35mm lens for under $1000?

[Kamurah]

I have the f1.7 version of the C/V Ultron, and I can attest it is really a great lens and would highly recommend. Images are incredibly sharp with fantastic contrast. The only minus is this lens is somewhat large / heavy for a 35mm focal length. If that does not bother you...not much in the way of downsides with it!

LeicaMmon by Rich Green, on Flickr

 

[justins7]

There's also the close focussing issue: Canon focuses down to 1 meter, Voigtlander down to .7 —*a big difference.

 

[Dunn]

I have the f1.7 version of the C/V Ultron, and I can attest it is really a great lens and would highly recommend. Images are incredibly sharp with fantastic contrast. The only minus is this lens is somewhat large / heavy for a 35mm focal length. If that does not bother you...not much in the way of downsides with it!

I was thinking of the f1.7 but was unsure about the size and the focus ring instead of a tab. How do you feel about it? Does it block much of the viewfinder? Do you use a hood?

Also, thanks for all the responses! Maybe I will stick with the PII for now but I shoot a lot in low light so I feel like it would be worth it. Sadly, I can't afford a summilux and the size of others throws me off. The f1.7 ultron is on my radar now for sure.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

New 35 1.2 seems to be at least in same size with 1.7. And it is 1000$ lens.

I have 35 2.5 lens on M-E 220. It only limits me with sun down photography and then I don’t want motion blur for street, been at iso 2500 maximum. They say, m240 limit is 4000.

 

[Bingley]

I have the Canon 35/2.0 and the Voigtlander Skopar 35/2.5 PI. Both are outstanding though they render a little differently. But you have an outstanding 35 in the PII version already. If you want a faster lens, I’d look at 1.4 or faster. The difference between 2.5 and 2.0 is hardly worth bothering about.

 

[zleica]

I was thinking of the f1.7 but was unsure about the size and the focus ring instead of a tab. How do you feel about it? Does it block much of the viewfinder? Do you use a hood?

Also, thanks for all the responses! Maybe I will stick with the PII for now but I shoot a lot in low light so I feel like it would be worth it. Sadly, I can't afford a summilux and the size of others throws me off. The f1.7 ultron is on my radar now for sure.

The CV 35/1.7 is an excellent performer, challenging even the Leica Summicron 35 ASPH. But I found the size of the lens is a but too long. I would also like to recommend the newer CV 35/1.4 Vii. I recently got a SC version of the lens and I really enjoy using it. Wide open, it doesn't have the biting sharpness of the CV 35/1.7 but it has a very gentle rendering style matched with good sharpness. Of course, stepping down, it perform excellently. The size is a perfect fit for M body.

 

[Toastybunzz]

I have the Ultron f2, it's a fantastic lens. It renders colors/contrast and flare resistance similarly to my Zeiss Planar, very modern.


Other options:
- 7artisans 35mm f2
- TTArtisans 35mm 1.4
- Voigtlander 35mm 1.4
- Voigtlander 35mm 1.7
- Zeiss 35mm f2

 

[jsrockit]

Version II of this lens was tested by real users. They reported focus shift to be within DOF on digital M.

I hadn`t even realized there was a version II for this lens... great to know. Looks great and now I have to agree with you... I`d go for this.

 

[ACullen]

My impression is that there must have been quite a bit of sample variation in the Canon 35/2 LTM which may or may not split down type 1 vs type 2. Comments from users are either that it’s outstanding or adequate. My copy (type1) is dreamy soft wide open. Central sharpness is good enough by f4 and edges by f8. I consider is a special effects lens at 2/2.8 but only usable for general subjects above f5.6.

My Zeiss Biogon offers no such disappointments. Coma wide open but still plenty sharp and good contrast. Consequently my Canon 35/2 only gets occasional outings.

 

[Kamurah]

I was thinking of the f1.7 but was unsure about the size and the focus ring instead of a tab. How do you feel about it? Does it block much of the viewfinder? Do you use a hood?

Also, thanks for all the responses! Maybe I will stick with the PII for now but I shoot a lot in low light so I feel like it would be worth it. Sadly, I can't afford a summilux and the size of others throws me off. The f1.7 ultron is on my radar now for sure.

Ring vs. tab focus: I think this will depend greatly on how accustomed you are to using a tab. Minor adjustment for me and so not a deal-breaker. The focus on my copy is super smooth and it is easy to dial in precise focus fairly quickly. My weak link is definitely my eyes, not the focus ring. 🙂

Hood / size: The lens comes with a hood, but TBH I have not used it on my copy as I wanted to keep the lens as compact as possible and keep as much of the viewfinder unobstructed as was feasible. I may be doing it wrong, but I rarely shoot wide angle lenses with hoods attached.

So the takeaway is: the lens size is something to consider. The girth of the lens is not really the issue, but more so the length. When attached, my Monochrom will tip over towards the lens. You can see I have the lens cap under it in my picture. This was done to keep the camera upright. Additionally, the chrome version I have is made of brass. I believe the black version is aluminum, which should decrease the overall weight of the lens...but the chrome version is quite hefty considering the size of this lens versus something on a DSLR. It is not an issue for me, but I thought I would address this.

The 35 f1.7 Ultron is a great performer, even wide open, but if I was mainly a street shooter, I would probably look for something less obtrusive. If however, IQ for the price is your primary concern (as it was with me), I think it is hard to beat.

Best of luck!

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

There's also the close focussing issue: Canon focuses down to 1 meter, Voigtlander down to .7 —*a big difference.

The Voigt 35mm f1.2, f2 and f1.7 all focus to around 0.5m.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The Voigt 35mm f1.2, f2 and f1.7 all focus to around 0.5m.

I had fed 2 with one meter focusing lens and nothing else for years.
Never been an issue. To me as long time rangefinder user it is more trouble to have lens which is loosing RF focusing, but focus ring still rotating. Not something I want on close distance with next to none DOF.

 

[mike rosenlof]

I'm happy with my voigtlander 35/2.5. I have the LTM version. I usually don't consider a difference in speed that's less than a full stop worth it unless there are other factors that push me toward a change. That said, the rumors about the ultron 35/2 are pretty positive.

 

[maartenmoerman]

I have: 7artisans 35f2, Voigtlander 35f2.5 (ltm) & summicron 35 asph v2.

Nothing from that list beats the summicron..... but there is a price to it. If you can live with the slight barrel distortion of the 7artisans, it's stellar performer, I would say better then the Voigtlander. It's incredibly sharp. I've shot it on film (m6) and digital (m9/sony a7), and it is just a wonderful price/performance combination.

 

[LCSmith]

I have not heard of anyone being disappointed with the:

35/2 Biogon

 

[gavinlg]

I have not heard of anyone being disappointed with the:

35/2 Biogon

My brand new (2020 bought) 35 biogon was wobbly and had play in the focus ring. Absolutely insane performance at f4 and upward but kind of average at f2, and unacceptable coma from a larger, supposedly well corrected optic. I feel my Nikkor-O 35mm f2 was better at f2, and had better bokeh. If you shoot stopped down the 35 biogon is a monster. The lack of distortion is pretty amazing, but I don't think I'll buy another Zeiss ZM lens on the account of build quality.

I'm currently waiting on an Ultron 35mm f2. I'm super interested to see how it compares.

The 35mm color Skopar 35mm f2.5 is a fantastic, well rounded and tiny optic with no real optical flaws. If the speed doesn't concern you, just get that and be happy.

The 35mm Nokton 35mm f1.4 is my standard 35 for M mount. I love it, but the distortion and wacky field curvature do get on my nerves sometimes. In certain situations it's really special though.

 

[LCSmith]

My brand new (2020 bought) 35 biogon was wobbly and had play in the focus ring. Absolutely insane performance at f4 and upward but kind of average at f2, and unacceptable coma from a larger, supposedly well corrected optic. I feel my Nikkor-O 35mm f2 was better at f2, and had better bokeh. If you shoot stopped down the 35 biogon is a monster.

I'm now waiting on an Ultron 35mm f2. Be interesting to see how it compares.

Interesting, thank you.

Incidentally, both 35 ASPH Summicra which I owned had wobbly aperture rings. That, along with the focal length (I shoot mostly 50), was one reason I eschewed the 35 ASPH Summicra.

 

[Beemermark]

The Voigt 35mm f1.2, f2 and f1.7 all focus to around 0.5m.

Which M body RF focuses closer than .7 meters? I had a Nikon 50/2 (I think, might have been another 50mm) that focused closer than .7 meters and it drove me nuts when the Rf would decouple when the focusing dropped below .7m.

 

[Huss]

Which M body RF focuses closer than .7 meters? I had a Nikon 50/2 (I think, might have been another 50mm) that focused closer than .7 meters and it drove me nuts when the Rf would decouple when the focusing dropped below .7m.

I don't think any do. Just the lenses can - which is more useful if you use them on a mirrorless digicam.

 

[Huss]

My brand new (2020 bought) 35 biogon was wobbly and had play in the focus ring. Absolutely insane performance at f4 and upward but kind of average at f2, and unacceptable coma from a larger, supposedly well corrected optic.

It could well be that your camera's RF was slightly off with that lens (this often happens with RF cameras). That will make the lens seem soft wide open when in actuality it is slightly OOF.