yet, another which 35mm lens...

A

Assaf

Well-known
Local time
3:47 PM
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
325
Location
Israel
View My Gallery
Hi Guys,
after switching/trading some gear I'm back in RF photography business.
Sold my M6 and after a time with a CL (very cute, but the RF was just not accurate enough) I'm using a Zeiss Ikon ZM.
(well, thinking of it, maybe I shouldn't be writing in this forum 🙂 but giving it a try...)

After using 50mm as a primary lens for a long time, I feel (again) that I want something a bit wider.

I'm not yet "in the market" for a new lens, but starting thinking about it (and about funding it).

I mostly shoot color negatives, I like using wide apertures because I like the 3D feeling that focus transitions give.
I prefer a lens at least as fast as F2, good build quality, low distortion, flare resiience (I don't like using hoods).

The lens I like most is a Zeiss Planar 50/2, mostly due to it's nice focus transitions, sharpness and ressilence to flare.

Here's are the candidates:
1) File a Summicron 40/2 and use it as 35mm. It's the easiest and most inexpenssive solution since I already own one 🙂
Actually, I'm using it this way now (pressing the framelines lever) and should see the result soon.

However, thinking of it, I think I kind cheat myself using 40mm as a "wide version" of 50mm.
It's a nice lens, small and compact, used to have flare problems until I changed the filter I used on it to an MRC one. I noticed some slight distortion with it, nothing too serious.

2) Biogon 35/2 : my best candidate. The character shold be closest to the one of the Planar. Used copies go for between 600 and 700 USD

3) Ultron 35/1.7 - not an option. Used to own one and didn't like it. Not the shapest wide open, no interesting character. The build quality was dissapointing - the black paint wore off in a moderate use of not much more than a year.

4) Nokton 35/1.4. It looks tempting, due to the price and extra stop. However, I have bad experience with CV lenses (as written above). Read some things about distortion and bokeh. In addition, it'll be hard to find a used copy. Buying a new lens, I'll loose a lot of money if I want to sell it in the future.

5) Leica Summicron 35/2 - new versions are very expenssive. Old versions are less expenssive but hard to find and have more distortion than modern ones (is it true?)

OK, comment please
🙂
have a nice day
Assaf
 
Last edited:
The worst 35mm lens ever made for a rangefinder camera will be plenty good enough. If not, then sell it. Come back again and ask the same question.
 
The Biogon is excellent for color. The Summicron v4 (mint) is about the same price as the ASPH in the used market although they do have slightly different signatures.
 
I have a Nokton 35/1.4 and really like it.

It does have a bit of barrel distortion though, so that might be a problem depending on the kind of things you shoot.

Build quality seems to be good - more solid than most of the earlier screw thread CVs.

Don't know how an Ultron 35/1.7 peforms, so can't offer any comparison.
 
The Biogon blows me away for colour... too bad I shot 90% B&W 😀

It's still good for B&W but for colour it really shines.
 
If f2 is enough, the Biogon is a heck of a lens. I find it is pretty consistent with the Planar in terms of color and performance. Like the Planar, image quality with this lens is strong and the resistance to flare and the lack of distortion are great qualities.

The Nokton 35/1.4 is good in a number of walk-around situations where f1.4 can make the difference between shooting at 1/15th or 1/30th. f8 and f5.6 seem as good as anything, but between f4 and f2, the Biogon is just better across the frame and the flare monster can bite you with the Nokton. However, at f1.4, the Nokton simply does what the Biogon cannot do, making the Nokton just a different kind of tool.

For me, I find myself carrying the Nokton as insurance for indoors. For instance, on a day where I might be both inside and outside shooting snapshots of people, I might carry a 50/2.8 Elmar and the 35/1.4 Nokton, using the former outdoors and the latter indoors. Both lenses have different characters that I like with people subjects. Indoors the Elmar is often too slow and too long, but outdoors is pretty sharp and resistant to flare. On the other hand, indoors the Nokton is both faster and wider where I'm likely to need it.

Of course, if I were playing tourist shooting slides with an RF, where I'd want maximum corner to corner performance, I'd carry both the Zeiss 50/2 Planar and the 35/2 Biogon, no question about it.

I know you don't like hoods, but I like them as lens guards and it happens that the 50/2 Planar, 35/2 Biogon and 35/1.4 Nokton all can share the same hood and filters.
 
Thanks guys for your answers.
well, I'm now convinced that if I buy a new lens, it'll be the Biogon.
However, can you please refer to option #1 - using cron 40 as 35?
I'm actually doing it now but haven't yet seen the results (well, that's my bad nature, always thinking of buying new equipment, usually too early...)

It's not a trick question - I'm really confused. I read in many plaecs that the 35mm framelines actually frame 40mm. I even saw it by putting a focusing screen in the back of the camera, openning the shutter in bulb and looking at the image boundries ,comparing to framelines.
So, If the 35mm framelines actually frame 40mm, why use 35mm lens? Or is it just not true?
thanks
Assaf
 
Framelines tend to be loose at longer focal lengths. this is because a lens has a longer effective focal length at close focus and the framelines are designed to allow for this. Colin on Auspicious Dragon tested the Ikon framelines to be a match for a 40 Rokkor or Hexanon (can't remember which) at about 1.2m. With an RF you just have to accept and frame loosely, it's part of the fun.

As for your choice - only you can decide - though the Biogon will prbably do the trick.

Mike
 
I think of the 40/2 as a substitute for a 35, only a little tighter in framing, so I think your option #1 makes sense, at least to me. I use a Rokkor-M 40 on my M2 w/ 35 framelines, and on an R3A where it feels like a 35 (probably b/c of the 1:1 vf). Haven't tried it on a ZI though.
 
In regard to your question #1, I would recommend that you also look into the 40mm Minolta Rokkor. Optically it is the same formulation as the Summicron-C 40mm, except that it is a multi-coated, rather than a single-coated lens. As a result, the Minolta lens may provide contrast closer to that of the 50mm Planar than the Leitz version. And they tend to be cheaper!

All the best with your decision.
 
Last edited:
I have used two of the options, the summicron 35/2 iv and the zm 35/2. I grew to dislike a gloss-like look that was coming through on my biogon shots; initially I liked it with kodachrome 64. But in B+W, it became annoying. The Summicron 35/2 v3 or 4 are both wonderful lenses, the 3rd version being slightly less costly and even more flare resistant. With the 4th version, there is a premium because of the rendering of OOF areas.

If I could have only one 35, I'd go with a small portable, fast lens. On your list, that would be the nokton 35/1,4.
 
I had a 35mm Summicron-M IV and sold it, no regrets at all. My copy of the 40mm M-Rokkor (CLE version) is sharper and produces slightly higher contrast, without a hood and using a filter. For 35mm at night I prefer very much my 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH over the 35mm Summicron-M.
 
Well, Gabor, if we are talking night shooting, a 35/1,2 or an ASPH 35/1,4 is a great way to go (presently I am trying to decide about my 35s). As for using a 40 as a 35, I think that is a procedure someone either likes or doesn't; I never liked it, as I'd guess and lose too many features on the edges too often. Admittedly I am a hardcore 35/50 guy who has a closed mind about 40s 43s or other intermediate FLs 😉 Well, not completely, as one of those pentax L mount 43s would be sweet.
 
Thomas, the CV 35/1.2 is a very nice and tempting lens for sure ! The 35mm Summilux ASPH is very expensive 😱 The 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH is a different kind of lens, either love or hate ... 😉

For me, the 40mm lenses (Summicron-C or M-Rokkor) are a much cheaper (and better, IMHO) alternative to the 35mm Summicron-M pre-ASPH, especially the IV version ... 🙂
 
I used to own a Biogon 35/2 but sold it to buy a Nokton 35/1.4.

(I also used to own a Sonnar 50/1.5 but sold it to buy a Planar 50/2!!!)

The Biogon 35/2 has almost no distortion, and is sharp from f2, but I found the f2 maximum aperture limiting with the way I used it.

For daylight shooting, I now use a Planar 50/2 and Biogon 28/2.8, and when it gets darker I switch to the Nokton 35/1.4.

The extra stop of the Nokton over the Biogon really helps in this regard, making the Planar 50/2 and Nokton 35/1.4 a great combination!

I haven't noticed any flare with my Nokton 35/1.4, but I have the muticoated version so that may slightly improve flare control over the SC version.

CV have really improved the build quality of their latest lenses, and IMO the Nokton 35/1.4 is on par with the Zeiss range.

You can't go wrong with either the Biogon 35/2 or Nokton 35/1.4. Just depends how you intend to use it really.

Good luck finding the right lens, Assaf !
 
Jason Sprenger said:
I know you don't like hoods, but I like them as lens guards and it happens that the 50/2 Planar, 35/2 Biogon and 35/1.4 Nokton all can share the same hood and filters.
Click to expand...

I use lens hoods as guards too, and can confirm that the Voigtlander hood for the Nokton 35/1.4 is identical to the Zeiss hood for the Planar 50/2 and Biogon 35/2 except that it has "Voigtlander" written on it instead of "Zeiss".
 
maddoc said:
For me, the 40mm lenses (Summicron-C or M-Rokkor) are a much cheaper (and better, IMHO) alternative to the 35mm Summicron-M pre-ASPH, especially the IV version ... 🙂
Click to expand...

Same here. The M-Rokkor 40 is a lovely optic and probably as close as I'll ever get to a summicron 35. Also, 40 makes a better pairing w/ 28, IMHO.
 
I have a lot of 35's - version's I/2/3/4 and Asph 35f2 Summicron. VC 35f2.5/1.4/1.2 and 40/1,4's as well as Biogon 35f2.0 and 2.8 (and some Canon's. Nikon's etc - in short a pile of them). Being a M2 user they make sense. I use them all, but looking at my files I find that the most used one is the Nokton 35f1.4 SC (and I have two Summilux pre-asph too). It is not perfect, but its positive attributes outweighs the negatives by a large margin. It does have a bit of barrel distorsion, but for my shooting, it doesn't matter. It has less flare than the pre-asph Summilux and is sharper at f1.4 to boot.
I like the Biogon 35f2, but I find it a bit big "in the hand" - very good lens and if you are looking for something to match your 50f2 Planar - it fits the bill. If speed is not paramount - the C Biogon 35f2.8 is very good. I consider this the Summaron 35f2.8 for the 21's Century - and that is high praise as in many way the old Summaron f2.8 was a better lens than the Summicron of the same era.
As per usual, go to Flickr and "tag" the lenses you are interested in and see what they can do. It is not a perfect medium for it, but better than guessing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom