35mm dilemma (warning: Which lens thread)

If you're looking for a "classic" look in B&W photos get the first version Summicron (8 element). Otherwise save your money. Pick up a 40mm Summicron-C and file down the bayonet lug so it leaves the 35mm frame showing in the finder. Both lenses are small. New doesn't always mean better. Leitz was multi-coating long before it became a buzz-word in camera ads.
 
Last edited:
fdigital said:
I'm really looking for reliable imaging characteristics - for instance, predictable and well controlled flare, no-surprises bokeh or distortion, sharp from f2-f16 - because 35mm is my main lens on RF system, it's gotta be a good imaging lens rather than being a character lens.
Click to expand...

In that case, I suggest is that you buy a current 35mm Summicron ASPH. In my mind it's still the benchmark against which all current production 35s are compared, with good reason. Plus -- and I'm not usually so brand-loyal -- but it's the perfect complement to your M6 in the "I-came-to-Leica-for-a-reason"-sort of way.

Happy hunting.
 
I suggest to also consider the Canon 35mm/2.0. It is claimed to be of Summicron quality.
 
Morback, you got there five minutes before me!

I have a 2.8 Summaron and it is very much a favourite and yes it is small... jewel like even. Appear to weigh little more than nothing.

It has it's own style, others more eloquent than I will elaborate...all I can say is that it is special and infintely more personal than all this aspherical gubbins.

That should put the cat among the pidgeons...

Michael
 
This thread is of great interest to me as well. I currently own a Summicron-C that i intend to file down when i eventually get a M6 . How is the image quality of the Cron-C compared to say...the eariler versions of the 35mm Cron?

I might also get the 35mm nokton 1.4 considering that i love my 40mm 1.4.(I'm not filing that down since its gonna be stuck on my Bessa R3a anyway.)

Here are some 40mm Summicron-C shots for reference.
3231052481_18fb04fd37.jpg


3236005195_cb3c2bfc9c.jpg


3231903294_9900c7527a.jpg


All shot wide open on Ilford HP5+ pushed to 800.
 
John Lawrence said:
You may find it worthwhile to have a look at Matt Alof's blog. He has (or had) the Biogon and the 35mm 1.4 and has pictures and comments about them etc. His blog is here:

http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/
Click to expand...

I found Matt's blog very helpful when I decided to buy the Biogon late last December. I'm still putting the lens through its paces but so far I am loving it. I don't often find I need a wider aperture than f/2.

3167387379_dc91b8fbec.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have the 35 Biogon. Very reliable. I really liked it. It's not too big. It resists flare, has nice bokeh, is sharp, etc. Great lens.

I'm probably going to get rid of it at some point since I like 28 more than 35.

To put things in perspective on size, I had a 50 Summicron (last version), and now have a 50 Summilux ASPH, a 28 Summicron, a 50/1.4 Nikkor, and a CV 15mm. With the exception of the 50 Summilux and the CV 15mm, the lenses are all about the same size. The 50/1.4 Nikkor and the 28 Summicron might be a hair smaller.
 
fdigital said:
Knowing this, I'm choosing from (and so far here are my observations of each:

- Voigtlander 35mm skopar C f2.5 PII
- Voigtlander 35mm Notkon f1.4
- Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2
- Pre asph Summicron
Click to expand...

Gavin, FWIW, I'm in the same boat, if one floats-by with the right price, I'll upgrade my Ultron 35/1.7 to the Nokton 35/1.4 (leaning towards the MC version).

I think I'm going to be happy with it, it gives me f/1.4 in a smaller package than the Ultron, whose size, is pretty much the only thing I don't like.
 
There's one in the classifieds at the moment for $1075.

By the way, beautiful photograph of the library Andy.
 
I've got a biogon and an Ultron (which I keep thinking I should sell). The Biogon is perfect in every way:) and the ultron is a bit rougher and flares - sometimes quite a lot - but renders nicely in any case.

For all round good performacne the Biogon's great, but the others all have loads to offer (and the Ls of course0
 
The one that no-one ever mentions is the f2.5 Summarit. It's small, it's not too heavy although definitely has that Leica heft, and it's very very good - Messrs Puts and Hicks (among others) say very good things about it.
 
The Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2 is very nice. Very compact, very well built. Bokeh is very smooth, IMO (supposedly similar to the 'cron v4, but I don't have one of those). And it's screw mount, so if you get an M8 some day you can get a 6-bit coded LTM-M adapter.

464311781_GGJnP-XL.jpg

UC-Hexanon 35/2 @ f/2 or 2.8 on Epson R-D1 @ ISO 200
 
I own the zeiss 35 and love it...bit it's the only lens I own, Im borrowing a friends 40mm nokton, and loving it as well.. They are very different lenses. The ziess is near perfect opticaly and cheaper than the leicas. The Nokton's though are tiny and have charcter which I like. I feel like I can take a picture of someone with out them knowing (good for street photography) beyond size I like the focusing tab on the nokton which the zeiss dosent really have. To counter all of this I feel like the leica is the best of both worlds, version 4 has the focusing tab, its tiny and light, and it has the best optics/build quality, but it's expensive...where the nokton is cheaper, a stop faster, light and small... figure out your price...what you want...size, speed, optics, and then decied:)
 
tom_uk said:
The one that no-one ever mentions is the f2.5 Summarit. It's small, it's not too heavy although definitely has that Leica heft, and it's very very good - Messrs Puts and Hicks (among others) say very good things about it.
Click to expand...

I think the problem with the Summarit is that it doesn't really make that much sense, if you take into consideration the Skopar pancake or the Biogon/Hexanon/Nokton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom