edwardkaraa wrote: rsolti13 wrote, Edward, lunch break shot is great!
Gary, great shot with the 28 Cron
Desmolicious really like that bubble beach laundry shot
Another family shot among the 300 transparencies I've finished digitalizing with the BEOON + M10 + Focotar 2. Doesn't show anything new — except maybe corner sharpness? — but I like the "Twin Peaks look" of it.
Shot for a university client. Leica M 10. Leica 35mm 1.4 summilux FLE, Leica sf58 strobe set manually at 1/64th power, softened and gelled for light in room (tungsten) at about 2600 K.
6400 ISO
f/4
1/125
rsolti13 wrote:
Over the past year or two I have primarily used my A7R II instead of the M240. My most used lenses were Loxia 21 and Batis 25. I have recently started using my 28 Cron again and am no longer in awe of that lens. The sharpness is way behind either and the bokeh isn't anywhere near as good as the Batis 25. However flawed the Cron is though, I find the look of it quite pleasing. I just recently got a Voigtlander 28 to try something different and I am shocked with this lens. It is sharper at all distances at all apertures throughout the image. I blindly compared each lens and I like the bokeh better on the 28 Ultron. The 28 Cron has far more vignetting. As far as how each one renders.....I do prefer the Cron ever so slightly but if I wasn't comparing side by side knowing which lens is which, I honestly wouldn't know the difference.
EDIT: My most memorable uses of the 28 Cron was with the M9, is there something that changed with the M240 that would change the character of the 28 Cron?...Show more →
Hi Ryan,
2-3 years ago in this thread there was some debate/discussion about this very topic: why does the 28 Cron look different (worse) on the M240 vs. M9? I did some comparison shots (don't recall if I ever posted them) and IIRC, my conclusion was the difference was based on how the in-camera profile was built for the lens in each camera. The nature of the vignetting, IMO, was better in the M9. Looked more natural compared to the M240. Also, the differences in tone and color rendering between the M9 and M240 influenced the look of the 28 Cron. (The old CCD vs. CMOS debate)
Which 28 Ultron version do you have? the f/2 or f/1.9? I briefly tried the f/2 Ultron against the ZM28 and was unimpressed by the Ultron, particularly it's lower contrast and somewhat softer look wide open. IMO the 28 Cron seemed to offer the best balance of sharpness, contrast, color and speed. I've read great things about the f/1.9 Ultron but have not seen many images by it, particularly in situations where it's possible to evaluate rendering characteristics.
In comparison to the Loxia and Batis, are you comparing the 28 Cron on Sony, or on Leica? But even on Leica, it's a bit weak in the periphery until stopped down somewhat. This is supposedly what the new version addresses.
Last year I dabbled with the new 28 Cron version but was not happy with the performance changes I noted in the copies I tried (concerns about field curvature and edge sharpness), based on my preferences and needs. I ended up going to the 28 Lux instead and am happy with it, though I think the 28 Cron rendering at some distances was better.
Here are two Kodachrome II slides from 1965 made in harsh equatorial light in Uganda. The first is of our Beetle stuck in mud, upcountry, on the way to Karamoja, and the other is in Kampala. Both with the Leica IIIc and Summitar 50 lens.