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

[wjlapier]

The Nikkor ltm 28mm is pretty tiny. The S mount is tiny too.

 

[250swb]

Nobody said lens character is more important than subject matter.

Well I guess it must have been me who said it then, duh.

 

[Pioneer]

MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 4/28 MC. The name is almost bigger than the lens. Definitely one of my favorites for rangefinders. Sorry for the slightly fuzzy photo but you get the idea.

 

[Huss]

Very cool Dan! It looks like that lens hood doubles the size! Any pics taken with it that you'd like to post?

 

[cjbecker]

This thread is worthless without pictures taken with said lenses.

 

[awty]

MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 4/28 MC. The name is almost bigger than the lens. Definitely one of my favorites for rangefinders. Sorry for the slightly fuzzy photo but you get the idea.

View attachment 292000

You win. Very nice lens. Makes my color skopar 25mm look huge.

 

[Craig75]

Has anyone used the g-rokkor 28mm? Once in a while I look at it and think I want this but then I lose my nerve.

 

[Pioneer]

Very cool Dan! It looks like that lens hood doubles the size! Any pics taken with it that you'd like to post?

I have some but I have been working exclusively with a 35 on the MA this year so it will take a bit of digging.

 

[Pioneer]

Has anyone used the g-rokkor 28mm? Once in a while I look at it and think I want this but then I lose my nerve.

I regularly use a Minolta MD 28mm f2.8 but that is an SLR lens so I doubt they use similar formulations. However, if the performance of my SLR lens is any indication I would have to believe that the LTM version would be worth it.

 

[btaylor]

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.

How about sterile media? Does that count? It’s real. Digital image capture. When the big push was on to move from film to digital in motion pictures vintage lenses to add “character” to the image were all the rage. Digital capture was considered too “sterile” and “clinical” (those are the cinematographer’s words) using modern lenses and the rush was on for the “artifacts” of older lenses. There is even a rental company that specializes in vintage glass- Old School Cameras. They kept bugging me for my FSU anamorphic lenses. Old Lomo, Canon, Kowa and B&L Baltars and Super Baltars that were practically given away 15 years ago are worth a fortune now because of their “look.” The character of a lens is part of a photograph, how much or how little is up to the photographer and the look they are after. I prefer the way many of my older lenses render. That’s part of my process.

 

[Craig75]

I regularly use a Minolta MD 28mm f2.8 but that is an SLR lens so I doubt they use similar formulations. However, if the performance of my SLR lens is any indication I would have to believe that the LTM version would be worth it.

The g-rokkor was the lens mintolta used on their tc-1 compact camera in the 1990s. Like ricoh they were very proud of their high end compact lens and like ricoh they put it on an ltm mount. It's so cool looking I always want one but I was hoping someone who say oh yes I used one and of course you need it. Come on peer pressure!

 

[Huss]

This thread is worthless without pictures taken with said lenses.

Agreed! Film getting developed....

 

[Huss]

Leica M7, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200

 

[Huss]

Leica M-A, CV 28mm 3.5, Fuji C200

 

[Huss]

Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200

 

[Huss]

Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200

 

[Huss]

Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200

 

[Paul Howell]

This thread is worthless without pictures taken with said lenses.

Well if scanned from an R4 print from mini lab with 0000 setting, meaning no adjustment or comparable analog print, I pay little attention to scanned prints that can be adjusted to minimize grain, maximize grain, soften, sharpened, color adjusted with plug ins to match any particular film. You like Kodachrome, there is a plug in for that, well there use to be.

 

[film_man]

Well if scanned from an R4 print from mini lab with 0000 setting, meaning no adjustment or comparable analog print, I pay little attention to scanned prints that can be adjusted to minimize grain, maximize grain, soften, sharpened, color adjusted with plug ins to match any particular film. You like Kodachrome, there is a plug in for that, well there use to be.

Scanned prints? Why would anyone scans prints...unless you lost the negatives I suppose...

 

[Paul Howell]

Scanned prints? Why would anyone scans prints...unless you lost the negatives I suppose...

If you want to show what film is really like, well that not true, if you can a scanned negative you can alter a negative. So I guess I'm a guy that needs to test myself.

 

[Huss]

If you want to show what film is really like, well that not true, if you can a scanned negative you can alter a negative. So I guess I'm a guy that needs to test myself.

When you test, what lens are you going to use with your enlarger when you make your own prints? And why that lens?

 

[film_man]

Film is only one link in the chain of either
SUBJECT-meter-lens-film-chemistry-enlarger-paper-chemistry-FINAL IMAGE or
SUBJECT-meter-lens-film-chemistry-scanner-scanning operator-computer screen-printer-paper-FINAL IMAGE

I don't really care what a film on its own can do, I care what a film can do in that chain above. I literally pay someone to scan each frame according to my preferences. It is the imaging process I care about, not a film testing process with sharpness targets and colour charts. And yes in the scans I get I can easily spot the differences of certain films. Portra 800 vs the other Portras. Cinestill that stands out from everything else. Gold vs Portra. Slide film vs C41. It is not as fine grained as E100 vs Provia (for example) but film choice does affect the final output. Can you make one look like the other? Maybe. Can I do the halos of Cinestill go away? No. Can I add them? Maybe. Can I bring up the burned highlights of Portra 800 in direct sunlight? Maybe. Do I want to? No, I just pick P160 instead. Etc etc.

 

[beemermark]

The Minolta CLE 28mm lens was a very nice lens. even with the white spots it performed very well. I had one but since I also have the 28mm Elmarit snob appeal won out and I sold it. Every bit as good as the Elmarit.

 

[Huss]

Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200

 

[Huss]

Leica M-A, CV 28 3.5, Fuji C200