yanidel
Well-known
Since I got the 35mm Summicron IV on my Leica M8 (46mm equivalent), it takes 90% of my shots ...
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
One lens for all, including interiors, it pretty much narrows the scope to 35mm. And actually this lens is easy to point to: the Nokton 35/1.2
If for some reason you would not like a lens as big as this one, then a non aspheric modern lens like Biogon 35/2 fits the bill:
If for some reason you would not like a lens as big as this one, then a non aspheric modern lens like Biogon 35/2 fits the bill:
nome_alice
Established
well, if you can handle not having a leica lens on you leica body then i'd have to say the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 is smooth like butter left in the sun.
Bavaricus
Established
Have a look at the FSU Jupiters #8 (f2) or #3 (f1.5). Nowhere else you get so much bokeh for your money!
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I've been trying to get my hands on one and haven't been successful. 
However, I do have the simple, cheap Canon 50/1.8 that really surprised me and is the only 50 that I use on my new-to-me M2. Great looking pair, too! Also I am still trying to get an affordable Canon 35/2.0, nearly as good as it's German cousin recommended above.
However, I do have the simple, cheap Canon 50/1.8 that really surprised me and is the only 50 that I use on my new-to-me M2. Great looking pair, too! Also I am still trying to get an affordable Canon 35/2.0, nearly as good as it's German cousin recommended above.Dave,
Go with a Canon f1.5/50mm the "Japanese Sonnar" - prices are now at an all time low for them, you should be able to find a really nice example for under $300 - it`s a cult lens and one of my all time favorites to use
Tom
Krosya
Konicaze
Another vote for Nokton 35/1.2. Superb lens! If it seems too big - try Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2.
Nokton 35/1.2:
uc-Hexanon 35/2:
Nokton 35/1.2:
uc-Hexanon 35/2:
peter_n
Veteran
Steve Hoffman
Leicanutt
One lens?
Spend $600.00 and get a clean 35 Summaron. Or in a 50, get the rigid Summicron DR. Doesn't get any better than that. You have great Leica lenses with that vintage glow and you haven't spent much dough. (Nice rhyme).
Spend $600.00 and get a clean 35 Summaron. Or in a 50, get the rigid Summicron DR. Doesn't get any better than that. You have great Leica lenses with that vintage glow and you haven't spent much dough. (Nice rhyme).
kevin m
Veteran
The best lens for compact size, smooth bokeh and a reasonable price has to be the Rokkor/Summicron 40mm f2.0. It has the added advantage of being a closer match to the M6's 35mm framelines. They're every bit as good as the hilariously-overpriced Version IV Summicron, perhaps even better wide open. The only downside to either lens is that they don't take 39mm filters. For $300 or so, it's a screaming bargain in Leicaland.
Last edited:
funkaoshi
Well-known
I have a J3 which is great when open, and very sharp stopped down. They are also wicked cheap, but you need to find one that focuses properly.
Last edited:
kxl
Social Documentary
What lens are you using with the F3/T? There are many F-mount lenses that gave beautiful bokeh, from wide (28/2.0 AIS, 35/1.4 AIS) to normal (ZF 50/1.4) to tele (85/1.4 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS).
Nothing wrong with adding RF gear, but if your sole reason for adding or switching to RF is because you can't get nice bokeh with Nikon SLR gear, I think you need to research it a bit more.
Just my $0.02, which, over the past few days, has been worth anything from $0.00002 to $0.002.
Keith
dave lackey
Veteran
Wow, never knew there were THAT many choices!
Memphis is correct about the budget as I have a Nikon D2H and F5 w/ MF28 both for sale along with the F3/T....all of which will go to funding the Leica gear.
Example photos with each lens is really appreciated, so thanks!
kipkeston
Well-known
any summicron
back alley
IMAGES
if 35 then the zm 35/2.8
if 50 then zm 50/1.5
very nice lenses
if 50 then zm 50/1.5
very nice lenses
gohaj
Well-known
ableforensics
Howard Eisemann
Try the 50 Elmar 2.8. Outstanding lens both in quality of optics and build quality. When collapsed it transforms an M camera into a very small almost pocketable package. The lens can be purchased in mint-minus condition for about $700 US.
ableforensics
Howard Eisemann
On Lnes one Body
On Lnes one Body
Try the late model 50 Elmar 2.8. Outstanding lens both in quality of optics and build quality. When collapsed it transforms an M camera into a very small almost pocketable package. The lens can be purchased in mint-minus condition for about $700 US. Sure, you give up a stop when compared with a summicron, but maintains advantages all it's own. Lastly, it will compliment future lens acquisitions. I suggest you read the Putts review.
On Lnes one Body
Try the late model 50 Elmar 2.8. Outstanding lens both in quality of optics and build quality. When collapsed it transforms an M camera into a very small almost pocketable package. The lens can be purchased in mint-minus condition for about $700 US. Sure, you give up a stop when compared with a summicron, but maintains advantages all it's own. Lastly, it will compliment future lens acquisitions. I suggest you read the Putts review.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I'd second this. I have the 35/1.2 as well but the V4 Summicron is much more compact and i also think more discrete.
I also like the 50/1.4 ASPH but compared to the 35/2 it's a larger lens once you attach the lens shade (LHSA version)
Bokeh appreciation seems to be a very individual matter; what is described as "smooth and soft as a baby's behind" by one person may be seen as nervous and harsh by someone else. The worst and the best examples may find wide agreement, but both examples conceivably could be produced by the same lens! It just depends so much on the subject, the aperture, the distance, the specular highlights, backlit foliage, contrasty lines, etc.
Aspheric lenses seem to "try" so extra hard to resolve sharpness in OOF objects that the bokeh is more often harsh, while sometimes it's smooth as can be. Older lens constructions with a mix of traditional aberations may not resolve the sharp bits as crisply, and the bokeh too is less crisp, smoother. Some lenses resolve an OOF point of light as a bright-rimmed circle, and when many such circles overlap there may be a "doubling" effect in lines and a generally unsettled look (e.g. Sonnar 2/50).
Lenses that have developed a reputation for good bokeh would be worth your while studying. But it's such a personal matter that you need to pick your own preference(s). For instance, some people say the Zeiss Sonnar 2/50mm (and its clone the Jupiter 8) have excellent bokeh... whereas in my opinion they can have fine bokeh under the right circumstances but very often look to me nervous and unattractive. But there are some circumstances (like backlit leaves) where even lenses that are bokeh masters (e.g. 35 Summicron V4) are challenged!
Edit: I might add that medium-format tends to have superior bokeh smoothness in my experience. Not sure just why, other than the lesser magnification...
Aspheric lenses seem to "try" so extra hard to resolve sharpness in OOF objects that the bokeh is more often harsh, while sometimes it's smooth as can be. Older lens constructions with a mix of traditional aberations may not resolve the sharp bits as crisply, and the bokeh too is less crisp, smoother. Some lenses resolve an OOF point of light as a bright-rimmed circle, and when many such circles overlap there may be a "doubling" effect in lines and a generally unsettled look (e.g. Sonnar 2/50).
Lenses that have developed a reputation for good bokeh would be worth your while studying. But it's such a personal matter that you need to pick your own preference(s). For instance, some people say the Zeiss Sonnar 2/50mm (and its clone the Jupiter 8) have excellent bokeh... whereas in my opinion they can have fine bokeh under the right circumstances but very often look to me nervous and unattractive. But there are some circumstances (like backlit leaves) where even lenses that are bokeh masters (e.g. 35 Summicron V4) are challenged!
Edit: I might add that medium-format tends to have superior bokeh smoothness in my experience. Not sure just why, other than the lesser magnification...
Last edited: