Fairly easy to find for under $500 these days 😉
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/23427/
Best 35mm lens for under $500?
- Thread starter sazerac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 5K
Fairly easy to find for under $500 these days 😉
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/23427/
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It depends on which Summicron you're talking about, of course.
Chris Crawford has commented in other threads that the Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon-C is a good match to the 50 Summicon-M (current optical design) in terms of resolution, contrast, and rendering. I have the same two lenses, and I think Chris is exactly right, although I think that the Biogon-C has better and more consistent OOF rendering, and it's also more flare-resistant.
In more quantitative terms, close inspection of the MTF charts for these lenses strongly corroborates our impressions. The two lenses really do have a lot in common.
There are several active threads about the Biogon-C right now. It is priced at ~$870 new, so it's above the $500 limit set for this thread, however.
Last edited:
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
The Canon 35/2.0 is my favorite classic. The Ultron is my favorite modern look.
sazerac
Well-known
Thanks for all the comments! I've purchased an Ultron and will be hunting for a skopar. $500 was an academic limit to help inspire honesty and creativity. I have been interested in the biogon, but do you think the f2.8 version has anything over the f2 other than price?size? Weight? Image rendering?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I've heard very good things about the Ultron. The lenses it's routinely compared to that I have used are incredibly good, so I'd have very high expectations for the Ultron, too.
Now, before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that many of us make it seem that fine distinctions between really good lenses are much more important than they really are. There are a lot of really good 35mm lenses for M-mount cameras.
Both Biogons are also great lenses. I could have gotten either the 2.0 or the 2.8, and I chose the 2.8. I'm satisfied that this was for me absolutely the right choice.
It's smaller, and IMO the OOF rendering is considerably better. Not that the 2.0 is bad, but the 2.8 is to my eyes flawless. Seriously, it's probably the best-behaved "standard" lens I've ever used on its technical merits (flare supression, absence of distortion, sharpness, flatness of field, low astigmatism). But it's the bokeh at f/2.8 and f/4 that got me to buy the lens. I shoot a lot at those apertures.
I think it was a specific photo [the first of the four shown here], taken with an M8, that was the final straw for me.
There are several threads on the lens. This is one of them, and this is another.
At some point I'll probably get a 1.2 Nokton for low light.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Best 35mm lens for under $500 - get a Konica Hexar AF with it's superb 35/2.
thomasw_
Well-known
I agree about the characteristics of that lens...but the OP seems to want a 35 in M or Screw Mount. So, in keeping with the LTM UC 35/2, I think a Nikkor 35/1,8 in LTM would fit the description. I own a summicron 35/2 asph and the w-nikkor 35/1,8 2005 re-issue; overall I prefer the W-Nikkor 35/1,8. In fact, I prefer it over the lux asph 35!
