madNbad wrote:
Are you going to keep the 28 Color Skopar?
I like mine and can see it being a regular user. The only film I use is Tri-X and the only digital camera is a Sony A7II that's used exclusively for scanning. The vignetting doesn't bother me because it reminds me of wide angles from an earlier era, much the the SC Nokton. I have also owned and like the 28 Elmarit-M ASPH but actually prefer the images from Color Skopar.
A few more from my test roll in Multnomah Village. Many of these were exposed at f:5.6 @ 1/250th.
M4-2, 28 2.8 Color Skopar V2, 400TX @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1:
madNbad wrote:
A few more from my test roll in Multnomah Village. Many of these were exposed at f:5.6 @ 1/250th.
M4-2, 28 2.8 Color Skopar V2, 400TX @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1:
Looks like a bit of veiling flare in the second image near the top (parallel parking). Vignetting doesn't seem to be noticeable at f/5.6 on film (though most of the above images were at nearer distances where vignetting should be less of a problem). I recall that film is less sensitive to extreme light ray angles at the image periphery (though of course the physics of light falloff at the edges vs. image center still applies). Could it be the lens design was intentionally compromised a little with somewhat suboptimal exit pupil distance for digital? Would be interesting to see results across a range of Leica digital M bodies. I'd guess the BSI M11 would have an advantage here over previous models. Maybe this is something Bastian could check if his Sony body is BSI?
Fred: if you still have the Elmarit review copy, any chance of comparing the size of the front and rear elements?
I would love to see this compared to the VM Biogon some time. My recollection was that the VMs could be a mixed bag but the 28/2.8 was just a brilliant optic. (I felt that the 35/2 was not significantly better than my old Nikon 35/2D, for example).
I compared this to the Elmarit 28mm at the Leica Store today. If the Leica lens had a smaller hood, the sizes would be more comparable - not sure if there's a nice after market hood that has a low profile for Leica lenses?
Looking at the shots in Lightroom afterwards, the Voigtlander does have significantly more vignetting, but pretty easy to remove. The Elmarit had slightly more warmth and magenta in the image, but I thought the Voigtlander was sharper in the center and was pretty contrasty and punchy. The color rendering was pretty close to one another.
I was ready to return the Voigtlander if I preferred the Leica, but I don't see a reason to get the Elmarit honestly over the Voigtlander (regardless of the price difference).
TheEyesHaveIt wrote:
I compared this to the Elmarit 28mm at the Leica Store today. If the Leica lens had a smaller hood, the sizes would be more comparable - not sure if there's a nice after market hood that has a low profile for Leica lenses?
Looking at the shots in Lightroom afterwards, the Voigtlander does have significantly more vignetting, but pretty easy to remove. The Elmarit had slightly more warmth and magenta in the image, but I thought the Voigtlander was sharper in the center and was pretty contrasty and punchy. The color rendering was pretty close to one another.
I was ready to return the Voigtlander if I preferred the Leica, but I don't see a reason to get the Elmarit honestly over the Voigtlander (regardless of the price difference)....Show more →
Leica should have kept the profile of the V1 hood and made it a screw on. I had the most problem with the clip on hood on the Elmarit and the 35 Summicron V1 popping off when putting them back in the bag. The size of the V1 hood was great! Very little intrusion into the viewfinder and really good at blocking external light. No one from Leica ever called to ask me.
I may be an outlier but I love the vignetting! I'm using Tri-X and finding it's a nice companion to the 70's look of the 35 1.4 Nokton SC V2.
Here are a few from the first of two rolls from the Carousel Museum in Albany, Oregon. The carousel was restored by volunteers , all of the creatures were carved by volunteers and the city raised private funds to build the complex that houses the carousel, a museum and workshops.
This was also a test of my new 28 2.8 Color Skopar V2. The light was good, there just wasn't a lot of it. I could have used an extra stop or if I had some HC-110, I would have exposed the Tri-X at box speed. I could have pushed the Rodinal but wanted to stay with the know time and development. I tried to make the best of it by setting the camera on a rail and exposing at f4 @ 1/15th. Mosy of the others are at 2.8 @ 1/60th:
More from the Carousel Museum. Most of these are wide open at 2.8, 1/30th hand held
M4-2, Voigtlander 28 2.8 Color Skopar Tri-X @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1
raizans wrote:
It's almost as if they're hinting at an upcoming 40mm f/2 Ultron in the same barrel style.
If they had any design consistency I would agree with you, but that is simply not the case.
The two last M-mount lenses they released were the 28mm 2.8 and the 75mm 1.9.
Both aim to be very compact and one would expect a similar design, but almost everything about them is different.
madNbad wrote:
More from the Carousel Museum. Most of these are wide open at 2.8, 1/30th hand held
M4-2, Voigtlander 28 2.8 Color Skopar Tri-X @ ISO 200, Rodinal 50:1
Thanks for sharing all these pictures. It looks to me, that the vignetting of this lens is a lot less pronounced on film. Whenever my copy arrives, it will mostly be used on my Leica M film camera, and so I don't see vignetting being an issue at all, especially if I'm stopping down.
BastianK wrote:
If they had any design consistency I would agree with you, but that is simply not the case.
The two last M-mount lenses they released were the 28mm 2.8 and the 75mm 1.9.
Both aim to be very compact and one would expect a similar design, but almost everything about them is different.
Here's a time when two people look at the same things and have different interpretations. Both lenses have a simpler design with screw-on, cylindrical hoods (no more chrome bayonet ring) and simpler ribbed knurling.
raizans wrote:
Here's a time when two people look at the same things and have different interpretations. Both lenses have a simpler design with screw-on, cylindrical hoods (no more chrome bayonet ring) and simpler ribbed knurling.
The lenses also have a black front ring instead of chrome, which many people like for its style. This design lets you use a threaded hood with the lens. Lenses with the chrome bayonet front rings that are more resistant to scratches need a separately purchased hood.
nhlducks35 wrote:
If you shoot on a Leica film M, is the II version still recommended because the rangefinder can't focus below 0.7M?
I prefer the II design and weight savings, but am curious about the focusing.
Would be nice if there was a click stop at the 0.7 m setting like on some Laowa and late Leica lenses, unfortunately this is not the case.
So you need to spend some extra attention to not focus closer than 0.7 m.
I still prefer Type II over Type I, also when used on film Ms.
