gavinlg
Veteran
Hey all,
Thought I'd put a warning at the top as I know some people find it tedious having a "which lens" thread all the time, but now it's my turn.
I just received a gorgeous m6 classic from Kevin M and need a lens to go with it. Naturally the first will be 35mm lens, and for this exercise I'm going to prioritize the qualities I'm looking for in the lens.
1. Non obtrusive, dependable image quality.
2. Non obtrusive size - eg, no nokton 1.2
3. Prefer to buy new or near new
Knowing this, I'm choosing from (and so far here are my observations of each:
- Voigtlander 35mm skopar C f2.5 PII
- Voigtlander 35mm Notkon f1.4
- Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2
- Pre asph Summicron
So far my thoughts lie with the little voigtlanders, although ideally I'd like something at least f2. The nokton 1.4 also has what could be perceived as slightly obtrusive bokeh wide open. What is it like stopped down to f2-f2.8 I wonder?
The zeiss f2 is great in image quality but is it too big physically?
Pre ASHP summis look great but are they as good wide open as the zeiss?
Post up your take on the 35mm lens dilema and even better, post up some relevant pictures taken with the lens you decided on.
Cheers
Thought I'd put a warning at the top as I know some people find it tedious having a "which lens" thread all the time, but now it's my turn.
I just received a gorgeous m6 classic from Kevin M and need a lens to go with it. Naturally the first will be 35mm lens, and for this exercise I'm going to prioritize the qualities I'm looking for in the lens.
1. Non obtrusive, dependable image quality.
2. Non obtrusive size - eg, no nokton 1.2
3. Prefer to buy new or near new
Knowing this, I'm choosing from (and so far here are my observations of each:
- Voigtlander 35mm skopar C f2.5 PII
- Voigtlander 35mm Notkon f1.4
- Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2
- Pre asph Summicron
So far my thoughts lie with the little voigtlanders, although ideally I'd like something at least f2. The nokton 1.4 also has what could be perceived as slightly obtrusive bokeh wide open. What is it like stopped down to f2-f2.8 I wonder?
The zeiss f2 is great in image quality but is it too big physically?
Pre ASHP summis look great but are they as good wide open as the zeiss?
Post up your take on the 35mm lens dilema and even better, post up some relevant pictures taken with the lens you decided on.
Cheers
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Gavin,
I recently sold an almost new Zeiss Biogon 35/2. Its not a terribly big lens... somewhere between the small Voigtlanders and the lenses we'd all call big and weighty. I sold it because the images it creates are more toward what I'd call 'perfect'. I'm finding I prefer lenses with just a bit of imperfection... like some softness around the edges, or maybe some sassy bokeh. The Zeiss left nothing to complain about.
Good luck with your search... it can be never-ending.
I recently sold an almost new Zeiss Biogon 35/2. Its not a terribly big lens... somewhere between the small Voigtlanders and the lenses we'd all call big and weighty. I sold it because the images it creates are more toward what I'd call 'perfect'. I'm finding I prefer lenses with just a bit of imperfection... like some softness around the edges, or maybe some sassy bokeh. The Zeiss left nothing to complain about.
Good luck with your search... it can be never-ending.
gavinlg
Veteran
Gavin,
I recently sold an almost new Zeiss Biogon 35/2. Its not a terribly big lens... somewhere between the small Voigtlanders and the lenses we'd all call big and weighty. I sold it because the images it creates are more toward what I'd call 'perfect'. I'm finding I prefer lenses with just a bit of imperfection... like some softness around the edges, or maybe some sassy bokeh. The Zeiss left nothing to complain about.
Good luck with your search... it can be never-ending.
Jamie,
Thanks, that is the kind of answer I'm looking for. I completely understand what you mean about wanting lenses with a bit of character, I get that way with some of my canon EF lenses sometimes. They're very good for imaging but they lack much of the character some of the estranged m mount or ltm lenses have.
However, you've just made me think about the zeiss more than before. I'm really looking for reliable imaging characteristics - for instance, predictable and well controlled flare, no-surprises bokeh or distortion, sharp from f2-f16 - because 35mm is my main lens on RF system, it's gotta be a good imaging lens rather than being a character lens.
maddoc
... likes film again.
My bet would be the 35mm Summicron-M ASPH (not on your list). I had the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron-M IV for a while in parallel with the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH and kept the Summilux, it is the better lens (my copy).
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
The Biogon 35/2 could be what you're looking for then. Zeiss is right when they call the perfect "all-rounder". And Michael Johnston (TheOnlinePhotographer.com) suggested that if you could only have one lens, this might be the one. And... its significantly cheaper than new Leica gear.
yanidel
Well-known
I owned the Skopar and sold it. Now I use the 35mm summicron IV (pre-asph).
It is a better lens but resolution wise the Skopar is very close. Size wise, they are close. Price wise it is one to four new.
I don't regret the choice, the used cron was twice the price of the Skopar new with hood.
For sample, many of the latest pictures in my gallery where taken with the 35mm summicron.
It is a better lens but resolution wise the Skopar is very close. Size wise, they are close. Price wise it is one to four new.
I don't regret the choice, the used cron was twice the price of the Skopar new with hood.
For sample, many of the latest pictures in my gallery where taken with the 35mm summicron.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
The Ultron 35/1.7 renders out of focus areas well. It is on the large side, though.
aizan
Veteran
out of those choices, the biogon wins easily in my book.
I went through a similar decision recently and ended up with a Nokton 35/1.4 (MC) and am very happy with it (except perhaps the slight barrel distortion, but I can live with that since the f1.4 aperture is more important to me).
I had a Biogon 35/2 and its a fine lens but I found myself wanting an extra stop at times. It's also large for an f2 35mm lens.
I also checked a used Skopar 35/2.5 II lens, but didn't think the size reduction over the Nokton warranted a 1.5 stop loss in light gathering ability. No doubt its a fine lens though.
As for the pre-asph Summicron, I've never handled/used one so I cannot comment about it other to say that I'd probably find the f2 aperture limiting like I did with the Biogon. No doubt a fine lens though.
I think I'd be partly inclined to go with whatever I found first for sale at the right price. Lucky for me I had the choice of three out of the four lenses in your list.
I had a Biogon 35/2 and its a fine lens but I found myself wanting an extra stop at times. It's also large for an f2 35mm lens.
I also checked a used Skopar 35/2.5 II lens, but didn't think the size reduction over the Nokton warranted a 1.5 stop loss in light gathering ability. No doubt its a fine lens though.
As for the pre-asph Summicron, I've never handled/used one so I cannot comment about it other to say that I'd probably find the f2 aperture limiting like I did with the Biogon. No doubt a fine lens though.
I think I'd be partly inclined to go with whatever I found first for sale at the right price. Lucky for me I had the choice of three out of the four lenses in your list.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm glad you piped in with your extensive gear knowledge!
I have a question about the nokton for you - What is the bokeh like stopped down to about f2 or f2.8? The skopar pancake is very appealing to me because it's very consistent in rendering - I'm leaning that way or the zeiss way over the nokton simply because (from what I've seen on the web) the nokton is quite characterful wide open (some people call it busy or don't like it - it's not that I don't like it, it just may be a little distracting for my work). If the nokton does even up a bit with bokeh when stopped down to f2-f2.8, it would be worth it over the skopar - the f1.4 side of things would prove to be very handy in situations where the bokeh is less important than actually getting the shot in the first place.
Feel free to demonstrate with pics if need be!
kipkeston
Well-known
I used the biogon for a year or so. It's a very sharp lens, with all around excellent characteristics. F/2 was not in the same league as 2.8-22. My biggest complaint with the lens was the character it imparted. It rendered a glossy coat to every image that got very tiring eventually. Some may call it extra smooth or extra warm. It gave the photo a look. Now I'm using older summicrons, which seem to be much more neutral with their look, but with less perfect corners, sharpness and boke. I had the skopar for a little while, I loved everything about the lens except that it was f/2.5. Sold it to a friend to help get setup on the M.
a very biogon looking imagine of mine
biogon again. maybe you'd just say it has different tones
2nd version cron
4th version cron
and the skopar classic f/2.5. very neutral lens.
skopar again wide open
all trix/xtol, with the same scanner
a very biogon looking imagine of mine
biogon again. maybe you'd just say it has different tones
2nd version cron
4th version cron
and the skopar classic f/2.5. very neutral lens.
skopar again wide open
all trix/xtol, with the same scanner
Last edited:
John Lawrence
Well-known
I second Maddoc's choice of the 35mm Summicron ASPH. I got one some time ago when I was in the same position as you and have never looked back. I also found that when I purchased mine, there wasn't a great deal of difference between the price (second hand) between it and and Summicron V4 pre asph.
gavinlg
Veteran
Curiosity here: How much do the asph sumi's go for second hand?
gavinlg
Veteran
Just saw Tony Rose's asph cron for $1800us - thats almost 3kaud which is more than a rebuilt gearbox, 2 pocket wizard remote studio flash controllers, a canon ef 85mm 1.8 and enough film to last me a few months. All of which I need. :bang:
Love to have one but I'm afraid my dollar limit is around $900us.
Hacker
黑客
M-Hexanon 35mm or UC-Hexanon 35mm, both of which are f/2. Another lens to consider is the Canon 35mm f/2 LTM. You can then use the rest of the budget on the PWs, film, etc.
ferider
Veteran
The Nokton is a great lens. A fair bokeh comparison to the other lenses should be done at f2 or above, where I find it excellent. Note that it was already labeled with "bad bokeh" before it was commercially available Even at f1.4 its OOF performance is very good unless shot against foliage, where most every lens has a hard time. The Nokton is smoother than the 40 Nokton. Its only downside for me is noticable barrel distortion, for architectures and such. On the upside, if you get the SC version, you get some amazing color rendition, like here:
The pre-asph Summicron is (1) very small, and (2) has a beautiful 3D effect to it, much like other last-generation Leica lenses. What I mean by this is that at the same f stop, the focal plane seems thinner, due to OOF rendering. I always thought this was a good representative (v3):
This is how small the pre-asph Summicron is. Smaller than any other modern 35/2 I know (also smaller than, say, the "Compact" ZM 35/2.8). About the same size as the three classic fast 35s from the early 60s (Canon 35/2, 35/1.8 and Nikkor 35/1.8):
The UC Hex 35/2 LTM is about the same size but I have never used it due to its rel. long min. focus.
The Color Skopar is even smaller. And at f2.5 and up very hard to distinguish from the Summicron. Smoother bokeh than for instance the Summaron. Very flare resistant, so you can get away with the built-in hood of the older LTM version, a really small combo. To show its size:
I never got the Biogon because I am worried about QA issues at that price. Too many "wobble" reports.
For other example photos, have a look at the different lenses on the flickr M-mount group, please. We have over 22k photos now from various M/LTM lenses
Best,
Roland.
Even at f1.4 its OOF performance is very good unless shot against foliage, where most every lens has a hard time. The Nokton is smoother than the 40 Nokton. Its only downside for me is noticable barrel distortion, for architectures and such. On the upside, if you get the SC version, you get some amazing color rendition, like here:
The pre-asph Summicron is (1) very small, and (2) has a beautiful 3D effect to it, much like other last-generation Leica lenses. What I mean by this is that at the same f stop, the focal plane seems thinner, due to OOF rendering. I always thought this was a good representative (v3):
This is how small the pre-asph Summicron is. Smaller than any other modern 35/2 I know (also smaller than, say, the "Compact" ZM 35/2.8). About the same size as the three classic fast 35s from the early 60s (Canon 35/2, 35/1.8 and Nikkor 35/1.8):
The UC Hex 35/2 LTM is about the same size but I have never used it due to its rel. long min. focus.
The Color Skopar is even smaller. And at f2.5 and up very hard to distinguish from the Summicron. Smoother bokeh than for instance the Summaron. Very flare resistant, so you can get away with the built-in hood of the older LTM version, a really small combo. To show its size:
I never got the Biogon because I am worried about QA issues at that price. Too many "wobble" reports.
For other example photos, have a look at the different lenses on the flickr M-mount group, please. We have over 22k photos now from various M/LTM lenses
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
John Lawrence
Well-known
Mine cost £700 second hand. It was complete with everything, boxed and looked as though it had only been used once. The version 4 I was also looking at was around the same price, also boxed and complete and practically unused. The seller told me that the version 4 commands a good price among Leicaphiles because of the reputation it has as "the bokeh king".
John Lawrence
Well-known
You may find it worthwhile to have a look at Matt Alof's blog. He has (or had) the Biogon and the 35mm 1.4 and has pictures and comments about them etc. His blog is here:
http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/
http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/
Like Roland, my experience is that the Nokton 35/1.4 behaves itself quite well wide open, and gets better as you stop down (the bokeh shots of Chinatown in Yokohama I posted recently were taken at f1.4 to f2 - I need to scan some more film before I can post other sample shots). Shooting into a foliage background is tough for any lens. My sample is plenty sharp wide open, and I haven't managed to make it flare yet.
Come to think of it, I have shot with a Skopar 35/2.5 in Nikon S-mount (same optical formula). It was impressively sharp lens even wide open.
On the used market I've seen the following lenses for the prices indicated give or take a bit. Buying any of these will leave you a lot of change from $900 for film and other goodies!
Skopar 35/2.5 II - $250 -$300
Nokton 35/1.4 - $450 - $500
ZM Biogon 35/2 - $600 - $650
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
I'd say the Skopar, best bang for the buck from your list.
Second choice (non list): CV Ultron, a slightly larger, but for me easier to use lens, a stop or more faster.
If you hadn't mention a requirement of "new" or "nearly new," I would have suggested my newest (but vintage) 35, the Canon 35/2.0 LTM, my current favorite by far. -- I buy only LTM for cost savings, and usability on my other LTM camera bodies, the Canon P and Bessa R. The M adapter only cost me 20 bucks. You really ought to consider this lens. IF you can find one. Sample pic below.
Second choice (non list): CV Ultron, a slightly larger, but for me easier to use lens, a stop or more faster.
If you hadn't mention a requirement of "new" or "nearly new," I would have suggested my newest (but vintage) 35, the Canon 35/2.0 LTM, my current favorite by far. -- I buy only LTM for cost savings, and usability on my other LTM camera bodies, the Canon P and Bessa R. The M adapter only cost me 20 bucks. You really ought to consider this lens. IF you can find one. Sample pic below.
Last edited: