tbarker13
shooter of stuff
(My apologies to those of you who hate the "which lens?" threads.)
Most of what I do is B&W. And I think I have a pretty good kit for that right now: 21/3.4 Super angulon, Canon 28/2.8 ltm, 50 rigid summicron and 75 summilux.
For 35, I'm going to use a 35 lux or 35 UC hexanon. (have both, but one will probably go)
None of this is newer, modern glass. And I'm happy about that.
But I do feel like I ought to have at least one modern lens with an emphasis on corner to corner sharpness. Compact would be a plus. And I really want it to be a great lens for color. I'd also like it to focus down to .7 meters.
I'd love to hear from those of you who shoot a lot of color. The Flickr M-mount group has given me some direction, but nothing definite yet. There are just so many options out there.
I think the 35 asph summicron is going to be more than I feel like spending.
The contenders seem to be:
35/2.8 biogon c. (love the size)
35/2 biogon (don't care for the size)
35/2.5 CV
35/1.4 CV (so many mixed reviews on this one)
But then, maybe I should just stick with what I have and use the UC hexanon for color work.
Most of what I do is B&W. And I think I have a pretty good kit for that right now: 21/3.4 Super angulon, Canon 28/2.8 ltm, 50 rigid summicron and 75 summilux.
For 35, I'm going to use a 35 lux or 35 UC hexanon. (have both, but one will probably go)
None of this is newer, modern glass. And I'm happy about that.
But I do feel like I ought to have at least one modern lens with an emphasis on corner to corner sharpness. Compact would be a plus. And I really want it to be a great lens for color. I'd also like it to focus down to .7 meters.
I'd love to hear from those of you who shoot a lot of color. The Flickr M-mount group has given me some direction, but nothing definite yet. There are just so many options out there.
I think the 35 asph summicron is going to be more than I feel like spending.
The contenders seem to be:
35/2.8 biogon c. (love the size)
35/2 biogon (don't care for the size)
35/2.5 CV
35/1.4 CV (so many mixed reviews on this one)
But then, maybe I should just stick with what I have and use the UC hexanon for color work.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've only used the 35/2 Biogon. I really liked it in B&W and color. It's a great lens. Very even across the frame, and not really that big. It's got nice bokeh too. Just a consistent solid performer. The 35/2.8 is also probably a good choice if you don't mind giving up the stop. I personally would.
That being said, I'm getting rid of mine since I switched over to 28mm. It's a great lens but I'm trying to do the right thing and only keep gear that I'm going to use a lot.
I mostly shoot B&W, but here's a color sample - there's more on my flickr page if you just look at images tagged with the lens.
That being said, I'm getting rid of mine since I switched over to 28mm. It's a great lens but I'm trying to do the right thing and only keep gear that I'm going to use a lot.
I mostly shoot B&W, but here's a color sample - there's more on my flickr page if you just look at images tagged with the lens.
ferider
Veteran
I think you cann't do much better than the UC Hexanon, Tim, unless you want closer focus ability.
On my Hexar AF, it's the sharpest 35 I have used - except the ASPH Lux, Mike allowed me to handle once
There is also the M-Hex 35/2 for consideration, a completely different lens than the UC. The M Hexanons are really well built, better than the ZM lenses, IMO, and very sharp and flare resistant.
Cheers,
Roland.
On my Hexar AF, it's the sharpest 35 I have used - except the ASPH Lux, Mike allowed me to handle once
There is also the M-Hex 35/2 for consideration, a completely different lens than the UC. The M Hexanons are really well built, better than the ZM lenses, IMO, and very sharp and flare resistant.
Cheers,
Roland.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Thanks. The zeiss certainly seems to be pretty strong.
Roland, I do love the 35 UC hexanon. I'd probably sell my 35 summilux first.
I think it would be great to have a lens that would focus down to .7 meters. I currently have a 35 summicron asph on loan from Leica (while they work on the summilux).
The difference between .9 meters and .7 meters doesn't sound like all that much. But in practice, it does seem to be pretty significant, at least to me.
Roland, I do love the 35 UC hexanon. I'd probably sell my 35 summilux first.
I think it would be great to have a lens that would focus down to .7 meters. I currently have a 35 summicron asph on loan from Leica (while they work on the summilux).
The difference between .9 meters and .7 meters doesn't sound like all that much. But in practice, it does seem to be pretty significant, at least to me.
ferider
Veteran
Hi Tim,
the M Hex 35/2 goes down to 0.7m. Cheers,
Roland.
the M Hex 35/2 goes down to 0.7m. Cheers,
Roland.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
You want both sharp and small? 40mm Summicron-C. You'll love it.
back alley
IMAGES
can't say much re. shooting colour but the zm 35/2.8 is an excellent lens choice.
kermaier
Well-known
I would consider the UC-Hex to be modern glass. Have improvements to glass formulation and coatings been so significant since it was produced?
I love my UC-Hex -- fabulously well-made, wonderfully compact and easy-handling, great picture quality -- but I also wouldn't mind having an extra 0.2 meter at the near end of the focus scale. (I'm considering selling it and buying a 35 Summicron v4 instead, but I suspect the 'cron isn't as well-made.)
I love my UC-Hex -- fabulously well-made, wonderfully compact and easy-handling, great picture quality -- but I also wouldn't mind having an extra 0.2 meter at the near end of the focus scale. (I'm considering selling it and buying a 35 Summicron v4 instead, but I suspect the 'cron isn't as well-made.)
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
That zm photo looks promising.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I sure agree with you on that. I sold a version IV cron last year after getting the UC Hexanon. It just feels so much better built to me.
Perhaps I should just wait for the return of my 35 lux and shoot with this stuff for a while before making any decisions. Like a lot of folks here, I spend a little too much time fretting over gear. Of course, when I'm out shooting, I'm generally happy with whatever I happen to be carrying at the time.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I agree. The most annoying thing about RF shooting in my mind. .7m is pretty important to me. I'd never survive with just 1m.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Cosina's pancake lens is very sharp, and really contrasty. It's good for colour photography, and not expensive at all.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
I shoot probably 90% + B&W with my ZM 35mm f/2 Biogon, which in hindsight probably wasn't the best lens for the job. I really love what this lens does in color but I have very little desire to shoot colour film as I enjoy the darkroom experience and developing my own B&W. When I have shot it in colour I have really enjoyed the results.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
What's wrong shooting b&w with it?
b.espahbod
Optophile
Summicron 35 2 Pre-asph (7 Elements) German Versions & Preferably Chromes (800 ONLY) Aka King Of Bokeh.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
Nothing is WRONG with the Biogon for shooting B&W. It just may not have been my first choice for an all-B&W workflow. I think I had planned to do more colour when I ordered it.
Basically I have the opposite issue as the OP.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Yeah I used it for B&W for a year. The ZM is a great lens. If it was 28/2, I'd keep it. Haha.
hans voralberg
Veteran
35/2 Biogon, for colour Zeiss is the way to go
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I'd take the Pepsi challenge with the Canon 35/2. It's small and sharp in the corners.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I am an avid fan ofthe Canon 35/2.0 and it's my favorite 35 period. BUT for color, you can't do better than the Skopar Classic 35/2.5 IMHO. It's the reason I haven't sold it. Whenever I do woods/rural shots in 35, it stays in my bag or on my camera.
... not bad for people, either....
... not bad for people, either....
Last edited: