Roastchestnuts
Established
Has anybody used the Fujinon 3.5cm f2 LTM lens on any leica m digital? I am curious on how it performs. It seems like a really fun lens to use. I would love to see examples from this lens.
Fujinon 3.5cm f2
- Thread starter Roastchestnuts
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 475
Sanug
Well-known
Did you see the crazy prices at Ebay?
Roastchestnuts
Established
I did. I feel if its unique it may be worth it.
38Deardorff
Well-known
that's a lot of chestnuts $$$
Roastchestnuts
Established
Not as much as a 35mm summicron v4 or the new remake of the steel rim.
Roastchestnuts
Established
yeah I am interested in this lens. it looks like somthing that could have a more unique rendering and somewhat rare without being crazy expensive like the nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 in LTM. (I have the nikkor s mount version modded by using a amadeo adapter and a rear element housing that is more narrow). it also looks to be some where in the same size as the 35mm summicron v5 maybe smaller.
aoresteen
Well-known
I am looking at the 50mm Fujinon. Not the 1.2 version 🙂 Can't have too many tools in your belt.
I like 50mm lenses. You can never be too thin, too rich, or have too many 50mm lenses 🙂 .
I like 50mm lenses. You can never be too thin, too rich, or have too many 50mm lenses 🙂 .
38Deardorff
Well-known
well that's true....but it's a pretty obscure lens.... personally i'd take the steel rim....
TenEleven
Well-known
I have this lens and paid about 1/3rd of the current insane asking prices. I use it on film and LTM bodies only.
It's a nice lens, but also not that special in my view. I would not describe it's rendering as unique.
It's a standard double gauss job. I got it since most other fast LTMs are either even more insanely priced or have distortion, which I personally dislike.
It's not a bad lens. But also not worth the prices its commanding these days. The other point is that it only couples down to 1m - not 0.9m or 0.8m of later LTM lenses. Something to consider.
My main go to 35/2 LTM lens is the collapsible 8-element clone from LLL - whose rendering I prefer.
I also have a post-war LTM Biogon 35/2.8, whose rendering I prefer over both of these. But that lens is likely a one-off so it's not really something someone can reasonably hope to buy.
It's a nice lens, but also not that special in my view. I would not describe it's rendering as unique.
It's a standard double gauss job. I got it since most other fast LTMs are either even more insanely priced or have distortion, which I personally dislike.
It's not a bad lens. But also not worth the prices its commanding these days. The other point is that it only couples down to 1m - not 0.9m or 0.8m of later LTM lenses. Something to consider.
My main go to 35/2 LTM lens is the collapsible 8-element clone from LLL - whose rendering I prefer.
I also have a post-war LTM Biogon 35/2.8, whose rendering I prefer over both of these. But that lens is likely a one-off so it's not really something someone can reasonably hope to buy.
Last edited:
David Murphy
Veteran
I don't think it's expensive considering its collectibility and the reputation of its maker. I say go for it! If you share some photo samples here, so much the better!!
hilltime
Well-known
I tend to agree with TenEleven. The Fujinon is built like a tank and @ F/2 is my fastest 35mm, other than an insanely rare Komura 35/F 1.8. I also use it on film cameras and have never adapted to digital. It is a fine optic but way overpriced in comparison to many others in the marketplace. Canon 35/F2?
Roastchestnuts
Established
I wonder how this fujinon compares to my nikkor 3.5cm f1.8? do any of you all have some images to share with the fuji lens? digital or film?
TenEleven
Well-known
Here's a couple - I only included the rather boring shot of the bridge because it shows what the coma looks like on film.
It's a decent reliable lens, sometimes there is weird central veiling flare despite my copy being clean as a whistle. You can see that in the otherwise bland shot of the disinfectant bottle. Also a bit of CA - nothing outrageous though. You can also see it in the black and white shot of the two women.
The out of focus rendering can get a bit unruly as with most double Gauss wide-angles. Also as with most double Gauss lenses the corners noticeably "go away" at larger apertures - I think most prominently this can be seen on the shot of the river which I had to do at full aperture because it was actually already past sunset.
Color rendering wise I'd say it has a cool toned relatively neutral palette. It feels more at home with black and white in my opinion.
I do like that it's very small and as others have said is well made. Also a plus for me as a Sonnar user is that it uses 40.5mm filters - which means one less thing to carry for me.
It's a decent reliable lens, sometimes there is weird central veiling flare despite my copy being clean as a whistle. You can see that in the otherwise bland shot of the disinfectant bottle. Also a bit of CA - nothing outrageous though. You can also see it in the black and white shot of the two women.
The out of focus rendering can get a bit unruly as with most double Gauss wide-angles. Also as with most double Gauss lenses the corners noticeably "go away" at larger apertures - I think most prominently this can be seen on the shot of the river which I had to do at full aperture because it was actually already past sunset.
Color rendering wise I'd say it has a cool toned relatively neutral palette. It feels more at home with black and white in my opinion.
I do like that it's very small and as others have said is well made. Also a plus for me as a Sonnar user is that it uses 40.5mm filters - which means one less thing to carry for me.
A bit late chiming in but I agree with @TenEleven here.
I haven't used the Fujinon 35/2 on a Leica digital body, but some years ago I did a fairly extensive comparison on film of half a dozen 35mm lenses including the Fujinon, and found its rendering to be decent but nothing particularly special or characterful. I much prefer the W-Nikkor 35/1.8 for character.
If you can afford to buy one at current prices, why not, its certainly a rare lens to own. But I wouldn't describe it as having a "unique rendering".
