I own the version IV. Be careful as sometimes this one gets lens wobble, the front objective unscrews at the aperture with enough force, or after enough use (rattling around in a bag). Perhaps this isn't common but it's my experience. The lens is exactly the size of the 28mm f2 ASPH. I use a 35mm summilux hood on it and it works fine, cheaper too, when used. The performance is more than most will even be able to utilize. This lens has excellent micro contrast edge to edge even wide open, it's best at f-4. Focusing is easy and smooth. It's built very well besides the wobble issue as you would expect. The front element is easy to clean off as it is a Plano-concave, the flat end facing out (probably used in an attempt to flatten the field more). Expect to get it in decent shape for between $1200-$1400.
If you want small (very small) and don't mind the f/3.5 widest aperture the CV 28mm Color Skopar is hard to beat.
I originally got mine for my IIIf, but with an LTM adapter it is now a firm favourite on my M bodies. The Cameraquest web site describe it as 'legendary', and I was pretty sceptical until I compared it against my 28mm Asph Summicron which is itself one of Leica's best ever lenses. The CV lens pretty well holds its own at all comparable apertures with the Summicron except f/16, and beats CV's own 28mm Ultron by a big margin. The Color Skopar is actually better than the Summicron in the corners at f/3.5. Even the build quality is a notch above normal with the body being machined from brass and not the usual alloy, meaning the silver versions are proper chrome plated, not anodized. But having been discontinued they do seem to be a bit rare.
Steve
Thanks. I've had good luck sticking with Leica lenses (tried Zeiss for a while to save money, but went back), but I hear a lot about the VC. I may try one someday, but for now, I want to stick to the Leicas for consistency. They just give that particular look I enjoy.
Well obviously you cannot go wrong with the Elmarit and I share your affection for Leica glass, though I'm a huge fan of Zeiss glass too. In general I am not so enamored with most VC glass finding it too sterile and clinical and lacking in unique look and character. Purely subjective but there you go. Ihave bought and sold a few (40/1.4. 35/1.2) but I do hold onto and use the 15 Super -wide and 75/2.5, and this 28/3.5 is something more special than most other VC lenses IMO. For a few hundred vs what you'll pay for the Elmarit it's a viable option to try. But if the funds are there and it's Leica you want then grab an Elmarit.
I fail to see what Leicaholics are so excited about.what makes a Leica lens better than say a Nikkor?Is it real,hype, cult or personal preference?:confused:
Well obviously you cannot go wrong with the Elmarit and I share your affection for Leica glass, though I'm a huge fan of Zeiss glass too. In general I am not so enamored with most VC glass finding it too sterile and clinical and lacking in unique look and character. Purely subjective but there you go. Ihave bought and sold a few (40/1.4. 35/1.2) but I do hold onto and use the 15 Super -wide and 75/2.5, and this 28/3.5 is something more special than most other VC lenses IMO. For a few hundred vs what you'll pay for the Elmarit it's a viable option to try. But if the funds are there and it's Leica you want then grab an Elmarit.
I fail to see what Leicaholics are so excited about.what makes a Leica lens better than say a Nikkor?Is it real,hype, cult or personal preference?:confused:
I fail to see what Leicaholics are so excited about.what makes a Leica lens better than say a Nikkor?Is it real,hype, cult or personal preference?:confused:
That has also been my experience. There are exceptions, the Zuiko 1.8 50mm on my OM1 back in the 70s was sharper, and drew better than any lens I've owned subsequently, and Yashica's ML series have also proved excellent, but you generally get what you pay for in lenses. Beyond a certain point, like Hi-Fi, cult bicycles and handmade watches, the price-quality ratio is a case of diminishing returns and mostly in the eye of the beholder.The image quality is arguably compatible between fine lenses of each major brand.
Only in the digital world. I am old enough to remember when Canon was a small player, many many more people than now used Pentax gear and most serious stuff apart from news/sports seemed to be all MF film. Has Leica ever been anything other than a niche player? Does this make any difference to anything?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?