It was the ZM21 f/2.8 at f/4.5 in order to match exposure to the earlier CV15 images. For images with a lot of peripheral detail I try to avoid using this lens wide open. It has a fair amount of field curvature that will work against maintaining corner sharpness. But for at least the top half of this image, it's beneficial, since the curvature is towards infinity in the corners, helping extend the focus toward the background.
First two pics taken at the Pulitzer Prize photo exhibit. 1, 2 & 4 35Lux ASPH, #3 28Cron
BTW, especially for Heinz and film shooters, this M2 and 35Cron was used to take this picture.
Although just a camera, that is such an iconic image I think seeing the camera by the print would certainly be fascinating.
For those of you who haven't seen this photo exhibit, it really is a must. An incredible presentation of images. After viewing the images I spent some time watching the folks viewing them and the power of these photos to affect people was so clear.
Heinz, Joe and Boris, thank you guys
Boris, excellent set of shots! Great stuff... congrats on your M9-P!!! No doubt you will be the first in this forum to have a M9-P
There has just been some outstanding photography on this thread. Iv been lurking and really enjoying everyone's work.
So I picked up a second hand Leica M8 today . It's going to be my B+W camera untill I get my film processing under controll. Or at least somewhat caught up. I still got my M9 and the Lecia M3 left.
It was really fun shooting with two digtial M's today and I am really impressed with the files so far. Even converted/processed in I-photo they look decent enough.
Vivitar 285
first day out of the nest.
135 2.8
28 1.9 ASPH @ F4
Vivitar 285
35 1.4 Summilux
135 2.8
50 1.0
Last day at school
28 1.9 ASPH
Even though I played around with various lenses today. I think I will more than likely glue the 28 1.8 ASPH to the M8 and just get on with it. The M8 is a solid little camera and I really like the feel of the shutter and the A works unlike my M9. So I just need one more extra battery and I am all set for my little summer project.
Gregory, what kind of lens is 28 1.9 ASPH? Are you referring to the Voigtlander Ultron or the fact that Summicron 28, if forced a little bit opens a little bit more than f2?
Mirek, Sure just when I am truly happy with my Leica Kit you have to mention the 28 2.0 Summicron. You know your little comment will probally end up costing me $3,500 .
And since I havnt got $3,500 my remining lung
Just kidding, well sort of kidding . When I I started to build my Leica system, I wanted a fast 28mm to ride shot gun with my Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D and Nikon system.
I looked long and hard at the Summicron 2.0 ASPH, but at the time , And now for that matter, I just didnt have the money. And from the research on line, the Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASPH was a very close substitute. And as luck would have it, I found a nice used copy from someone on the Rangefinder forum for a fair price.
If your interested , I have a Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASPH thread on the Rangefinder Forum nicley buried in the Voigtlander images section. No sense making it easy for folks to see my work or anything
As far the 28 1.9 ASPH despite being a lowley Voigtlander and not a Summicron 28 2.0 ASPH , and it has given me some fantasic images in the time I have had it, on Leica Film and digtial bodies. It's fast and sharp and is well built. I like the hood and from what I can tell zero focus shift.
I admit that lens snob in me still wants the Summicron 2.0 ASPH, and if someone feels that they need to give me one to make my photogrphy better. I will not say no, but in truth always having to have "the best" can be a crutch, when it comes to gear. The fact is, I am more interested in being able to take the best images possible, than be known for having the best gear. Not that one excludes the other.
I sometimes wonder about Cosina's product strategy. The 28 f/1.9 seems to be highly regarded, yet it was discontinued and now we have the 28 f/2 Ultron. Also the 35 f/1.7 and the 50 f/1.5...
I did an informal side-by-side comparison of the Ultron vs. the ZM28 and wasn't all that impressed. It's a decent lens for $500, but is never great in the corners and does indeed have focus shift. The ZM on the other hand created images that really popped. I guess typical Zeiss contrast, and also excellent sharpness, at least in the central region. In fact, it surprised me because its MTF charts are not all that impressive.
rscheffler wrote:
I sometimes wonder about Cosina's product strategy. The 28 f/1.9 seems to be highly regarded, yet it was discontinued and now we have the 28 f/2 Ultron. Also the 35 f/1.7 and the 50 f/1.5...
I did an informal side-by-side comparison of the Ultron vs. the ZM28 and wasn't all that impressed. It's a decent lens for $500, but is never great in the corners and does indeed have focus shift. The ZM on the other hand created images that really popped. I guess typical Zeiss contrast, and also excellent sharpness, at least in the central region. In fact, it surprised me because its MTF charts are not all that impressive....Show more →
IIRC the main reasons the 28/1.9 was replaced was size and a weakness for flare. I owned one for a while, originally bought as a long normal for a G1, which it proved unsuitable for as it's low contrast wide open and difficult to focus on the G1, I later used it on a Bessa R and liked it a lot. I only sold it because I got a 35/2.5 for my bessa and could then frame with the framelines.
Okay, so no one likes the 28 1.9 ASPH but me. Or are you guys refrering to the new 28 2.0 version?
I never heard of a G1 so that reference is lost on me. No matter. As far as it not being sharp wide open? It's not my experince but hey what do I know. And I dont even know what a test chart looks like .I'll be sure to take some new images @ 1.9 today.
I really didnt want to get into defending this little lens. But the truth is I I love to stand up for the underdog. And I am going out street shooting a little later and I will use "anything" to inspire me to take better pictures. So you guy might want to consider the old saying about getting into a fight with a pig. You know the one the you will get dirty and the pig will love it.
As far as the low contrast thing at F1.9. Again I never understood how that is a problem? Especailly since there is not a single F 1.9 wide angle on the planet to compar it to.
Perhaps I am not up to speed on why/how ultra high contrast of modern lens is such a big deal. I noticed from looking at many images posted on the rangefinder forum of many of the older glass, that low contrast is sometimes a beautiful thing. But really If you want full contrast with the 28 1.9 ASPH , stop down a click. Right?
The one thing that no one like to talk about with the 28 1.9 ASPH is that it's the fastest 28mm made for the M mount as far as I know and that is huge selling point for me. especailly for the price.
And as far as the Zeiss 28mm I am not familiar with it so I can't comment.
And yes It get repeated over and over that it's to big. It's to big? To big for what? And I get that all the time
For a 28 mm F 1.9 ? While I am not a lens designer, I would say that if you want the speed your going to get the size. It's just that simple. It's just the law of optics.
But seriously compared to the 50 1.0 Noctilux the amount of view finder blockage is minimal. With the most excellent hood attached the 28 1.9 ASPH blocks all of a little corner of the view finder. Again I wonder what the big deal is?
The eye need not see what the mind knows to be there.
Anyways, thanks for taking the time to comment on what lousy lens I have and zero comments on my pictures
Gregory, nice set of shots! I do really like #10 and 11. I originally had the CV 28/2 Ultron as part of my M9 starting kit. Excellent lens, and when I sent it away for a service, the lens performed great in every respect. Very good value for money too I would compare the lens in performance to the CV 50/1.5, which is now discontinued, another excellent lens.
I revisited the informal comparison I did between the ZM28 and the CV28 f/2. I will partially retract my earlier comment about contrast... there isn't a big difference. There is a difference though in sharpness. The ZM is definitely sharper in the central A to B zone than the CV until they pretty much equalize at f/11. I'm quite certain that I focused the the lenses carefully and it might be possible that the CV is slightly back focusing. Or in the sample below, there may be degradation due to focus shift. I'm not sure. In the C zone, along the edge of the picture, the ZM is not great, but it is still better than the CV.
The first set of crops below is not from dead centre, but a touch to the right where I thought the subject detail was more interesting and more illustrative of the difference. Focus was on the windows. It's interesting that the pillar in the CV image is much more out of focus than in the ZM and that the reflection of the tree in the door window appears sharper.
The second set of crops is from the upper right edge.
I suppose it would depend on what one most photographs. If it's people type photos, then both would likely do well, though focus shift with the CV might be a concern. I don't think the ZM would make a great landscape lens because the C zone is definitely not as good as A and B at it's optimum resolving aperture range of f/5.6-f/8. By f/11 there is a slight onset of diffraction softness but the C zone has improved and is very close to A and B. Looking at the MTFs for the ZM vs. the Elmarit 28 ASPH, I think the Leica is the one to go for here if it is within budget. The 28 Cron might be even a touch better, but as we know, a lot more $$$. It would seem that 28mm is one focal length where Leica is the better performer (based on specs).
Zeiss 28 MTF:
Leica Elmarit 28 ASPH:
Please excuse the crooked composition below I only had a few minutes to do this, it was an unexpected opportunity and didn't have a tripod along... The crops are 100% default Lightroom setting.
I should add that I shot two sequences from wide open to f/22 for each lens of the scene below and that the results are consistent, ruling out significant degradation due to it being done hand held. The exposure for the scene below was 1/1000 @ f/5.6 ISO 160, which should be sufficient.
