I moved away from the M mount for a short while, at the time, the 28 Lux was my favorite, but also most expensive lens. I sold it for an L mount setup.
Turns out I missed the m mount right away...Took me a while....but nice to finally have one back. I thought I could live with the FLE, I like the FLE but prefer the "look" and width of the 28 sometimes. Like Fred was saying earlier, it reminds me of the Zeiss ZM 1.4...Heavy contrast and sharp in the middle.
genji wrote:
Matt, you mention that you got the 28 Lux again. Could I ask why you sold your first copy and why you decided to get another?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think they are very different lenses. I just received the 28/1.4 Lux today and it's one contrasty lens. Reminds me of the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM in sharpness and rendering. The 7Artisan has great rendering (smooth at transition zone) and it's more similar to the Voigtlander 35/1.2 III. It's not that sharp wide open, especially off axis.
The Leica 28/1.4 Lux is very sharp at f/1.4 and it does not exhibit the mid-zone dip the 35/1.4 Lux has. My initial impression is very positive and the lens allows me to shoot in very dim light conditions. Great complement to the CV 28/2 II....Show more →
I'm not sure how the 28 Lux compares to the ZM35/1.4, but my opinion of the 28 against my other Luxes is exactly as you described. In normal use, I don't have to think about it, I just use it. No worries about putting something in the rule of thirds zone and it doesn't change character much on stopping down. It benefits from being the newest Lux in the M lineup, though is already 8-9 years old (IIRC the limited edition stainless steel version was released in 2014 as part of a camera package).
Just a word of warning that I know of at least one 28 Lux owner, in addition to me, where the focusing ring acted up. In my case, the end result was it had a 'dead space' of a few mm when focus direction was changed. Very annoying, especially when fine-tuning focus! Leica fixed it but the focus throw now has a slightly tight spot near MFD.
I would be interested in seeing technical/sharpness comparisons against the CV28/2 v2.
rscheffler wrote
Just a word of warning that I know of at least one 28 Lux owner, in addition to me, where the focusing ring acted up. In my case, the end result was it had a 'dead space' of a few mm when focus direction was changed. Very annoying, especially when fine-tuning focus! Leica fixed it but the focus throw now has a slightly tight spot near MFD..
Now I don't feel so bad that my 7A 28 1.4 gets a sticky focus ring if it sits for a few months!
Jan 12, 2022 at 12:06 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Desmolicious wrote:
Now I don't feel so bad that my 7A 28 1.4 gets a sticky focus ring if it sits for a few months!
I can perhaps make you feel even better. My 7A 28 f/1.4 turns about 100 degrees before catching and actually changing focus. It sill works, but is super annoying. I plan to get it fixed sometime, but with such a low cost lens is it worth it? I am not sure, and I am not sure I would get another one given my experience. I like the IQ of the lens, but I am not sure it is built to last over time.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I can perhaps make you feel even better. My 7A 28 f/1.4 turns about 100 degrees before catching and actually changing focus. It sill works, but is super annoying. I plan to get it fixed sometime, but with such a low cost lens is it worth it? I am not sure, and I am not sure I would get another one given my experience. I like the IQ of the lens, but I am not sure it is built to last over time.
Have you tried to tighten the screws holding down the focus ring? They were known to come loose on the 50 1.1 - I fixed that by tightening them and then putting a drop of nail polish onto the screw heads so they wouldn't back out.
Jan 12, 2022 at 12:44 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Desmolicious wrote:
Have you tried to tighten the screws holding down the focus ring? They were known to come loose on the 50 1.1 - I fixed that by tightening them and then putting a drop of nail polish onto the screw heads so they wouldn't back out.
Yeah, I tried to tighten the screw but it did nothing. I may try to take it a part and see if I can understand more clearly what the problem is. I don't think there is anything actually broken, but I don't know for sure.
rscheffler wrote
Just a word of warning that I know of at least one 28 Lux owner, in addition to me, where the focusing ring acted up. In my case, the end result was it had a 'dead space' of a few mm when focus direction was changed. Very annoying, especially when fine-tuning focus! Leica fixed it but the focus throw now has a slightly tight spot near MFD..
Desmolicious wrote:
Now I don't feel so bad that my 7A 28 1.4 gets a sticky focus ring if it sits for a few months!
Well, at least the Lux was serviceable and Leica did it at no charge even though I'm the second owner and it was out of warranty. I guess the 7A would probably have to go back to China, unless someone like DAG would be wiling to give it a shot. I was a bit worried about this aspect with the LLL 35 Cron replica when mine went back. As Steve suggests, is it even worth trying? In this sense, unfortunately these low cost lenses are borderline disposable.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I can perhaps make you feel even better. My 7A 28 f/1.4 turns about 100 degrees before catching and actually changing focus. It sill works, but is super annoying. I plan to get it fixed sometime, but with such a low cost lens is it worth it? I am not sure, and I am not sure I would get another one given my experience. I like the IQ of the lens, but I am not sure it is built to last over time.
I had the same thing happen with a VM35/1.2 v2 within a year or so of getting it new.
genji wrote:
The specs I’ve seen online suggest that the Lux 28 and the 7A 28/1.8 are about the same size but the Lux is definitely smaller.
The 28 Lux is quite small for what it is, especially without the hood. I just use it with an UV filter. It's way smaller than the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton and Leica 21/1.4 Lux.
Here is a handheld panorama with the Lux I took 20 minutes ago. It was at f/2.8. The detail is quite amazing. I hope you can see this in the jpeg file below:
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 28 Lux is quite small for what it is, especially without the hood. I just use it with an UV filter. It's way smaller than the Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton and Leica 21/1.4 Lux.
Here is a handheld panorama with the Lux I took 20 minutes ago. It was at f/2.8. The detail is quite amazing. I hope you can see this in the jpeg file below:
Fred Miranda wrote:
I wish Leica would make an outer ring to protect the hood threads on the 28/1.4 Lux. (Similar to how they offer for the 35/1.4 and 28/2)
+1
Speaking of which, what’s the function of the ring that screws into the filter threads.
Too many posts to quote, so I'll just write some thoughts.
^ Protector ring is just to protect the filter threads if you choose to not use a filter on the lens. Like Fred said, we need a second filter thread protector for the hood threads. I wish an aftermarket company would make one. The lens is so much better to use without a hood when using the rangefinder, but it's weird having the external-facing hood threads exposed.
Fred, I'm glad you got the 28 Lux. I think you'll love it. Of all the images I've taken with an M, the ones shot with the 28 Lux have evoked the most emotive responses. This includes images taken at infinity and at closer distances.
The 28 Lux M is what I would consider a flagship lens for the M system and one of the reasons to to own an M camera. It's size, weight, focusing feel – it's a fetish, if fetish is defined as: "an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit."
I had sold mine a while back when I sold my M system and moved to the GFX 100S. I'm moving back to M, so the GFX is gone, and I bought the 28 Lux and CV 75 1.5 to get started. I will be using M lenses on the R5 until the M11 becomes more widely available. I actually love the 28 Lux on the R5, especially with a macro adapter that allows focusing closer than 70cm. It's also is an incredible lens to shoot video with on the R5 – feels like a micro-sized Zeiss CP.3
highdesertmesa wrote:
Too many posts to quote, so I'll just write some thoughts.
^ Protector ring is just to protect the filter threads if you choose to not use a filter on the lens. Like Fred said, we need a second filter thread protector for the hood threads. I wish an aftermarket company would make one. The lens is so much better to use without a hood when using the rangefinder, but it's weird having the external-facing hood threads exposed.
Fred, I'm glad you got the 28 Lux. I think you'll love it. Of all the images I've taken with an M, the ones shot with the 28 Lux have evoked the most emotive responses. This includes images taken at infinity and at closer distances.
The 28 Lux M is what I would consider a flagship lens for the M system and one of the reasons to to own an M camera. It's size, weight, focusing feel – it's a fetish, if fetish is defined as: "an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit."
I had sold mine a while back when I sold my M system and moved to the GFX 100S. I'm moving back to M, so the GFX is gone, and I bought the 28 Lux and CV 75 1.5 to get started. I will be using M lenses on the R5 until the M11 becomes more widely available. I actually love the 28 Lux on the R5, especially with a macro adapter that allows focusing closer than 70cm. It's also is an incredible lens to shoot video with on the R5 – feels like a micro-sized Zeiss CP.3 ...Show more →
I've been jealous of the images you've been posting and decided to trade my 35/1.4 for the 28/1.4.
So far I really like it. It's a great companion to my 50/1.4 Lux.
I didn't warm up to the 35/1.4 Lux even though I love how compact it is. The mid-zone dip is just too noticeable to me since I usually place my subjects around that area. The 28/1.4 has stronger mid-zone resolution but higher astigmatism at the corners. I prefer this trade-off. For the 35mm FL, I much prefer the CV 35/1.7 Ultron.
Regarding the outer ring. Yes it's a pity Leica wants us to use the hood, which is beautiful btw, but unfortunately adds more blockage. I don't let it bother me though and use it without it. It still looks nice imo.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been jealous of the images you've been posting and decided to trade my 35/1.4 for the 28/1.4.
So far I really like it. It's a great companion to my 50/1.4 Lux.
I didn't warm up to the 35/1.4 Lux even though I love how compact it is. The mid-zone dip is just too noticeable to me since I usually place my subjects around that area. The 28/1.4 has stronger mid-zone resolution but higher astigmatism at the corners. I prefer this trade-off. For the 35mm FL, I much prefer the CV 35/1.7 Ultron.
Regarding the outer ring. Yes it's a pity Leica wants us to use the hood, which is beautiful btw, but unfortunately adds more blockage. I don't let it bother me though and use it without it. It still looks nice imo.
Here is a sample wide open. Very low distortion....Show more →
Thank you! Nice shot to show the low distortion. Someone mentioned this earlier about how the 28 Lux Q and 28 Lux M are not even close to the same lens, and that is probably most true with regard to distortion. The Q lens is highly-corrected for everything but distortion, including almost no vignetting even with the built-in corrections turned off in post (except for the cropped out far corners, which are hard vignettes). But there is something about the 28 Lux M that is more than the sum of its parts, so to speak. There is something volumetric about its rendering that communicates dimension without shouting it.
The 50 Lux (current) is probably the other lens that makes the M worth having, in my opinion. I'm afraid I'm going to have to get another copy of the black chrome version (me: silently screaming for having sold mine). Since Leica has stopped making the black chrome brass M top plates due to environmental concerns, I wonder if this might be the last new production black chrome brass lens they ever make.
I love 35mm lenses, but I rarely end up using them. I had the CV 35 1.2 III, and it just never ended up on my M when it was time to shoot – the 50 or 28 always was calling my name, I guess.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I love 35mm lenses, but I rarely end up using them. I had the CV 35 1.2 III, and it just never ended up on my M when it was time to shoot – the 50 or 28 always was calling my name, I guess.
When reviewing the Voigtlander 28/2 II, I remembered that I also prefer 28mm to 35mm. My mostly used 35mm is the RX1RII but it's no secret that it's noticeably wider than that.
Compared to the Leica in terms of resolution, the Voigtlander is superior across the image field at any aperture. Very close at center though. It's not an easy competition for the Lux because I consider the Voigtlander 28/2 II one of the best 28mm lenses ever made. I don't say that a lot.
The 28/1.4 Lux will give a bit more separation and does have a unique rendering. I currently have both.
