Harry S.
Well-known
Hello.
These "this vs. that" threads are tedious and I feel guilty for starting another one. But you guys know what you are talking about and Im sick of following dead-end google searches.
I want a nice 35mm f/2 lens. I already have a Nokton and an Ultron but I find them too contrasty for Black and White, which is what I prefer to shoot. Results from the ZM lenses seem similar in contrast. I want a more classic look that still renders nice colour when required.
Basically, I like the examples I see from the Hexanon. But it is a hard to find lens, and the one currently on ebay is almost $1500 which is Summicron IV prices. It seems $1500 is a little expensive for both, considering the sales history. But I guess sellers are watching these forums and prices on valued M lenses is skyrocketting.
Im prepared to pay the price for a nice 35mm lens. So, which one?
Regards,
Harry
These "this vs. that" threads are tedious and I feel guilty for starting another one. But you guys know what you are talking about and Im sick of following dead-end google searches.
I want a nice 35mm f/2 lens. I already have a Nokton and an Ultron but I find them too contrasty for Black and White, which is what I prefer to shoot. Results from the ZM lenses seem similar in contrast. I want a more classic look that still renders nice colour when required.
Basically, I like the examples I see from the Hexanon. But it is a hard to find lens, and the one currently on ebay is almost $1500 which is Summicron IV prices. It seems $1500 is a little expensive for both, considering the sales history. But I guess sellers are watching these forums and prices on valued M lenses is skyrocketting.
Im prepared to pay the price for a nice 35mm lens. So, which one?
Regards,
Harry
wintoid
Back to film
I've had M-Hexanon 35mm, UC Hexanon 35mm and Summicron 35mm IV, and now own a Summicron 35mm Asph. They're all pretty modern and contrasty, with perhaps the M-Hexanon being the least so, but if I was looking for low contrast, I'd be looking elsewhere personally.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I agree, $1500 seems high for either of those lenses. If you want lower contrast you'd probably be better served with an older lens. Maybe a Canon? It'd be considerably cheaper too.
venchka
Veteran
Toss the ZM 35mm Biogon into the mix.
You'll lose 1 stop. The Canon 35/2.8 (old all chrome LTM version) reportedly has "high resolution and low contrast." I've owned mine since forever. It's a nice lens and you'll never find one any smaller. After my recent Large Format GAS Attack I probably should sell it.
You'll lose 1 stop. The Canon 35/2.8 (old all chrome LTM version) reportedly has "high resolution and low contrast." I've owned mine since forever. It's a nice lens and you'll never find one any smaller. After my recent Large Format GAS Attack I probably should sell it.
deepwhite
Well-known
Some of my very experienced photographer friends told me that, if I want a 35mm for B/W, nothing beats a Leica Summicron 35/2 I, the famous 8-element. I've checked out some samples on the internet and they certainly have that "old and elegant" flavor. Worth checking it out.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
You'd have to analyze meticulously and obsessively to tell the difference between these lenses if you do it from a print. I'd say wait up for the one that comes up within your budget. Also, look into stores because eBay isn't the only source of these lenses. There was a time when Robert White's store in the UK carried them new (about two years ago). Have you searched the online stores from NY?
I went for a Konica, and even though later I purchased a 'lux, I'm not parting with my Hexanon. Don't make me an offer.
Good luck!
I went for a Konica, and even though later I purchased a 'lux, I'm not parting with my Hexanon. Don't make me an offer.
Good luck!