35mm choice

Summicron 35 ASPH is one amazing lens. Some say too clinical. But it is great.
I haven't used the Summilux ASPH, but it has a a great reputation (and price).
I've had the v 4 Summicron, 35 Summilux (pre-ASPH) and currently have an 8-element which is dedicated to my chrome .85 MP. I also have the 60 Elmarit on my old R7 and it too is amazing glass.
You can hardly go wrong with any of these of course, but I don't think I'll ever part with the 35 Summicron ASPH.
Good Luck
 
I personally think that all of the lenses mentioned in this thread are excellent. :)


The most important step you should take is to test out as many of them as you can in person.
There's simply no substitute for trying out a lens on your camera and seeing how it handles, how heavy it is, how easy or difficult the aperture is to change, discovering wheather or not the focus tab agrees with you and so on.
All of those lenses will deliver great shots, but your favourite may well be the one that 'feels right' in your hands and you won't know which that is until you've picked it up and used it.
 
Texture of biogon is very very strange, I mean it is not smooth it is not harsh, it is somewhat closer to canons look, you know plasticly smooth nothing like sonnar smooth, planar is beautiful don`t even compare, in color biogon 35 is stunner though, I would keep it just for slides! expressive!
 
First of all whats Raid's / Roland's venture? I want to see/read it :D
second of all I think 15mm is a joke :D I would never go anything wider than 21mm, actually most unused lens in my line up on rangefinder is 21mm biogon, 25mm is perfect wide angle of all, strangely I find 20mm on my Nikon system normal wide angle! anyhow I would not mind buying 18mm biogon just for ultra wide sake :D
 
Nachkebia said:
Texture of biogon is very very strange, I mean it is not smooth it is not harsh, it is somewhat closer to canons look, you know plasticly smooth nothing like sonnar smooth, planar is beautiful don`t even compare, in color biogon 35 is stunner though, I would keep it just for slides! expressive!
Click to expand...


Strange, I don't find this to be the case at all. My sample is a very close match to my Planar and has that creamy round tonality on B&W. For that matter my 25 Biogon is a very close match to the Planar with regard to tonality and image quality. From my experience they're all stunning lenses and share common qualities. Never shot any color with it or the asph summicron. Actually almost never shoot color.

Magus I find your remarks about Delta and the Biogon 35 interesting. My standard films are Delta 100 and 400 plus Adox 25 under low contrast concitions. I think much of the success of Delta depends on how it's developed and experience with the film. Generally the tabular grain films are a little more touchy about developement. I've found that my success over the years has been fine tuned as time goes on. I can't even guess how many rolls of Delta I've shot. I did pre release testing on both the 100 and 400 for Ilford and fell in love with it. I was using Agfa 100 at the time, early 90's, and after testing hundreds of rolls of Delta films I switched to Delta after it was released. I also did the pre release testing on Tmax 100 and 400:( . Terrible in my opinion. I shot hundreds of rolls and advised Kodak to thin the base. The initial hand coated rolls that I was testing was double the base thickness of current films. It was destroying film backs and motors very quickly. I also hated the tonality. Highlights do not seperate well and shadow detail goes to mush and doesn't seperate well compared to other films. My final report to Kodak was not a favorable one.

It's very true that much of our results depend on other than the lens. As you say film, developer, enlarger, enlarging lens, paper and developer and most important our technique are key elements in the final look. You and I could take the same film, lens and shoot the same subject at the same time and have two totally different end results.
 
Last edited:
For me what makes planar and 25mm different from 35mm biogon is the focus or sharp point, on both planar and biogon 25 sharp zone is sharp and contrasty, where 35mm biogon gives somewhat smooth look, it is almost like lacking roughness, anyhow it might be my personal thing, I like when texture is bit texturie and not milky :) and if it is to be smooth it has to be classic look like old lenses, as for t-max I also hate tonal range from mid to high, though shadow tonnes I like at night because they are compressed but still playable :) delta is excellent, though I find delta with 50mm summilux asph to be very sharp and clean, somehow slightly clinical, with plannar delta looks excellent :)
 
Hello Magus,

I agree with Nachkebia that for [serious] photography a lens wider than 21mm is too challenging [or maybe too limited]. I went all the way to 7.5mm recently to get a different perspective, but I would not consider using this lens all the time or even once every three weels. It is a special application lens in my opinion, and so is the 15mm that you are maybe going to get.

Greetings,

Raid
 
I used Rodinal for many many years (1968) with 10% sodium sulfite added at 1:100 / 20C with Trix (original 400) processed for 13-14 minutes. Best combo of film ever in my book but the new TX isn't the same and just doesn't work. Since studying with Ansel Adams in 1975 I've used HC110 (Ilfrd HC) for most other films 1:32 or 1:47. I use it for deltas and use rodinal for Adox. HC isn't the finest grain but it's more compensating and doesn't block highlights and retains great shadow detail. I've run thousands of rolls and sheets through it and know exactly how it wil react for + and - developement. I rarely but do use acufine with HP5 at 640 and that's about it. Lots of great developers and films but I live by my dads advice. My dad taught me photography from the age of 5 and always said pick one film and one developer and learn it before moving on. 20,000 rolls of TX later I think I knew it before it changed (darn!!!!!). The same is true of the deltas and KB25. I used KB 14 in college in the 60's and now use it again. It's easy for contrast to get out of controll but it makes stunning negs. I even use Delta 100 and HP5 in sheet film up to 8x10 and HP5 in 11x14.

The best part of any film and developer combo is using it untill you know it better than the back of your hand. I can walk into any shoot and know what my equipment will do and what I can get from my film / developer combo. When you know this then you can concentrate on making images not whether it will come out or how it will come out. I just don't need those kinds of distractions.
 
In der Beschraenkung zeigt sich der Meister... aber leider ist nicht jeder Mensch ein Meister! This is the sad truth, Magus. Not every person is a Master.

Raid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom