is it sharp wo? or need like 2, 2.8? I have the 28 5.6 tta replica thing, and had the 7a 28 1.4 before (pretty good) wondering how much better summilux is wo
As Allen says, it’s a good lens though not in the same class as the Summilux-M 28mm, whose romantic wide-open rendering I really like. I used to be scornful of the 28/1.7 lens fitted to all the Q series cameras because of the massive barrel distortion that needs to be corrected in software. Then my dealer loaned me a Q2M to use for as long as I wanted. I didn’t like the camera so I returned it after ten days but I was wrong about the lens which is very sharp with a pleasant, neutral rendering.
^
I like any photograph in which the nominal subject is obscured by foliage of one sort or another and this is a particularly good example. Great picture!
genji wrote:
^
I like any photograph in which the nominal subject is obscured by foliage of one sort or another and this is a particularly good example. Great picture!
freaklikeme wrote:
Really like this shot, and hands-down, my favorite of the post-Mandler Leica lenses. I will never understand why they discontinued it and the 21.
Two converted images with the lens on a Kolari UT-modded a7rII (which eventually became my mono-modded camera).
genji wrote:
So you had the A7R2 converted by Kolari then the same camera converted to mono? How did that work?
It hadn't been the plan. I'd planned to acquire a second rII and have it converted, but then I found an rIII on the boards here that already had the Kolari UT, so I picked that up and sent my existing rII off to Monochrome Imaging. It had always been a reliable camera, and still is.
