When printing color I use a Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 6 element lens for 35mm, when printing 6X9 a Rodenstock 105 4.5 another 6 element lens, and from 4X5 a Wollensake 163 5.6 pro lens again another 6 element lens, I use these because it's what I got. But, I have reference prints made from the color films I shoot, Ektar 100, Porta 400, Koda Color 200 gold, Pro image 100, I just ordered a few rolls of Fuji 100, I have old reference prints but will update. My reference prints come from Tempe Camera's Color Lab, they use a Frontier printed 0000, no adjustments. I then match my R4 with my reference prints before I think about adjusting the color.
Is there a better tiny 28mm lens than the Voigtlander?
-
A
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AI-s Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale FS: Pentacon / Praktica Black Camera Case with Strap...Nice!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: "Pinhole Journal", Vol. 15, No.1...Issue #41. April 1999. Excellent used condition.
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale (US) Topcor 210mm f5.6 w/ Horseman Extension Tube/Board
- Started by HaroldC3P0
-
For Sale (US) Nikkor 300mm M f9 w/ Horseman Extension Tube/Board
- Started by HaroldC3P0
Forum statistics
When printing color I use a Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 6 element lens for 35mm, when printing 6X9 a Rodenstock 105 4.5 another 6 element lens, and from 4X5 a Wollensake 163 5.6 pro lens again another 6 element lens, I use these because it's what I got. But, I have reference prints made from the color films I shoot, Ektar 100, Porta 400, Koda Color 200 gold, Pro image 100, I just ordered a few rolls of Fuji 100, I have old reference prints but will update. My reference prints come from Tempe Camera's Color Lab, they use a Frontier printed 0000, no adjustments. I then match my R4 with my reference prints before I think about adjusting the color.
I agree with you, that's why I pay little mind to scanned negatives posted on the internet, I don't judge a film by what others have done or not done in a scan.
its a long time since i read it so i stand to be corrected but ctein did the enlarger lens test grind and from memory the take home message was that good quality 6 element enlarger lenses are pretty much indistinguishable from each other.
When I was teaching at the local community college I had the class do a class project in which the students tested 3, 4, and 6 elements lens and one APO. In the blind viewing by random non photo students and staff, none could tell the difference between a 4 and 6 element lens black and white 8X10 and 11X14, at 20X24 the APO lens stood out. With color my 6 element were judge to have "better color" the APO lens was clear winner. The 6 elements I and the college owned were newer and had better coatings. I use my old Kodak and Wollensake 4 elements with black and white, I happen to believe that these were optimized for prints up to 11X14 which is as large as I print. Saying that, last few months I've been using my 50mm 2.8 6 element because I'm a few years away from a cataract surgery and the extra stop makes it easier to focus. I do use 6 elements with color. I never had the money for an APO lens, I just don't shoot that much color.
Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200
Leica MA - MS Optical Perar Super Triplet 28/4 - AEU400
Leica MA - MS Optical Perar Super Triplet 28/4 - AEU400
A little grainy but that sometimes comes with the choice of film and developer.
A little grainy but that sometimes comes with the choice of film and developer.
I have to put in a good word for a '28' not many people use nowadays - the (once upon a time) legendary Zeiss Contax G Biogon 28/2.8.
Mine came new on my first G1 in 02.1995 - so I've used it continuously and consistently for 26, almost 27 years.
It has to be one of the best 28s ever made for any rangefinder camera. I believe so, because it's the one and only rangefinder lens I own and use, and many photos I've taken with it and my G1 have been published in books and magazines. Also used Biogon 28s now cost more used than they did new when I bought mine.
Alas, it can't be easily converted to use (reason being that all the converters for it are crap) on other cameras, film or digital. Them's the breaks. I live with it. As my Buddhist friends say, sh*t happens.
As for lens size, well - the Biogon is bigger, obviously, than the Voigtlander. But as my partner (also a keen photographer) says, size doesn't alway matter, it's more about how well it works, and how you use it...
So to keep the peace, I will say this - the Zeiss Biogon 28 G is as good a lens as the Voigtlander 28 or any of the others.
Mine came new on my first G1 in 02.1995 - so I've used it continuously and consistently for 26, almost 27 years.
It has to be one of the best 28s ever made for any rangefinder camera. I believe so, because it's the one and only rangefinder lens I own and use, and many photos I've taken with it and my G1 have been published in books and magazines. Also used Biogon 28s now cost more used than they did new when I bought mine.
Alas, it can't be easily converted to use (reason being that all the converters for it are crap) on other cameras, film or digital. Them's the breaks. I live with it. As my Buddhist friends say, sh*t happens.
As for lens size, well - the Biogon is bigger, obviously, than the Voigtlander. But as my partner (also a keen photographer) says, size doesn't alway matter, it's more about how well it works, and how you use it...
So to keep the peace, I will say this - the Zeiss Biogon 28 G is as good a lens as the Voigtlander 28 or any of the others.
Last edited:
Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200
Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200
The canon 28/3.5 ltm is a nice performer and I have been very pleased with it over the years. Never has left me wanting more.
Leica iiif, portra 160, canon 28/3.5 ltm
same combo
Leica iiif, portra 160, canon 28/3.5 ltm
same combo
I agree, had the 35mm and 28 in Canon LTM mount, also had the Leica 28mm in screw mount, in terms of sharpness the Leica may have been sharper, not that I could or my editor could tell,
Agree entirely (or Entirely agree, if you prefer). I used both lenses with LTM adapters on my M2 and M3 in the 1980s, and they produced many images I was easily able to sell at the time, so good lenses for all purposes. Alas, I sold both cameras and lenses a long time ago, one of (too many) mistakes I've made in my life that I now regret.
I now own a Leica iiif and I would happily buy and use Canon lenses IF I could get them at good prices, but not so in Australia, where they seem to sell for almost as much as Summarons. We live in different times, obviously...
Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200
I didn't see anything at all "sterile" about the images from the Voigtlander posted above. In fact, now I may be infected--I've had a bug for a 28mm lens, and I feel a bit of pining for that version.
Speaking of really tiny 28mm lenses, is this one any good at all? Cos gosh, it is *tiny*! (And stupid cheap.)
https://radojuva.com/en/2014/09/industar-69-28-mm-f-2-8/comment-page-1/
And, hey--it comes with sample images! And they certainly don't look--god save us!--sterile, by any means.
Speaking of really tiny 28mm lenses, is this one any good at all? Cos gosh, it is *tiny*! (And stupid cheap.)
https://radojuva.com/en/2014/09/industar-69-28-mm-f-2-8/comment-page-1/
And, hey--it comes with sample images! And they certainly don't look--god save us!--sterile, by any means.
Deleted member 88956
This is a funny thread I must say. It starts off with "is there a better (lens) than ..." then one poster makes a "sterile" comment and gets chastised (for reasons unbeknown to me, as then someone else calls another lens a "nice" one, getting no nuclear responses at all), then some actual photos from lenses start to flow in, proving only the fact that they are all capable of projecting image on the film. And this is not meant as a jab at shown photographs, just that none show any "betterness" over another. It is what it is, having a discussion on any subject matter can be fun.
Having said all that, there are some differences in lens' character, although mostly very sublime, and hardly ever an agreeable commodity anyways. So, if a lens produces "sterile" image for that user, then he has it right within realms of his own evaluation standard. Same goes for another who just claims to own a "nice" one. None of this could be shown/proven with photographs as none of it is objective, Neither are photographs themselves trying to show such a point, especially so in the scanned world.
Some parts of this thread remind me of a book "Controls in Black and White Photography" by Henry. Great read, even better my own conclusion - why bother? It showed succinctly there is way too many variables, many beyond precise control, to worry about the minutia of processing details explored within. Yet ultimately, if one wants to go on a "tirade" about superiority of one thing over another, there is no better way, but to indeed bother. Mr. Henry was not exactly doing that, he spent countless hours going through all that testing. And while it proved to me something unintended by all that work, it might have shown something else to another.
Having said all that, there are some differences in lens' character, although mostly very sublime, and hardly ever an agreeable commodity anyways. So, if a lens produces "sterile" image for that user, then he has it right within realms of his own evaluation standard. Same goes for another who just claims to own a "nice" one. None of this could be shown/proven with photographs as none of it is objective, Neither are photographs themselves trying to show such a point, especially so in the scanned world.
Some parts of this thread remind me of a book "Controls in Black and White Photography" by Henry. Great read, even better my own conclusion - why bother? It showed succinctly there is way too many variables, many beyond precise control, to worry about the minutia of processing details explored within. Yet ultimately, if one wants to go on a "tirade" about superiority of one thing over another, there is no better way, but to indeed bother. Mr. Henry was not exactly doing that, he spent countless hours going through all that testing. And while it proved to me something unintended by all that work, it might have shown something else to another.
-
- Old Gregg
- Deleted
I was interested in that lens until I saw that it does not cover a 35mm film image. It is designed for 1/2 frame cameras.
Agreed. Perhaps I should have titled this "is there a worse tiny 28mm lens than the voigtlander?"
Yeah, a bit of a drawback there, unfortunately. Could be kinda fun though--and they're silly cheap, 30 bucks or so on eBay.
MattKing
Moderator
With short focal length lenses, people sometimes describe distortion as "character".
Not a rangefinder lens, but the Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 for the OM film bodies is still quite small:
Like your shot. And to be completely honest I use my Minolta Rokkor-X 28mm/2.8 far more frequently than any of my other 28s, rangefinder or not. Probably because that was the 28mm lens I learned with and I am very, very comfortable with it. However, that Minolta lens is not anywhere near as small as most of the rangefinder lenses discussed here so there is a trade off.
I had the color Skopar 28, metal lens and rangefinder and agree it is very good.
Like any lens, it can render outstanding images and I wore it on my Leica IIIc as the prime lens I used.
If I had another Leica C or later, I'd definitely want that lens again!
Size comparison with the delightful Rollei 40mm thrown into the mix:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |