thrice wrote:
Don't bother with the new one either, too much contrast in the oof areas!
Care to elaborate mate?
I've worked a lot of 28's in my days and the Leica lens is the only one that has proven itself in all aspects where it really matters. Too much contrast? I don't know, it has unusually smooth oof rendering for a wideangle and on landscape shots (where oof plays a minor role) I think it is one of the very best wideangles I have seen, handling all types of light from flat to contrasty in stride. I had the Zeiss 28/2.8 for many years, and the Nikkor 28/2.8 Ais for a few years before that and except for close up photography where I liked the Nikkor best (though it isn't quite as sharp as the other two) the Leica lens comes out on top. All three are great lenses but I stick with the Leica.
But, it all boils down to personal preferences and taste.
kosmoskatten wrote:
But, it all boils down to personal preferences and taste.
The Leica 28 I had was optically superb. Wide open it thrashed my cheap ol' Contax. The problem for me is that I use such a lens almost exclusively at f8 with flash at parties, and for some reason the Contax seemed to have something extra at f8, especially in realistic portrayal of the oof areas. For general use I would definitely recommend the Leica 28 on optical grounds. For f8 only use I think it's a matter of personal preference.
The later versions of the original Leica 28 2.8 seem to have had the coatings tweaked a bit.
I had an early one, but traded it. I've since gotten a later version of the original [serial #784xxxx] and it's much better. I'm sure it won't stand up to critical tests against the new version, but it is quite nice.
no_brainiac:
Nah, I think it has been overemphasized on my part a little as I actually agree to most of your ranting on Zeiss-over-Leica-bokeh.
I think the Sonnars are pretty nice though I favor the Planars - but not all of them.
With really busy backgrounds the creamier bokeh of "most" Leica lenses come out better, in my taste. With some Zeiss lenses the background gets overly busy what with branches and grass etc. The Contax 100/2 Planar is a lens that I don't like - and I gave it a few years.
The Contax 85/1.4 and 135/2 Planars I like a lot. My Contax 60/2.8 (1:1) wins me over from the Leica 60 despite its other shortcomings as I like the way it separate things from the background a little better than the Leica 60. But I don't like that I have to stop down to f5.6 to get a snappy image at infinity. But I chose the Planar anyway.
When I chose the Leica 28 over the Zeiss 28 (owned both for a while) the decision was based on close up, wide open performance and bokeh. If the intention would be using the lens primarily at f8 and with flash I could have gone either way.
Something I admit to, and admit that I miss at times, is the "3D" rendering that especially the Planars can give and only a few Leica lenses can. Browsing numerous old photos with the Planars in action I miss them.
So, I am working my way back to Planar-land with the A900; my Contax 60 is in the mail, converted, and the chip sits on the desk in front of me.
I am looking at either the Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 or the 85/1.4 to go with that leaving me with "only" the 28, macro 100 and "old bat" 180/3.4 in the Leica arsenal. With the latter being used for landscape/infinity shots only, bokeh is not crucial and the other two suit me just fine for all applications.
When I get those Zeiss lenses I will glue a red dot to them, just to take the Spillane out of you, pulp fiction style, you brain_like_main_iac.
kosmoskatten wrote:
That's what I'm talking about...
Cheers!
No, that's what she is talking about ...
Ok, maybe not.
Great shot, the size of the bling ring jumps out at me.
Look forward to seeing how my cheap Minolta 28 compares and what kind of bokeh it renders.
Cheers!
Speaking of busy bokeh lenses, I still long for a biotar 75 to add to my arsenal as I think it is the Van Gogh of busy bokeh. Luckily FM'er Biotar has not posted any shots with this lens for awhile.
Thanks for posting debuggerus.
Bokeh looks like smooth type in this example.
Nice colors, like Rokkor 58.
What are the differences between MD and MC-W 28 f2 lenses?
Wayne,
I use this site for manual minolta lenses' technical info: http://www.subclub.org/minman/length.htm
According to the site, there are 3 versions of the 28 f2: MC W 28mm f2 (55), MD W 28mm f2 (55) and MD 28mm f2 (49). I have the first 2 and I think Jim has the 3rd one (blank MD, 49mm). The MD 49mm filter size version has different optical design than the MC/MD Rokkor. I am not sure how that translates to real life photos.
Nice shot - but it illustrates precisely why I have sold my Leica glass. Look at the line of the edge of her little finger as it moves down and to the left from wonderful sharp focus to a nicely blurred soft edge. Everything about the lens is perfect, except that aspect of its extraordinary rendition. There's just no depth and 3D. Maybe some people have eyes that behave like that, but I don't. It looks kind of airbrush cartoony to me. I can't explain why I don't like it - it just doesn't look real. It may be that I have imperfect eyes so perfect lenses look unfamiliar. When I contemplate my deliberately blurred vision, my bokeh has sharp edges, not soft. The odd thing is that once you take away the 3D effect, none of the picture seems to hang together. The shoulder, the hand and the face could belong to three different people, and there's no telling which of the three is closer to the camera. For me it renders the image unintelligibly planar instead of spacial.
Brainiac; you are really getting into details and I appreciate that. For me the lens works fine for the focal length. Bokeh is seldom an issue (for me) with the Leica 28. If you would have stuck the Zeiss 28 and had someones shoulder and forearm at the edge of the picture just like the above sample I am not sure it would have helped all that much. By excluding the elbow it becomes harder but I can still "imagine" it.
By cropping a minor portion of the right side of the image it becomes easier to connect it to that one person and that's what I would have done as most women don't like it when their arms look beefy.
For me the Planar rendering works to great effect but sometimes it can look like a cut out, and equally cartoon-ish. For some clients the cut out effect has been distracting as it makes the image look "unreal" as the eye does not cut out an object the same way, while no one (yet) has complained about the Leica rendering.
But then again, I haven't done a serious portrait session with both Leica and Contax lenses and showed them to a client so there is no telling what they'd prefer really.
But, taste and preference differs, I like them both but for different reasons. Some Leica lenses can look a bit bland but some are superb in rendering. Horses for Courses and Donkeys for Brainiac.
Care to elaborate mate?
Here's a sample with the 28