About NEW Leica Lens

[nhp]

I am looking for Wide angle lens for my Leica M6 TTL. Is there anyone know about New Leica 28/2 ASPH? When it will be available? Is this 28/2 ASPH lens or current 28/2.8 more useful wide angle lens compare with Leica 24/2.8 ASPH Lens? How about Konica RF 28/2.8 lens? Also, I am using M6 TTL with Summicron-m 50/2, Konica Hexar Silver for 35/2, and I am looking for Summicron 35/2 ASPH lens, is this really better than Konica Hexar Silver 35/2 Lens? Please share your opinion with me.... Thanks. <http://welcome.to/studionaki>

[andrew_schank]

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-28.html

Here is one tests that liked the new 28 lens a lot, but the tester is

partial to Leica lenses. I think for $2000, it better be the best

f2.0 28mm lens ever made. All the lenses you mentioned are capable

of first rate images. The Leica lenses may be technically better as

far at MTF curves and the like, but even Leica lovers admit the cost

difference is probably not justified. I use the Voigtlander 25mm

lens and even that inexpensive wide angle is capable of very high

performance images - good color, lots of detail resolved, little or

no distortion.

[Spearhead]

<i>Is this 28/2 ASPH lens or current 28/2.8 more useful wide angle

lens compare with Leica 24/2.8 ASPH Lens?</i><p>

 

That depends solely on which focal length <b>you</b> prefer. If you

don't know, why not rent (even if you have to rent a different

camera) and find out which focal length suits <b>your</b> needs.<p>

 

<i>How about Konica RF 28/2.8 lens?</i><p>

 

I happen to have one of these, which I picked up quite cheaply from

someone going back to school. It seems to be a perfectly fine lens

(photo below), but you have to decide if a) the focal length is the

one that suits your shooting, and b) if it's going to make a big

difference in your photographs if it is better/worse than some other

lens.<p>

 

</i>Also, I am using M6 TTL with Summicron-m 50/2, Konica Hexar

Silver for 35/2, and I am looking for Summicron 35/2 ASPH lens, is

this really better than Konica Hexar Silver 35/2 Lens? </i><p>

 

Well the Hexar 35mm in the M mount is pretty much impossible to find,

so a comparison probably isn't relevant. The handling of the two

cameras is completely different, if you want a 35mm for your M,

you're either going to buy a Leica or Voigtlander lens, although

Konica has announced a new 35mm. But for the near future, it isn't

really a choice.

[Spearhead]

Here's that "photo below":<p>

 

<Center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/muffler.jpg"><br>

<i>Wall of Muffler, Konica 28mm lens, copyright 2000 Jeff

Spirer</i><p>

 

 

</center>

[steve_hoffman]

Regarding the new 28/2 ASPH: Sure, we all want one, but when it

comes out in 2001 I've gotta believe the price of a slightly used

28/2.8 Elm. is going to come WAY down. Very tempting to wait for

this to happen!

[hoyin_lee1]

I just bought a Konica M-Hexanon 28mm f/2.8 for my Minolta CLE. Oh

wow, what a lens! And a lot more affordable than the Leica

equivalent, too.

[robert_fleischman]

NHP, I think I could make a case for either choice, strictly on the

basis of focal lengths. I can't contribute on the basis of optical

performance of these two, as I've not used the ASPH lenses.

 

<p>

 

The 28 mm. could be called more useful because you can use it with

the built-in brightline frames on the M6. Not so the 24mm. I feel

this really means something. 28 mm. is useful, too, in that it is

less extreme than a 24. We could say that the more extreme the focal

length, the less often it is useful; and that might be true for many

of us. Next, the 28mm. is only a moderate wide-angle, so produces

less of what some consider "distortion" and can thus be used more

casually. Finally, it fits well into a widely-spaced system of

lenses, like maybe 28-50-90.

 

<p>

 

Now let's make an equal case for the 24. Being more extreme, it

produces more wide-angle drama than a 28. It's wide enough for

almost subject (I find). And it fits well into a tighter focal

length grouping such as 24-35-50-75. In this group, each lens has a

focal length just about 1.4, or approximately the square root of two,

times the previous lens. The beauty of this is that each lens covers

half the picture area of the preceding one.

 

<p>

 

I have found 24mm a very useful focal length (I have it on the Nikon,

though not for the Leica). It's good for both nature and

Architectural "urban landscape" stuff.

 

<p>

 

So which philosophy do you prefer? Let us know what you decide!

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[andrew_schank]

Hoyin, what lines do the 28mm Konica lens bring up on the CLE?

[hoyin_lee1]

Andrew, the 28 and the 90.

[hoyin_lee1]

I shot some prints (Kodak T400CN) with the Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8

and I was impressed, which was why I exclaimed in my earlier posting

that it was quite a lens. Just today, I got back the slides I shot

of an event (including some test shots of a night scene with the lens

wide opened) with my CLE and Hexanon 28/2.8 (on Fuji RDPIII @ ISO

320, push-processed 2 stops), and OH-MY-GOD, the images are the

sharpest and crispest I have ever seen! I'll probably never going to

be fully satisfied with images taken with my Nikkor lenses ever again!

[bruce_esbin]

The Leica M Aspheric and Apo lenses are currently state of the art in

35mm lens design. They are beautifully constructed as well. They are

absurdly expensive. Are they worth it? If you demand exquisitely sharp

contrasty imagery shooting at a fast wide open aperture then yes. My

vote for the classic trio 21mm 2.8 asph, 35mm f2 asph, and the awesome

90mm f2 apo-asph.