Fred Miranda wrote:
Weren't the version 1 filters heavier and made out of brass?
I don't know. I have the previous version (not sure if that's the first version or not) of a 39mm in silver [13132]. It seems to be about twice as heavy as the equivalent B+W, so it may be brass. That filter came with an older silver chrome on brass lens I purchased used. I replaced it with the newer version because the coatings are supposed to be better, but I kept the old one just to have around.
robsonj wrote:
I took it down once Rusty got it. Suffice to say though, my image does have a lot of vignette added, I like vignette… I’m getting treatment 😀, lemme know if you still wanna take a look
I would be great to see a DNG or two with this lens. RAW files always tell a better story
hmzimelka wrote:
I would be great to see a DNG or two with this lens. RAW files always tell a better story
The file looked pretty good ... with a bit of a caveat. The sky may have been overexposed / blown a smidge. I pulled things down to try and get a better gage on the vignetting, but recovery only went so far. So, while the vignetting looked decent ... it may have been a skewed interpretation.
+1 to see some more examples of the vignetting. Maybe even shot at different exposure brackets (e.g. +1 EV, 0 EV, -2 EV, etc. ) to see how the vignetting responds. I know it should seem that vignetting variance wouldn't matter much, as it should just ride up / down with the exposure (via shutter speed, diff's). Of course, seeing how it progresses through the apertures is good to understand, too.
But it could be interesting to see the aesthetic combinations that difference exposure bracketing provides, too.
hmzimelka wrote:
I would be great to see a DNG or two with this lens. RAW files always tell a better story
Apologies for the delay. We experienced overcast weather here.
Here are three images taken at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6 with no in-camera profile applied. These are DNG files.
Also I've included a 4 images demonstrating the best in-camera profile correction I found for this lens, the Leica 28/5.6 Summaron lens, although the Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit is also a great option.
To my eyes, the lens without any profile at f/5.6 produces vignetting similar to when the lens is wide open using the 28 Summaron 6-bit code.
Does anyone have both this lens and a Leica M10/11 body and a Fuji X100V or VI? If so, how much bigger is this lens setup on a Leica M body vs a X100V?
I wonder if CV will release a 35mm version in the future. I haven't taken this little 28 off my zf since I picked it up. It's a great size and would love to have a 35 option.
photonc wrote:
I wonder if CV will release a 35mm version in the future. I haven't taken this little 28 off my zf since I picked it up. It's a great size and would love to have a 35 option.
highdesertmesa wrote:
The pancake is cool, but it’s a different approach that sacrifices IQ for size.
Ah, okay, but it is the 35mm Color-Skopar.
I actually have the LTM version, which is pretty nice. There's a thread devoted to this lens with examples (mostly M but a few LTM as well, along with comparisons with the 35/2 Ultron): https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1659606/
Yeah, I think that design is a little long in the tooth and designed for film. For non-m bodies I believe there is significant color shift due to the sensor glass. I guess my wish list would be a 35mm 2.8 Skopar III with the same design as the 28.
bjhurley wrote:
Great shots! I see on your Flickr that you posted a bunch of B&W concert shots with a 28mm lens as well; were those also taken with this Color-Skopar?
