Here are some shots from today. Dont know how much they tell, but I've provided one midframe + far edge crop from each image last. Minimalistic PP, straight from ACR with a modest default sharpening sometimes fill light or similar and then essentially one Levels in PS.
While doing these I found a blob on the sensor visible in several shots, time for cleaning.
All are handheld. Expect no fabulous artistry here :o)
Yep, I think you should be happy with that lens. Regarding sharpening, I use ACR and mentioned that I applied a modest sharpening. Default is (I think) 25, here it is 40:ish. Other values on default. Dont want to create "whitish edges" on black lines in fullsize, that is more or less my (crude I guess) benchmark.
wfrank wrote:
Yep, I think you should be happy with that lens.
I am, thank you for your samples in the Nex-Thread, they set me on the route .
My Conclusion after 2 days of intensive use: When i bought the lens i expected a wider G45, what i got is a lens with great central resolution and contrast at all apertures, soft coners and heavy vignette @f/2.8 which works quite fine on most of my motifs, while @f/5.6 its resolving superbly over the whole frame.
Excellent samples of the G 28! I now have a problem that probably should be placed in a separate thread - what would you guys consider the better or viable alternative to G 28 on nex? It just happens that I currently have this one along with ZM 28 (just got it with hawk's adapter and love the ease of use), ZF 28/2 and C/Y 28/2.8 MM. I want to keep one or max two. I know I should test them all etc, but have not got the adapters for them all yet. According to MTF ZM and G are quite close with one leading over other in some areas. The late distagon is quite something resolution wise, but heavy and big. Is Leica really the only one that stands out among the 28ths?
Edgars; I would not choose the Leica 28 (R version v2, which I think you are referring to) over the G28 or the ZM28. I have had them all and the R version is great on dSLR but has no distinct advantage over the RF lenses. In RF there are plenty of fine 28's to choose from.
The Leica ASPH 28/2.8 is small and incredibly sharp, still I think I prefer the G28 and ZM28 over it. The ZM28 is a very good alternative to the G28.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
My Conclusion after 2 days of intensive use: When i bought the lens i expected a wider G45 [...]
I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a ~28mm lens that has a character and performance similar to a ~50mm lens. Does anyone know examples where this is the case?
AhamB wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a ~28mm lens that has a character and performance similar to a ~50mm lens. Does anyone know examples where this is the case?
24TSEII.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Excellent samples of the G 28! I now have a problem that probably should be placed in a separate thread - what would you guys consider the better or viable alternative to G 28 on nex? It just happens that I currently have this one along with ZM 28 (just got it with hawk's adapter and love the ease of use), ZF 28/2 and C/Y 28/2.8 MM. I want to keep one or max two. I know I should test them all etc, but have not got the adapters for them all yet. According to MTF ZM and G are quite close with one leading over other in some areas. The late distagon is quite something resolution wise, but heavy and big. Is Leica really the only one that stands out among the 28ths?...Show more →
Thank you for the advice! The more I look at the MTF the more I think that optically G28 is better than ZM. On the other hand the later is probably more suitable for digital sensors and ergonomics combined with Hawk's adapter make it very attractive.
I would love to have leica M and after selling all my 28ths I could afford the elmarit ASPH. But it would still not be the best (summicron) and I would be afraid to carry it around (I had in past bought 85L II as my only cherished lens and never felt comfortable shooting in London at night ). Still if I come across Leica M for a very good price I might succumb to the temptation.
I like this photo, but it looks like one the photographer loves and subject either hates or believes was deleted.
Rock Huffwell: "Sugar coating? Kid, that costs extra!"
Here is a full landscape with the 28/2 slight crop but I think edges are gen--right side is the true edge.
Honestly I never have seen any difference between edges and center at any aperture--but I rarely peep that way--unless it's obvious enough to notice even down sized. The mountain shot earlier is a hair OOF everywhere
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
Thank you for the advice! The more I look at the MTF the more I think that optically G28 is better than ZM.
It certainly looks like that judging from the MTF, and the G28 in its days was considered one of the best lenses of that FL. However, MTF do not tell the whole story, for instance they give no indication about the close and medium range performance. Even at infinity, that drop in zone B of the ZM makes it not so good for crop sensors, but I have seen some marvelous rendering from other lenses with similar MTF when used on FF.
The ZM 28 is as good as the G28 when stopped down for cityscapes/landscapes.
For all practical purposes the ZM 28 is as good as the G28, I think. I sold mine because it would not focus properly on my M9. (Back focus by a small margin.)
Some cityscape shots with the ZM28 were excellent, I could almost say that the ZM28 looks better to me for far shots. But I have no direct comparison, just the years spent with the G28 on film and the brief stint with the ZM28 on digital, on the M9.
The Summicron 28/2 is a marvelous lens, I am more into the Zeiss look for the 28's though.
.
