35mm lenses options for M2

[Alain LeTourneau]

Looking for a good quality 35mm lens to start shooting with my recently acquired M2. Not really in the market to spring for a Leica Summicron, but hoping to find something comparable.

Any recommendations from shooters out there? Anything decent to be found for $600 and under?

Thanks,
Alain

 

[rpsawin]

I suggest a 35/2 Konica Hexanon RF...very comparable to the Summi. I have both and I use the Konica more than the summi. The build quality is top notch.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[Paul T.]

The Hexanon is priced perilously close to the Summicron, to the extent it's not really a bargain alternative any more.

The Zeiss Biogon 35/2 - which I've not owned - seems to give results the equal of, or better, than my old Summicron 35. Its main disadvantage vs the Leica lens is its physical bulk.

Although it's not such as good fit for the M2 framelines as for those of the M6, the 40mm Summicron C is a terrific lens.

Edit : Presumably, you've checked out this thread, too: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=74668

 

[Daan]

If you want to go really cheap (under a 100 dollars), a jupiter 12 fits nicely on the M2 and is quite a good performer

 

[laptoprob]

Ultron 1,7 or the old Canon 2,8. Both give lower contrast.

 

[Spider67]

just to chime in:
How's a 35mm 2.5 Skopar?

 

[Erik L]

just to chime in:
How's a 35mm 2.5 Skopar?

very hard to complain about

 

[__hh]

Summaron 35mm f/2.8 M-mount? Aparently as good as the Summicron, except for the fact that it does not go to F2.

 

[jfserejo]

just to chime in:
How's a 35mm 2.5 Skopar?

It's my all arround lens on the M6 🙂 Lovelly and very small (even with the wood)

 

[Erik van Straten]

A Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre asph will do fine, but will not fit the budget.

Summilux 35mm f/1.4 pre asph, Leica M2, Tmax400 printed on Ilford MGIV fb.

Erik.

 

[Melvin]

The Nikkor 35mm 2.5 seems to be a high resolution, medium contrast lens. Very well made, with two aperture scales(so you can still see the aperture at close focus) + click stops and that lovely sapphire blue coating. I've been very impressed with mine, it records little details very clearly, and at ~$200 it's a good deal. It will sometimes produce veiling flare when shot toward the light, unlike more modern glass.

 

[BillBingham2]

Alain,

Lots of great stuff for under $600 USD. In looking at your site there are a lot of great options I would recommend.

I'm a Nikkor lover so the suggestion for a 35/2.5 is a great one. Just add an adapter (leica made the best) and you are good to go. Will match the look of your M2 well also. It's small and a great lens.

Any of the current CV glass is great. Very flare resistant and sharp. The 2.5 is a great size (small is handy in a carry any where). The older 1.7 is larger but not too big. I loved mine but swapped it out for a 40/1.4 when they came out of the better build quality (not that the 1.7 was bad) and leica-esk handling. The 35/1.4 is built in the newer style (like the current 35 'Cron from Leica) and is also under $600. Speed is handy at times.

You might think about the CV 40/1.4, new from cameraquest it's $369 and easy to modify to bring up a 35mm frame line (just a quick filing).

Leica 'Luxes or 'Crons, good ones at least are well out side of your budget and I'm not sure you will see enough difference from what I read on your site to make it worth the scrimping and saving (eating is important).

I do not know prices on the ZM lenses. They are world class, not overly high priced, but higher than CV new. The FSU (Former Soviet Union) J12 is a fine lens but not always easy to find a great example of. I've lost too much money in the FSU sink hole as I call it and so I look elsewhere.

Hope this helps.

Welcome.

B2 (;->

 

[andredossantos]

For around $600 you can get the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton. This lens isn't talked about much but if you can live with some imperfections you get a sharp, fast, modern 35mm lens for an unbeatable price.

 

[Mackinaw]

If speed isn't an issue, I agree that the Canon 35/2.8 is a good choice. Affordable too and with outstanding build quality, especially the early chrome-on-brass variety.

Jim B.

 

[MCTuomey]

for under $600? CV: 35/1.4, 35/1.7, 35/2.5 skopar - can't go wrong with any of them, if you want a more modern look.

the canon 35/2.8 is lovely; as rob says it displays a more "vintage," low contrast look.

the summaron 35/2.8 is really nice from f4 down; it's pretty soft wide open imho.

the m-hex 35/2 is at or above $600, I think. cron is even higher.

 

[robinsonphotography]

I've got the 35/2.5 skopar pancake PII myself and it's a really nice lens....great optics, and possibly the best part is the size--mounted on the M2 you've got an extremely tiny combo that is just ready to go anywhere unnoticed, yet still get some great imges. It doesn't have the low light ability of something like a summilux though, so there is always that to consider....

In your place, if this is the start of a lens collection, I might get something like the 35/2.5 for a super small lens because during the day the 2.5 isn't an issue, and then grab a nice old like 50 f/2, maybe a summicron rigid or DR, which gives you a little more in the low light and portrait spectrum of things. just my .02 though.

 

[Erik van Straten]

the summaron 35/2.8 is really nice from f4 down; it's pretty soft wide open

The Summaron @ f/2.8 isn't soft at all.

Summaron 35mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8.

Erik.

 

[Spyderman]

Think about what you need: speed or sharpness or medium contrast etc.

If you don't need the speed, I would vote for the tiny VC 35/2.5. I've had great results from the lens, and even Tom Abrahamsson says only good things about this little piece of glass.

 

[MCTuomey]

erik, regarding the summaron at f2.8 being soft, i mean so in a comparative sense. the summaron is quite a bit softer at f2.8 than at f4 and down, which for leica seems to me uncharacteristic of its lenses generally, at least those no faster than f2. i found the summaron to be disproportionately softer at f2.8 vs f4 than the 35mm summicron v4 is at f2 versus f2.8, for example.

your pic suggests more than adequate resolution, but of course this is hard to assess accurately on resized web images.

 

[Erik van Straten]

i found the summaron to be disproportionately softer at f2.8 vs f4 than the 35mm summicron v4 is at f2 versus f2.8, for example.

Maybe your Summaron suffers from haze. On mine (I have two of them) I've never noticed that. Haze can btw be removed easily by a competent repairman. Summarons often suffer from haze.

Erik.