35mm Lens Choice on a Budget

[Takai]

Right now my situation is this, I have an M2 and a IIIC with a 50mm 2.8 Elmar collapsible. I primarily use my leicas as my grab and go everyday bag cameras, but I use an RB67 as my primary camera. So Im looking for a 35mm lens to add to my kit. Right now Im mainly considering the CV 35MM 1.4 and the Canon 1.8.

So my basic question is this: Which 35mm Lens should I pick up for $500 or less that is f2 or faster?

 

[raid]

For a modern look, the CV 35/1.4 is an excellent lens. It is very well priced too.

 

[Bingley]

Raid is correct, but you will not be able to use the CV 35/1.4 on your Leica IIIc. The Canon 35/1.8 is an excellent lens stopped down a bit; wide open and at f2 it's soft and dreamy. It also flares easily if you point it at a light source (like a window). It has moderate contrast and gives more of a vintage look.

I don't know about current prices, but the CV Ultron 35/1.7 will work on both your cameras and is an outstanding optic. It's a bit on the large size compared to the other two lenses you're considering.

I see this is your first post. Welcome to RFF!

 

[Takai]

I had actually considered the Ultron, but right now I cant seem to find one Im able to grab up. I was worried about the flare on the Canon, but I was curious as to how the distortion was on the Canon as compared to the CV.

 

[PatrickCheung]

I picked up a Canon 35mm f2 LTM a year ago for $400... they usually go for around $400-500. Great little lens. Was sharp, contrasty... provided amazing bokeh. Though, this year... I discovered that the coating started to deteriorate... I've noticed that the lens has gotten a lot softer wide open... and is really prone to flare. Kinda sucks. The cost of re coating the lens could be the same amount I paid for it.

I talked to Youxin Ye about it, and he said that he's seen quite a few Canon lenses within the past year with the same problem and his guess is that the time's up for the coatings on these lenses. That said... I've seen many go on sale on classifieds all over the web and they look fine.

Here's what it did on digital...

Here's what it can do on film (I took this about a month ago... with the coating deterioration)

This is one I took with the lens with coating deterioration, stopped down to f4... seems fine.

 

[Bingley]

The Canon 35/2.0 is quickly becoming my go-to 35, but it's not easy to find one for under $500, so it's at the high end of the OP's price range. The Canon 35/1.8 usually goes for less.

I haven't noticed distortion on the Canon 35/1.8, but then I use it mainly for street photography where distortion is not such a big deal.

 

[Bingley]

Here's the Canon 35/1.8 stopped down:


The City, Cheapside by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

The Canon 35/1.8 at f4:


Cold night, short season by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

The Canon 35/1.8 wide open; yes, it's soft, but in a charming way...


Tivoli by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Tom A]

This one would fit your budget. The Canon 35mm 2.0 - screwmount so it could also be used on your LTM camera. Very good performer - and tiny. Finding a hood is a bit of a hassle - but it is not very flare prone - so even without one it works well.
Another alternative is the VC Color Skopar 35f2.5, either the "pancake" which has the quickest focus of any 35 (large barrel) or the version II LtM. Modern lens, modern glass and coating. Very high image quality.
M2, Canon 35f2 and Kodak XX in Pyrocat HD. The dog had decided that she was not walking back home!!!!

 

[Tom A]

First version of the VC Color Skopar 35f2.5 (the "pancake"). Leica MP, TriX, PCK developer - 7 or 8 min.
Vanocuver had these Orca sculptures commissioned and placed around the city. Local artists were decorating them - this is OrcaElvis.
Most lkely shot at either f2.5 or 2,8 - the loading dock was pretty dime.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for the 35/2.5 even though you lose 2/3 stop over f/2. Tiny, inexpensive, sharp... How often do you find your existing f/2.8 lens to be limiting? And remember that you can often get away with twice as long a shutter speed with a 35 as compared with a 50.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Takai]

It's more the fact that I recently gave my Canon 50 1.4 to my other half and that was my main low light lens. So I find myself trying to fill that slot. 2.8 for me is a great speed for general day photography, but as it gets into golden hour/dusk and Im off in the woods I find myself loosing immense amounts of light very quickly. Though I had been considering the 2.5 CV for a while, especially seeing the results from it.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

On your budget, the Canon offerings are probably going to be your only option. You could find one of those extremely rare deals and get a 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor in LTM but those occasions are few and far between.

You might think about spreading the gap between your focal lengths too and try out a 28mm. Personally, I love the difference in focal length between 28 and 50mm lenses for a day out with one body and two lenses. 35mm just seems a bit too close since a few steps away with a 50mm can give you the same results.

Phil Forrest

 

[ferider]

I had actually considered the Ultron, but right now I cant seem to find one Im able to grab up. I was worried about the flare on the Canon, but I was curious as to how the distortion was on the Canon as compared to the CV.

There is a black "E" Ultron at Adorama, for US 414. I suggest to grab it. If you get a good one it's a really great lens.

If it's too late do consider the Color Skopar 35/2.5, its a great lens and half stop doesn't really matter usually.

I tried both Canon 35/2 and 35/1.8 and never really liked them, given signature, built quality and the necessity to use thin 40mm filters (impossible to find in red or yellow and high quality).

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's more the fact that I recently gave my Canon 50 1.4 to my other half and that was my main low light lens. So I find myself trying to fill that slot. 2.8 for me is a great speed for general day photography, but as it gets into golden hour/dusk and Im off in the woods I find myself loosing immense amounts of light very quickly. Though I had been considering the 2.5 CV for a while, especially seeing the results from it.

Fair enough. Point taken.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bingley]

The workaround on the 40 mm filters for Canon lenses is to buy a 40-43 step up ring from Heavystar, and then go w/ easy to find 43mm filters and caps.

I agree that the 35/2.5 skopar is probably your best bet optically (although the Canon 35/2.0 is awfully good) but if uou really need 2.0... See if you can get that Ultron from Adorama that Roland mentioned.

 

[bfffer]

cv 35mm 1.7
i have seen and heard a lot of good things about it.
i think its a screw mount, can be used on both

 

[ashleyjhyap]

i guess the only 35mm with the shortest focusing distance in this price range would be the CV 35mm F1.4?