I do have a fairly complete set of 35's. This is not a "collectors" kit - but a assembly of stuff from a life long devotion to 35!
Summicron 35 version 1: This is the 8 element version and i have had at least one of these since 1958! It has a very smooth look to it, but at f2 the corners are soft.
Summicron 35 version 2: This is the one with the "tab" on the aperture ring. my current one is "ugly" but with clean glass. Better in the corners than the earlier version, but the later 35f2's are better over all.
Summicron 35f2 version 3: Not a bad lens, in some aspects it is a better built lens than the later version IV. Wide open it performs well for hand held, Tri-X shooting.
Summicron IV: this is the post 1980 version and is probably the best of the 35f2's when it comes to "bokeh" (that fuzzy stuff that is not in focus). Build quality is not as good as the earlier ones.The weak spot is the aperture ring which can come loose.
Over all sharpness, even wide open is very good. Small and compact too.
Summicron 35f2 ASPH: This is the ultimate when it comes to sharpness and contrast, but it is a/flare sensitive and b/very 'edgy" with black and white film. Contrast is very high and you are forever chasing #0,5 and # 1.0 filters in your darkroom. I have a bit of ambivalent feelings towards this lens.It is heavy and larger than the earlier versions and if I am using contrastier film (Delta 100/ACROS/ Tmax 100) I find that I tend to grab the Version IV instead.
Zeiss Biogon 35f2.8: This is a very 'smooth" lens, both in operation and " image".
It is big and a bit clumsy, but there is virtually no distortion and sharpness is more than adeqate. It is a toss up between the 35/2 ASPH and this lens. Apart from size it also suffers from needing a different filter size. All my Summicrons can use 39mm filters (well, the Version II used to be able too. Now the thread is chewed up beyond repair).
Voigtlander 35f2.5 II: Very small and compact and damned good for the price. Less flare than any of the Summicron's and overall performance is right up there with the Version IV. It is a light weight lens and I have had a failed aperture ring on it (as I have had with the IV Summicrons too). This lens often ends up on a M2 as a light weight "walk about" lens. So far I haven't been able to blame a single lousy shot on the lens (or camera).
Summilux 35 f1.4 2nd version. My current one is a mid 90's production and. yes it has some of the foibles of the 35/1,4: distinct field curvature and some flare when shooting with bright sources in the frame. Still, it is small and light weight and it will give you 1.4 images that are easy to print.
Summilux 35/1,4 ASPH: I have had several, a version 1 which was OK and two of the current ones. Both the later ones flared too much. The first one would flare so badly that the image was obscured. It was rebuilt ones by Leica and later replaced. The replacement was better, but still showed unacceptable flare when ever a light source would intrude in the edges. It is a very sharp lens with high contrast, almost too much contrast for black/white. i have seen very good stuff done with this lens, but I no longer trust them!
Voigtlander 35f1.2: Big and heavy, but at f1.2 it is better than the 1.4 ASPH at 1.4 with less flare. Not really a "walk about" lens, but when you need the speed it is stunning. With 400 and above film, it is not the lens that limits you. It is your skill at focussing as the light is most likely so low that you cant see what you are focussing on.
The Ultron 35f1,7: As an Aspheric it is very good with less of the flare that seems to plaque the Leica ASPH's. I dont like the ergonomics of the lens as i am always chasing the aperture ring and miss shots due to that. Fun lens to stick on an old IIIF or IIIg though.
The "forgotten" 35 - The Summaron 35f2.8. This is a very good lens and usually has better close performance than the Summicron's. In the mid-range 5.6 -11 it is as good as the Summicron. They are easier to find in good shape than the 35/2's as these were often bought by pro's who used them heavily. The 35f2.8 is one of my favourites for black/white in bright sun. it seems to hold the contrast at a printable level and even up to 16x20" prints are fine.
Over the years i have tried the Konica 35, Ricoh 35 and Minolta 35's (and others) in M and LTM mounts and they are all good and in most cases will do as well as any of the other lenses. They tend to be a bit more difficult to find though.
Do observe that these opinions are my own. Others will disagree (including Erwin Puts, who is a good friend of ours), but my shooting for the last 20 years has been strictly with black/white - tri X in a variety of developers (my degree in chemistry paid off at last - i make my own developers from scratch) and the printing is done with a late Focomat 1C with the Focotar-2 lens. The 1C is a condensor enlarger and this coupled with the slightly elevated contrast of the Focotar-2 makes me more sensitive to inherent contrast in film/developer combinations.
