Is there a better tiny 28mm lens than the Voigtlander?

[Huss]

TTArtisans just announced their version of the 28mm Summaron - a 28mm f5.6 lens for $300. The Leica is $3000.
https://www.popphoto.com/gear/ttartisan-m-28mm-f-5-6-first-look/

I was interested but already have a super Orion 15 28mm f6, and the even more super and even more compact Voigtlander 28mm f3.5.
I think this lens is finally appreciated for what it is, seeing they are now going for $700+



The Leica Elmarit Asph 28 2.8, is awesome but quite a bit bigger than the Voigtlander.

 

[Huss]

Orion 15

 

[Auer]

Sold my Bessa L /28mm combo.

Was fun, but in the end I found the lens rather sterile and the Bessa L of mediocre build quality and feel.

Overall, meh.

 

[Nitroplait]

Sold my Bessa L /28mm combo.

Was fun, but in the end I found the lens rather sterile and the Bessa L of mediocre build quality and feel.

Overall, meh.

You are complaining about the build quality of a camera that was less than $100 when new in the '00's and that a lens is "sterile", which I take as meaning; devoid of optical flaws? I'm baffled.

 

[logan2z]

The Leica Elmarit Asph 28 2.8, is awesome but quite a bit bigger than the Voigtlander.

The Elmarit is pretty tiny. I can barely find a place to grab to put it on/take it off the camera. The hood makes it appear quite a bit larger but without the hood it's very small.

 

[Auer]

You are complaining about the build quality of a camera that was less than $100 when new in the '00's and that a lens is "sterile", which I take as meaning; devoid of optical flaws? I'm baffled.

I wasnt talking about price at all. Lots of cheap garbage out there, and some expensive too.

The lens is sterile, as in having nothing that makes it stand out at all. Some like that, some don't.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Everyone's "better" is going to be different. I am not much for 28mm lenses but the Canon ltm 28/3.5 always seemed nice and small. Lower contrast but nice. The Minolta 28 for the CLE is pretty small too, but those have issues. There is also the Avenon(sp?) which is pancakey IIRC.

 

[Huss]

Sold my Bessa L /28mm combo.

Was fun, but in the end I found the lens rather sterile and the Bessa L of mediocre build quality and feel.

Overall, meh.

Agree that the build quality of the Bessa is garbage.

But the lens is sterile? What does that even mean? And as this is photography which is about image creating, show us an image taken with this lens to demonstrate the sterility of it. And show us the same subject taken with another lens of the same focal length that is not sterile. So we can see the difference between a sterile lens, and a non sterile lens.

 

[Huss]

The Elmarit is pretty tiny. I can barely find a place to grab to put it on/take it off the camera. The hood makes it appear quite a bit larger but without the hood it's very small.

 

[Auer]

Agree that the build quality of the Bessa is garbage.

But the lens is sterile? What does that even mean? And as this is photography which is about image creating, show us an image taken with this lens to demonstrate the sterility of it. And show us the same subject taken with another lens of the same focal length that is not sterile. So we can see the difference between a sterile lens, and a non sterile lens.

You have tons of gear, you should know some lenses have character, and some are just plain sterile.

 

[logan2z]

Sure, maybe not as small as the Voigtlander, but pretty small. How small do you need a lens to be?

 

[Huss]

You have tons of gear, you should know some lenses have character, and some are just plain sterile.

So no examples, eh?

So weird to me that people on a photography site prefer to use words than images.

 

[Huss]

Sure, maybe not as small as the Voigtlander, but pretty small. How small do you need a lens to be?

 

[Auer]

So no examples, eh?

So weird to me that people on a photography site prefer to use words than images.

No worries, you seem to have that covered.

 

[Huss]

No worries, you seem to have that covered.

You know that’s a non answer.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree with Huss, what is a sterile lens? If low contrast compensate with increased development time, use filters, adjust exposure. There are no sterile lens, but there are many photographers who blame their tools for poor quality work. Going back in time, telling my editor that my shoots did not pan out because I had a sterile lens, my last assignment.

 

[logan2z]

OK, now that is small

 

[250swb]

I love my CV 28mm f3.5 so much I use it far, far more than my 28mm Summicron. At similar apertures the Skopar holds its own unless extreme corner peaking, only falling behind at f/16. And it's beautifully made in brass, not alloy. As for the question of being sterile, well what the heck do you want a lens to do other than not get in the way, if that makes it sterile so be it, sterile is great.

 

[Huss]

I am still waiting to see an example of a photo that shows the sterile characteristics of this lens. And then an accompanying image with another equivalent lens that is not sterile. So we can see the difference in the images.


Calling a lens 'sterile' is one of those BS terms that cannot actually be demonstrated. But people parrot it because it 'sounds' like something. One of those the king has no clothes things...

There are so many variables that effect the final outcome of a photo - exposure, camera shake, development, shutter speed, aperture selection, film selection, accuracy of focus, composition, subject matter etc etc, that to suggest one vague and almost existential pseudo term in any way determines the final result? Well, that frankly is silly.

 

[Paul Howell]

Calling a lens 'sterile' is one of those BS terms that cannot actually be demonstrated. But people parrot it because it 'sounds' like something. One of those the king has no clothes things..."

For a non sterile lens, how about a Argus 35mm 4.0 (?) Cintar , single coating? At least my 50 3.5 has character, soft corners at 3.5, will flare even with a lens hood. Then again maybe as pointed out, Sterile is what ever I want Sterile to mean.

 

[film_man]

I suppose a "sterile" lens is one that is like a freshly cleaned operating theatre in a hospital. It is bright and tidy and shiny and clean but you don't want to be in there.

I think the closest I've had to a sterile lens was the Mamiya 6 with the 75/3.5. It was so sharp and contrasty it actually made images that where quite harsh to look at. But whatever...

 

[film_man]

Yeah yeah show off your MP and M7, thanks for the envy.

 

[250swb]

Well what's the opposite of a sterile lens, something people demonstrate for it's unique character and say things like 'look at the creamy bokeh'? That could be a car salesman, or somebody selling you a sofa, yes, just feel the plushness. If the character of a lens is more important than the things you photograph something has gone horribly wrong.

 

[awty]

Sold my Bessa L /28mm combo.

Was fun, but in the end I found the lens rather sterile and the Bessa L of mediocre build quality and feel.

Overall, meh.

Get a Md-2, who needs a range finder on 28 and wider?

 

[Auer]

Well what's the opposite of a sterile lens, something people demonstrate for it's unique character and say things like 'look at the creamy bokeh'? That could be a car salesman, or somebody selling you a sofa, yes, just feel the plushness. If the character of a lens is more important than the things you photograph something has gone horribly wrong.

Nobody said lens character is more important than subject matter.

Stop this shit already.