Please advice: Which 35mm on Leica M?

[Roel]

I have the M6ttl and m4. With Leica 24mm f2.8 and 50mm summicron.

I'm shooting more and more with the 24mm. I like it a lot. 50mm is sometimes just a bit to narrow for kids and journalistic/street kind of pictures.

I want to try the 35/40 mm. Don't want to spend to much cash (less than 450 usd) yet for Leica summilux/cron asph. First see if this will become my standard FL.

I have seen the 35mm f2 canon LTM, VC 35.1.7 and 2.5, Nokton 40/1.4, summicron-c 40mm/2. Would be nice to add a faster lens but only if it can appr compare with my 15 year old cron 50mm in terms of sharpness and feel. Was tempted to get the canon 35/2 as it is supposed to be like a summicron 35mm. Also the VC 40mm 1.4 is tempting because of its speed. Anyhow, wide open performance will be important because I plan to use it also in low light situations. Please give some of your opinions/advice since i'm loosing my mind. Too many options.

Thanks, Roel

 

[markinlondon]

The CV 35's are all good. I've had both an Ultron and the PII version of the Skopar. I prefer the size and handling of the PII (exactly like the 35 Summicron) but I think the Ultron is a better lens overall. You may find the 40's a little too close to your 50 'cron.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Sparrow]

Yes Magus, you are correct
😉

The style-free CV 35 f2.5

🙂

 

[furcafe]

I have the Minolta 40/2 M-Rokkor, which is optically similar/identical to the 40/2 Summicron, the CV 40/1.4 Nokton, & the Canon RF 35/2. IMHO, all are good lenses & representative of their time periods as far as "fingerprint" goes. All can be acquired for under $450 US. The M-Rokkor & Canon 35/2 are great bargains, w/the M-Rokkor available for under $300 & the Canon for under $400.

All 3 are very small & quick to use in the field. The M-Rokkor & Nokton are 40mm lenses, of course, & will require minor surgery on the mount to get them to bring up the 35mm framelines; as markinlondon points out, they also may be too close to your 50mm (I personally find the FoV to be different enough). The main drawbacks to the Canon are that it doesn't have the close focus capabilities of modern M lenses like the M-Rokkor & Nokton, as it is an LTM lens, & it has the oddball Canon 40mm filter thread.

 

[Roel]

Humm.. interesting

Magus: does the summaron have the same look as the Elmar. My local dealer has a nice looking '37 35mm/3.5 for appr. 135 usd. Only thing is it is a bit slow. (not to much light here in winter.) Also saw some pictures of it on Flickr. A lot of them had a light glow/flare over them (sunny conditions). Don't know if it was a 'drivers' error or typical for the uncoated lens.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Sparrow]

Magus; there was me thinking I provided the style, Mr P provided the subject and the lens provided a passable snap,........ but you could be right

 

[kevin m]

While Magus is correct that there are differences between lenses, those differences are perhaps THE single least important aspect of photography. Here's a shot with a "bland" VC Nokton 40 SC @ f2.0, a lens that if you bought both new would save you $3,000 over the cost of the 35 Aspherical Summilux. And that ain't small change. 😀

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[kevin m]

Wow. Were you trained as a devil's advocate, Magus, or did the talent come to you naturally? 😱 😀 (Thanks for the compliment.)

I shouldn't have mentioned the money, actually, because that's the least of it. If you have it, spend it, by all means. It's the mental dead-end of endless gear acquisition that's the real problem, though. Sure, it can be fun; but mostly, it's just a distraction, and a waste of energy better spent elsewhere. 🙂

 

[x-ray]

There's nothing bland about CV lenses only the people shooting them. The CV lenses are exceptional even if you disregard the price. CV lenses exhibiting low flare, excellent contrast, excellent sharpness and very good construction not to mention a very good price.

The Summaron is a good lens but it's a very old design and all are old lenses now. Many have haze internally on the elements, marks on the front and rear elements and the mechanics may need service. While the summaron was good in it's day it simply can not compare to todays lenses such as the Ultron. Contrast, coatings and resolution will be noticably better in modern glass like the ultron.

There are optical and mechanical differences in lenses but with modern designs the differences are extremely small. One thing 40+ years of experience has proven to me is the biggest difference is the final image is the photographer who makes the image and not the equipment. Eqipment too often becomes the whipping boy for photographic failure. There's no magic in any make of lens and no piece of equipment will make you a better photographer.

 

[FPjohn]

Three Bargains

Three Bargains

Hello:

I'm no 35mm guru but I can recommend, as I use them, the 40mm Summicron C, a 35mm Canon f2.8 and the goggled f3.5 Summaron as fine performers. All go for about $350US.

yours
Frank

 

[like2fiddle]

... The Summaron is a good lens but it's a very old design and all are old lenses now... While the summaron was good in it's day it simply can not compare to todays lenses such as the Ultron. Contrast, coatings and resolution will be noticably better in modern glass like the ultron...

/quote]

I happen to have both the 35/2.8 Summaron and the Nokton 40/1.4. I have never shot much color, but with my darkroom currently out of commission I have been shooting color quite alot lately. In my very limited experience, I find I like the Summaron for B&W and use the Nokton more for color or for low light situations. I find the Summaron is sharper especially stepped down but the Nokton is more "contrasty" perhaps a little too much sometimes. I recently picked-up a Rokkor 40 here on RFF so will have to sell one of the others, and it will be the Nokton.

 

[Bryan Lee]

All the CV 35s are solid lenses, The only one I dont have is the 35 1.2 and I will be getting one this year. You should really check out the 1.7, That was my first M lense and the one I use the most.

 

[bafonso]

This discussion regarding high-quality lenses is akin to discussions in high-end audio. A lot of people stand by some brands, but in a blind-fold experiment can't distinguish them...

I wonder how can one really distinguish from a jpeg on a web the difference the summicron would have made over a CV... oh wait, you can't. 🙂
Does anyone actually care what lenses were used when you see a great photograph on display? other than sheer curiosity, I see no point.

 

[peter_n]

I would say get the CV 35/1.7. I have a CV Pancake I and a 35/1.4 ASPH and I tend to use the Leica lens because of it's speed, but the Pancake is one heck of a lens. Maybe a bit slow for you at f2.5 so get the Ultron; it's good!

 

[OurManInTangier]

the biggest difference is the final image is the photographer who makes the image and not the equipment. Eqipment too often becomes the whipping boy for photographic failure. There's no magic in any make of lens and no piece of equipment will make you a better photographer.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Personally, I don't understand the full complex lens tests and I don't really need to. Walk that particular street should you wish but all I care about is getting the photograph I saw in my mind.

I'm well aware that different lenses have different characteristics but unless I buy every lens available to cover every possible scenerio - why worry.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Wholeheartedly agree. To root for a brand for no other reason that it's a brand seems fetishist to me.

Roel, there's a small myriad (what an oxymoron) of choices, some of them mentioned above. Not out of fetishism, but just to add one more to all the choices given here, there's also a rara avis: the Konica Hexar 35/2, made by Konica for the Konica Hexar RF camera (a Leica M7 clon). It's physically bigger than a 'cron, but not anywhere behind. I know it 'cuz I have one.

Have fun shopping! 🙂

 

[iml]

The CV 35/1.7 Ultron is my standard lens. To call it bland is silly. Even if money's not an issue, I would be very surprised if anyone spending serious time with one would end up disappointed with the results. But, as has been said, every lens is different, and everybody has their own favourites. The Ultron on an M6 gives a look I like very much.

Ian