For those who have both lenses, which one is your favorite? Do you like the broader FOV from the 28mm or prefer more subject isolation from the 35mm?
The drawbacks from the 28/1.4 lux are the more severe rangefinder blockage and 0.7m MFD for 28mm which is pretty long.
The 35 lux seems way smaller but I never saw an image comparing both side by side. If you have both lenses, can you post it?
Any info about resolution and rendering would be great as well. ;-)
I have neither, but the Lux 28 is the same diameter and about 4.9mm longer with the hood attached than the Lux 24, so this should give you a good idea until someone with both lenses comes along.
The only reason I don’t mind 35lux’s so so rendering at corner is its size and handling. It is quite sharp at center WO and cross frame stop down.
I love 28cron II though. It is so small and perform great on both m and L. So 28lux is out of question for me. I fully understand people who love 28lux. It’s images seems quite “dynamic” IMHO. Not particular smooth, but has very strong signature to it. Bokeh is not smooth or pretty type but I do enjoy looking its output from web.
The main negative regarding the Lux 28 seems to be purple fringing. This review discusses the size and handling differences between the Lux 28 and Lux 35 but no comparison images unfortunately.
genji wrote:
The main negative regarding the Lux 28 seems to be purple fringing. This review discusses the size and handling differences between the Lux 28 and Lux 35 but no comparison images unfortunately.
Yes, I've seen PF in many images shot wide open. However, I think the big frame-line blockage would bother me more as I only use the rangefinder with a M body.
I think I will stick with the Voigtlander 28/2 II for my 28mm needs.
zhangyue wrote:
The only reason I don’t mind 35lux’s so so rendering at corner is its size and handling. It is quite sharp at center WO and cross frame stop down.
I love 28cron II though. It is so small and perform great on both m and L. So 28lux is out of question for me. I fully understand people who love 28lux. It’s images seems quite “dynamic” IMHO. Not particular smooth, but has very strong signature to it. Bokeh is not smooth or pretty type but I do enjoy looking its output from web.
The own both 35/1.4 lux and 50/1.4 lux and see them as very different lenses even though both have a pronounced mid-zone dip. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 cures it though. However, if one is shooting wide open and place the subject at mid-field, resolution won't be optimal which is a shame.
I just checked the 28/1.4 lux's MTF and although it does a little better than the 35mm, the dip is also there. I've learned to live with that but it's a negative for sure.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I've seen PF in many images shot wide open. However, I think the big frame-line blockage would bother me more as I only use the rangefinder with a M body.
I think I will stick with the Voigtlander 28/2 II for my 28mm needs.
The 7Artisans 28/1.4 is a surprisingly viable alternative but it’s 2mm longer than the Lux 28 (both without hoods) so the viewfinder blockage is probably a little worse (despite the 7A’s taking 52mm filters vs the Lux’s 49mm, its diameter is only 1mm greater).
If you don’t need f/1.4 then the Ultron 28/2 v2 is the logical choice.
VC 28/2 v2 ultron really punches above its weight/price class.
I really don't love mine, but the rational part of my brain remembers whatever "upgrade" path I would take would cost 6x as much, 1.5-2x the weight and 2x the length so... it's really a marvel.
Part of me thinks there isn't much I demand from a 28mm.. usually not enough DOF separation to get into discussions of "character" & bokeh.. just give me decent ergonomics, modern sharpness, minimal distortion, and correctable vignetting .
Stephen G wrote:
VC 28/2 v2 ultron really punches above its weight/price class.
I really don't love mine, but the rational part of my brain remembers whatever "upgrade" path I would take would cost 6x as much, 1.5-2x the weight and 2x the length so... it's really a marvel.
Part of me thinks there isn't much I demand from a 28mm.. usually not enough DOF separation to get into discussions of "character" & bokeh.. just give me decent ergonomics, modern sharpness, minimal distortion, and correctable vignetting .
Well, the Ultron 28/2 v2 certainly provides “decent ergonomics, modern sharpness, minimal distortion, and correctable vignetting”, all at a reasonable price but, like you, I don’t love mine. It does the job, no question, but I much prefer the haptics and rendering of my Summicron 28/2 v1.
Below is 28 Lux M240 VF blockage with and without hood, lens focused at infinity.
It's a fair amount but it doesn't bother me a huge amount. I can guesstimate what occupies that portion of the image by shooting with my left eye open and using it to 'fill in the blanks' of the area blocked by the lens.
As for image quality vs. 35 Lux ASPH... I don't have one and haven't tried one. Some here love this lens (Allen - airfrogusmc). From a purely on-paper specs comparison, the 28 benefits from being a newer design that has less wavy field curvature than most other M-mount Luxes. My direct experience is with the 21 Lux (wavy with poor mid-zone performance) and 50 Lux ASPH (also wavy with less than ideal mid-zone performance). Both benefit from stopping down a fair amount to hide the FC in DOF. While the 28's MTF shows a mid-zone dip too, in practical use I haven't noticed it as much as the 21 and 50. From the technical reviews I've read, the 35 Lux ASPH's wavy field curvature can cause problems in some situations.
Fred, I think you should just bite the bullet and get the 35 Cron APO. It's a next generation lens that addresses the technical weaknesses of the older Luxes, yet from the images I've seen from it, rendering looks gorgeous. And you get the crazy 30cm MFD.
I had the 28 Lux for a couple of years, and now have the CV 28 f/2 II. The 28 Lux is a really good lens and even better when stopped down to f/2.8. It also works very well on Leica M and pretty well on Sony. I believe the reports I have seen that it does as well on Leica L mount as Leica M mount. Wide open and until f/2.8 it is quite susceptible to purple fringing and has quite a bit of axial CA. The purple fringing mostly goes away by f/2.8, but with strong enough backlighting you can still provoke it. As a Leica M, Ron has nicely shown the finder blockage. It was enough to bother me and I much prefer the CV 28 f/2 and live with its blockage much more easily. Since the frame lines for 28mm basically are the whole frame any lens is going to have some blockage, but I found the 28 Lux to be too much. Of course that is a personal preference and I don't shoot with my left eye open, so I can see how other people like Ron who do might feel differently.
I am very happy with the CV 28 f/2 II. Nice and sharp from wide open and flat field and great performance across the frame when stopped down a bit. It has pretty ok bokeh but not quite as good as my CV 35 f/1.7. On a rangefinder, however, with 28mm I am not all that concerned with bokeh. It is not a prominent part of many shots.
I have never used the 35 Lux Asph FLE, but I have always been impressed by Allen's (airfrogusmc) work with that lens. I am pretty sure that is because of Allen's talent and has little to do with the lens. I have seen a lot to shots with the lens when I don't like the bokeh, but I have never seen bokeh I don't like in Allen's shots. That makes me think it is likely a lens you have to know well and how to use it to get the most out of it and perhaps more importantly how not to use it. The 50 lux Asph is a little like that and I love that lens. The 28 lux is much less like that. Sure it gets better stopped down but basically all you need to know it that from wide open to f/2.8 it won't be at it best and will have some axial CA and problems with purple fringing. It is still really useable at these wider apertures, however, and once stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower you don't need to worry.
Personally, I am happy with my Voigtlander duo of the 28 f/2 II and the 35 f/1.7 as a great compromise of small size and quite decent performance. I wouldn't trade either for the Leica Luxes even if they were the same price, which of course they are not. But those are just my preferences. Both Luxes are really nice lenses and I can see why people like them.
Thanks Steve for the kind words. I owned the bokeh king in my opinion the Canon 200 2L for 8 years. The reason I bring this up is in some circumstances I could even get what I consider crappy nervous bokeh from that bokeh beast.
I think knowing your equipment and understanding that equipments limitations and how to use that knowledge to achieve your vision is key. The 35 Lux is my favorite 35 I have ever shot with and I have shot with a lot of 35mm lenses over the years. Doesn't mean i think any of the other oprions out there are bad. It just means I have a preference. Size also enters into it.
It's a fair amount but it doesn't bother me a huge amount. I can guesstimate what occupies that portion of the image by shooting with my left eye open and using it to 'fill in the blanks' of the area blocked by the lens.
As for image quality vs. 35 Lux ASPH... I don't have one and haven't tried one. Some here love this lens (Allen - airfrogusmc). From a purely on-paper specs comparison, the 28 benefits from being a newer design that has less wavy field curvature than most other M-mount Luxes. My direct experience is with the 21 Lux (wavy with poor mid-zone performance) and 50 Lux ASPH (also wavy with less than ideal mid-zone performance). Both benefit from stopping down a fair amount to hide the FC in DOF. While the 28's MTF shows a mid-zone dip too, in practical use I haven't noticed it as much as the 21 and 50. From the technical reviews I've read, the 35 Lux ASPH's wavy field curvature can cause problems in some situations.
Fred, I think you should just bite the bullet and get the 35 Cron APO. It's a next generation lens that addresses the technical weaknesses of the older Luxes, yet from the images I've seen from it, rendering looks gorgeous. And you get the crazy 30cm MFD. ...Show more →
I've just tested this and it's a very interesting FC behavior.
When shooting wide open, the 35 FLE's field curvature is pretty flat across the field. (of course testing on the right sensor stack). So, at f/1.4, the mid-zone dip is not due to wavy FC. It's really a dip in high frequency resolution and focusing at mid-field does not help at all. (here is where the Voigtlander 35/1.7 performs way better)
However, when stepping down the aperture to f/2 and f/2.8, I start to detect inwards field curvature (never wavy). At f/2.8, FC is the most prominent where if one focuses at mid-zone or extreme corners, there will be a noticeable difference compared to focusing at center.
Again, with the Leica 35/1.4 FLE wide open, I don't detectable changes in resolution if focusing at center, mid-zone or extreme corner at infinity distance.
Here is a quick comparison between the Leica 35mm f/1.4 FLE vs Voigtlander 35mm f/1.7 Utron. (Both wide open, so f/1.4 vs f/1.7)
Both lenses are optimal copies shot on the Leica M10-R:
Center, both lenses wide open: The Leica is sharp but the Voigtlander performs better at infinity
Mid-field, both lenses wide open: : Here I see a significant advantage for the Voigtlander. Focusing at mid-field does not improve the resolution for the Leica
Extreme Corner, both lenses wide open: They are similar here but the Voigt does slightly better in terms of contrast and vignetting
Hi Fred, the 35 Lux ASPH field curvature characteristics you described remind me of how the 50 Lux ASPH behaves in the midfield. It's acceptable wide open, becomes more nervous in the f/2.8-4 range and not noticeable past f/5.6.
Viramati wrote:
As an alternative you can buy the Leica Q2 with it's 1.7 summilux lens for less money than the 28/1.4 and get a 47mp camera body for free
But, but... it's a half-stop slower, doesn't shoot wide open at nearer distances and relies on significant software corrections to remove distortion and expand the image circle to cover FF...
I suspect a reason we don't have Q cameras in 35mm, 50mm, and tele is the impact it would have on M system sales.
rscheffler wrote:
But, but... it's a half-stop slower, doesn't shoot wide open at nearer distances and relies on significant software corrections to remove distortion and expand the image circle to cover FF...
Indeed. The suggestion that the Q2’s “Summilux” is in any way comparable to or a realistic substitute for a Summilux-M 28/1.4 is just absurd.
Have both and the 35 FLE has been a workhorse for a decade. The 35 has a reputation for some not-great bokeh at times, but I can't think of shot where bokeh ruined it. The 35's use ranges from wide open handheld to stopped down landscapes. Good jack of all trades lens. Always in my bag.
The 28 Lux is heavier, so it is used less often, but when I do use it, I like its draw better than the 35. I tend to shoot it at wider apertures. Stopped and with filters there can be vignetting on the M10 Monochrom, so that also factors into using it less for landscapes. Whenever I edit the 28 Lux shots, always the same thought - "I should use this lens a lot more".
In terms of sharpness, they seem pretty comparable to me (M10M + M10R). I think the 35 FLE does better with diffraction - I use it F11 and even the rare F16 shot, and it does really well when needing all that DOF. For whatever reason, I tend to think of the 28 Lux as more of a wide-open lens.
If picking one, the 35 would win for the utility factor and more compact size.
