I got my March thru with M28/2.8, but haven't had time to make comment here.
Full album. This month I'll be shooting with M200/4 in Single In Challenge.
M28/2.8 is great when you want everything sharp. Hyperfocal distance is really short and the lens is sharp enough for my taste. Wide open performance is better compared to stepped down performance than typically in M series. I didn't notice any purple fringing thought I shot thru branches against the light and I didn't have any problems with flare even with sun in the corner of the lens. Slight green in OOF extreme contrast condition, but even that was usable without any PP needed to reduce that. Lens does decent macro with extension tubes, but bokeh is not as nice as in lot of other lenses in M series. 10 point starbursts are really nice. Definitely among the best I've seen in M series.
I got my lens for 35 euros and for the price it delivers a plenty. I'm really interested to see how M28/3.5 compares against it when I get to shoot it. 2.8 has the reputation of being the weakest 28mm in series, but if I remember right 3.5 is more prone to flare and has weaker stars, so I don't think it will be easy to judge between these two.
This is a fine lens for anybody who is looking for cheap manual prime for landscapes and among the best, if not the very best, lens in series against the sun and night scenes I've tested so far. I still find more versatile M35/2 a little better lens also for the landscapes, so it will be my main wide lens also in the future, but I might take this with me when I want starbursts.
No PF in the brances:
Slight green in OOF highlights, but pretty nice performance:
Starbursts:
Advantage of short hyperfocal distance:
Action:
Played with ND filter:
And this one just because I like it: