyes. 24 on aps. Om 24 better at 5.6 or less

Krosavcheg wrote:
28/2 for me competes with 25/2. Do they differ dramatically in terms on close up performance?

I have never tried the 25/2. I think they share some strengths and weaknesses, but overall I expect the 25/2 is a stronger lens by some distance, but the 28/2 really has a beautiful way of drawing, if you can live with its weaknesses (field curvature, heavy vignetting wide open, occasionally funky corner boke).

My FD SSC 35/2.8 Tilt/Shift is great for close up's, it can focus to <1' but is a little narrower than requested.

Edit due to brain fart, face-palm.

[not needed now]

I am vignetting junkie... lol
And drawing style for me wins over curvature.
There should be ZF of it? Or perhaps CY would be wiser, as I plan to get a mirrorless some time later?

Krosavcheg wrote:
I recall Nikkors 28/2.8 and 28/2 being discussed but can't remember which performed better..


You might find this comparison of corner performance at infinity for the 28 f/2 AI-s and 28 f/2.8 AI-s NIKKORS useful:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/philipj/7728409588/in/set-72157626002898381

The conclusion of which is that the 28 f/2 AI-s has much better corner performance at infinity. My other testing of the two lenses confirmed a few other "knowns" about the lenses: the 2.8 has a more pleasing bokeh, while the f/2 can be a bit busy, not unlike the 35 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.2 AI-s NIKKORs. Up close the 2.8 is king: closer focusing (0.2 vs 0.25 m), and crazy sharp in the centre of the frame. The f/2 isn't a slouch up close either, but I preferred the 2.8 in part due to the bokeh. It's also slightly more compact, and WAY easier to find in good condition used for a reasonable price.

FWIW, I ended up keeping the f/2.8 and getting rid of the f/2.

Had a 28/2 nikkor seemed really good wish I would have kept it. Usually nikkors lose my lens tests though. I would guess the om 28/2 mc might be better.