Is this 28/2 ASPH lens or current 28/2.8 more useful wide angle
lens compare with Leica 24/2.8 ASPH Lens?
That depends solely on which focal length you 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 your needs.
How about Konica RF 28/2.8 lens?
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.
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?
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.
-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), November 04, 2000.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So which philosophy do you prefer? Let us know what you decide!
Regards,
-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@juno.com), November 06, 2000.
