Auto Revuenon 28/f2.8 vs Macro Revuenon 28/f3.5

MaaliRuisku · Joined: 10 Dec 2009 Posts: 22

Hi!

I own EOS 350d and intend to buy an affordable MF 28mm lens.

These two lenses costs about the same but which is better? Which is sharper and better built?

Could you recommend any other lenses which cost about 30-40 euros? Is Pentacon 29mm in same class?

Thanks.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Welcome!

These are cheap lenses and not well known one. So if you don't get answer reason is this. Good and cheap 28mm lens is Yashica ML 28mm f2.8

MaaliRuisku · Joined: 10 Dec 2009 Posts: 22

Sounds like a good lens but it's also "expensive" nowadays and I need another adapter.

Auto Revuenon 28/f2.8 seems to be a very sharp lens after reading M42 Artlimited.

Asahi Pentax Super Takumar 28/f3.5 costs a double. Is it worth it?

Anyone has any experiences of this Revuenon?

Edit. I'm looking especially M42 lenses but I will think other ones also IF they are considerably better.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

I had one like this before:

Like most non-OEM wide angles, it was soft until stopped right down, and even then had soft corners. You're better off with your kit lens IMO, unless you want to spend a bit more and get a Takumar / Olympus / Nikon / Yashica ML / Contax Zeiss (yum!).

Pentacon 29/2.8 can be OK for closeups, but most are poor for landscapes etc. as the build quality was so unreliable. I got through 6 or 7 before I got a sharp one! Most had very poor corners, even stopped down.

Arkku · Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland

I have the Pentacon 29mm f/2.8. I personally just don't like it (I'll sell it if you'd like =), but it does have some "personality" so opinions may differ. I also had a Revuenon 28mm. It was average and non-descript. I still have a Revuenon-Special 35mm f/2.8, which is a nicer, but doesn't see much use due to the Flektogon� Perhaps the key to Revuenon is the �Special� series?

A good cheap 28mm is the Vivitar/Komine (serial number begins with 28) f/2.8 Auto Wide-Angle. I really like mine; sharp, good bokeh(!), smooth focusing, light, and small. May be a bit specific and therefore hard to find on a moment's notice, but it shouldn't be expensive.

On a crop-sensor DSLR these �wide� lenses aren't that advantageous over a modern zoom unless you want some specific quality from them (e.g. bokeh, �vintage� character like from the Pentacon, Zeiss colours & contrast like from the Flektogon, �).

Davidus · Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 190 Location: Prague, CZE

Tamron adaptall 2 28/2.5 is also good and not expensive. I got mine for about 20€. I have also one free 28/2.8 Tamron adaptall 1, also good usable.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

I have the Macro Revuenon 28mm
It's a nice lens - of course it's not comparable with the best lenses, but it's better than the meagre reputation that it has. It's not a true macro, but it gets damn close and very useful as a walkaround lens.

hinnerker · Expire: 2015-08-09

Try to get an old Tokina RMC 2.8/28mm. Its a good lens for a cheap price...

But if you want more than your Kit- Lens, you must spend a little more money or spent a lot of time to find a hidden gem on evilbay..

Cheers
Henry

no-X · Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject:

Another vote for Komine made Vivitar 28/2.8. Similar price to Pentacon 29/2.8 and you don't have to buy 10 pieces to find a good one.

I liked the Vivitar more than Takumar. Anyway, good modern zoom is often comparable to / or better than the old M42 retrofocal lenses. I think their advantahe is price, close focusing capabilities and some of them are faster...

MaaliRuisku · Joined: 10 Dec 2009 Posts: 22

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

MaaliRuisku · Joined: 10 Dec 2009 Posts: 22

no-X · Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:25 am Post subject:

MaaliRuisku: Shrek is right.

Old 135mm lenses are based on Sonnar/Ernostar optical formula. This design was developed in 192x and it's improved and tuned for almost 80 years now. At the time of M42 Sonnars and Takumars, it was proven and well-tried 40 years old optical formula. Short tele lenses are also quite easy to design; there are not many optical aberrations, which needs to be corrected, so the lens consist typically of 4 optical elements.

Old wide-angle lenses are based on retrofocal optical formula, which was developed years after the first SLR cameras appeared. Traditional wide-angle lenses weren't compatible to SLR cameras (interference of optical block and camera mirror), so retrofocus desing was developed. 35mm lenses were developed in 195x and 28mm typically in late 196x. So, these 28mm lenses are one of the first lenses based on this (new) formula. Retrofocal wide-angle lenses suffer from many optical aberrations, which are corrected by many lens elements (typically 8 and more... up to ~20), so it wasn't easy to produce good wide angle at that time.

You'll find, that the cheapest 135mm lens has sharper borders, less distorsion and less CA, than 5-time more expensive wide angle 28mm product.

Helios · Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 537 Location: East of France

R. Andr�ani , author of the book "L'objectif Photographique" (Photo lens)
said that the first retrofocus lens was the Pleon Zeiss by Richter , developped during WWII and before , for aerial photography lenses . Let's appreciate the fantastic report of Marco Cavina about these lenses .
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Perimetar_Sphaerogon_Pleon/00_pag.htm
The first industrial production of these retrofocus was Ang�nieux, in 1950.

Revuenon 2,8/28mm :