Leica 28mm Elmarits

[cbphoto]

I'm looking to get a 28mm for frequent use, and my budget is in the Elmarit version 4 or used Elmarit Apsh range. Any comments on the differences in image character? My other lenses are older (version 3 'crons, both 35 and 50, and a 21mm SA) and have a perfect mix of smooth and sharp. I know the 28s are more contrasty unless you go back to the BIG ones (not ok with me), but how big a difference are we talking about?

I'm only considering the asph in case the size of the v4 is too much. I like compact!

 

[Xmas]

I had a Type I, asph, Voightlander LTM /3.5, Voightlander /1.9 LTM, Canon /2.8 LTM, FSU Orion /6 LTM

So I sold the two Leicas and Voightlander /1.9 I was not using them.

The asph had too little grip surface to mount the other two were too large.

The three I retained have different signatures and are also usable on my LTMs.

 

[clayne]

I say avoid ASPH lenses if you're content with the look of the older lenses (which I am). ASPH are more micro-contrast, snap, punch oriented; less smooth and silk.

 

[cbphoto]

Thanks, both!

 

[Nikanon]

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.

 

[cbphoto]

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.

Great information! Thanks. I'm looking at one for $1400 locally. Looks like a good deal, but I'll check for the wobble.

 

[250swb]

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

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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

I have this one in Contax RF mount and agree. Terrific lens!

 

[cbphoto]

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.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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:

 

[cbphoto]

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:

Yeah! And those film guys, what's up with them??? Oh, wait...

 

[cbphoto]

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.

Thanks, Richard. I keep a relatively constant investment in gear, and just switch out the stuff I can do without when I need/want something else. I have my 35 'cron in the classifieds, so everything just balances out in the end. If I ever quit photography (ha), I will get everything back plus a good profit. The nice thing about buying Leica is, they don't go down in value!

 

[250swb]

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:

Its always exciting to find that the lens you bought fits on the camera you've got. No disrespect to Nikkor's but they often just don't cut it in the flange/body interface department. I think Leica nailed the market there.

Steve

 

[Xmas]

Most pros use Nikon or Canon?

 

[NJH]

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?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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:

Yes.

 

[miha]

I don't know for sure but I've downsized my Nikon gear so much that everything could be substituted by Leica, so I went for a Leicaflex.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

In small format, I used Minolta MD Rokkor glass until I reached a point in life I could enjoy a Leica experience. I bought the older optics as I shoot B&W. A fat 90mm Tele (flair), 50mm mint collapsible 56 Cron, and asp Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8. The fat Tele will flair if pointed to bright sky....but it is so small and renders B&W contrast just right. The Leitz 50mm collapsible has a fingerprint for portraits similar but different from a Rokkor 58mm f/1.2. Both have great bokeh. The Cron has a circular iris and some images are stunning in a smooth/sharp way. I love this little lens. The 28mm Elmarit-M hands down is better in flair and sharpness than the 28mm Rokkor f/3.5. I got the Elmarit-M for that very reason after a disappointment with the Rokkor.

The asph Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 is by far my most expensive lens. It is very small compared to earlier 28's and can be shot wide open. It serves a specific low light purpose in my kit. Also, should hold its value as a digital crossover. If you are looking to save, the CV 28 f/3.5 would be a good choice and one I would make if only shooting in daylight.

The image quality is arguably compatible between fine lenses of each major brand. M mount Mandler designed optics are small and have wonderful contrast for B&W. I don't think Leitz glass makes better images. It takes the eye behind the lens to do that.

One last thought....we just rent the nice things in life....use them, have fun, pass them on for the next person to enjoy.

 

[blockend]

The image quality is arguably compatible between fine lenses of each major brand.

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.

 

[rolleiman]

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?

I'm an ex-pro. Yes Nikon & Canon dominated the professional world, simply because they were quicker in developing their systems in the days of the 60's/70's. Although many pros used Leica M's for wide angle stuff, they too disappeared when motor drive attachments for SLR's became the norm.

Basically Leitz were slow off the mark; they didn't pay heed to the needs of the pro. Their SLR's were always several years behind what Nikon/Canon were producing, particularly in the areas of fast (and affordable) tele lenses, motordrives, and fast flash sync speeds. (Nikon with their FM2n and sync speed of 1/250th was a real winner here). Also in terms of reliability at the time, Nikon's F2 and FM2n, and Canon's F1 were regarded as ahead of Leica's SLR's.