mystichobo
Member
I'm going to throw something wild into the air and suggest an early (pre-early 1960s) Jupiter 12. I pretty much use mine on my iif more than any other lenses.
35mm ltm lens for my iiif - HELP!
- Thread starter cavcha1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 7K
maddoc
... likes film again.
Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5 and Jupiter J-12. I have a later J-12 in black, great little lens and just at the moment mounted on my II (D).
raid
Dad Photographer
Timmyjoe
Veteran
If you're planning on using it between f5.6 and f11, also look at the Canon 35mm f1.8. It's a bit smaller than the f2 version, and not as sharp wide open, but just as good when stopped down to f4 or f5.6.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
d.dulin
Established
Color skopar 35 is really a fantastic lens in ltm. i have the "classic" version and have always loved the way it looks and shoots, too bad the summicron has taken its place on my M2
cavcha1
Member
Do you happen to have a photo of your Zeiss finder on your camera? I'm interested to see how it looks 🙂 I worry it might seem a bit massive on my iiif.
presspass
filmshooter
The Zeiss finder is the same size as all the other ones Zeiss makes. It is large for a IIIf, but not obnoxiously so. I haven't put mine on my IIIc recently, so going by old-age memory, it does hang over the shutter speed dial a bit. It doesn't interfere with the dial but does make it more difficult to set. The one made by Cosina/Voightlander - the mini finder no longer manufactured - is ideal but you would pay more for the finder than you did the for the lens.
jcb4718
Well-known
Here is a photo of my IIIC with my Canon 35mm f2 and the old Voigtlander 35mm push on hood. Its true the finder can obscure the shutter dial. If the dial is the large OD type this can make the shutter speed a bit difficult to read but as you see, my dial is the small OD type and I have not found this to be a problem. The plastic Leica viewfinders have an offset shoe and so allow the most unobstructed view of the shutter setting. The Voigtlander hood is very effective and does not vignette at all. I'm only interested in utility and find this set up works well. It allows me to take photos contre-jour with confidence. The attached photo is perhaps on the limit of what I can get away with.
Attachments
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Hah, I have seen some Wonderful images You created Raid with the ‘Japanese summicron’, loved them.
Very kind Raid, Thank You !
jcb4718
Well-known
I thought you might like to see my other 35mm set up, Cavcha1, so you could compare. The camera is a Leica II and the lens is a 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar. It definitely needs a hood if you are shooting contre-jour so it is fitted with its dedicated hood. The Leica viewfinder seems designed for the Leica II for two reasons. Firstly, it is offset so even though the Leica II has a large OD shutter dial, it can still be seen. Secondly, the Leica II has a rather crude cold shoe. It's simply a slot with no means to grip an accessory. The Leica viewfinder has a clamping lever so it can be secured. In contrast the Zeiss viewfinder would be a little loose. With both arrangements the hood does not intrude into the viewfinder view, its just below the bottom frameline. If I fit the Leica viewfinder on the Leica IIIC the old Voigtlander hood does slightly intrude into the bottom of the view. The Leica viewfinder optics are 0 dioptre so no correction lens is needed; the Zeiss is -1 dioptre and my old eyes cannot accomodate that now so I need a +1 dioptre correction lens. Fortunately the Zeiss takes common 19mm OD correction lenses (e.g. Nikon SLR correction lenses). Both viewfinders are really good. The Leica offers a more complete view because its magnification is a little less (maybe 0.5-0.55 vs. 0.58). The Zeiss presents more of a tunnel vision if you wear glasses (because the surrounding mirror that back reflects the framelines is bigger). On the other hand the framelines are fantastically bright and this does aid composition. The viewfinders are both good, just different. I have two set ups because I wanted to compare them. I started with the Canon lens and to be honest I have been using it more than I thought I would and have not got on to using the Color Skopar extensively. If I were not interested in making a comparison and just had the Canon lens set up I would not think of changing it. Hope this helps.
Attachments
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Here's a comparison of the two fast Canon lenses from back in the day, the Canon 35mm f2 (Japanese Summicron) on the left and the Canon 35mm f1.8 on the right.
Also, the Voightlander 35mm viewfinder on the left and the Nikon 3.5cm viewfinder on the right.
One nice thing about the little Canon lenses is that the front element is recessed far enough into the lens that there really isn't a need for a lens hood in most shooting situations.
Best,
-Tim
Also, the Voightlander 35mm viewfinder on the left and the Nikon 3.5cm viewfinder on the right.
One nice thing about the little Canon lenses is that the front element is recessed far enough into the lens that there really isn't a need for a lens hood in most shooting situations.
Best,
-Tim
jcb4718
Well-known
Very nice cameras, Tim. I think the big dividing line with external viewfinders is whether or not you wear glasses. External viewfinder with a peep holes are not suitable for glasses wearers, I have found. It seems the larger the viewfinder entrance pupil the better. Image magnification is also a factor, smaller magnification having more eye relief. For these reasons the (black plastic) Leica and Zeiss finders work for me. As for the question 'to hood or not to hood?' I think the point is that sunlight falling directly on the lens will cause problems. The Canon lens is recessed and that helps. A hood helps even more, obviously. I point the camera where I want to take the photo and sometimes that is towards the sun. With the hood on only very occasionally do I have a problem with unwanted reflections on the negative.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The Elmar 35mm f/3.5 is perhaps the tiniest of them all, but is a great lens.
Erik.
Erik.
cavcha1
Member
Thanks very much! My Canon 35 f2 just arrived, and I'm starting with a Helios finder (it was three frame-lines, the widest being the 35mm. It was cheap-ish and it's about the same size as my SBOOI 50mm. So that appeals). Anyway I'm going to shoot a few rolls, make a print or two, and will post results here.
Thanks again!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I think that's an excellent suggestion. And the Summaron is a fine lens!
cavcha1
Member
Hi guys,
So I went for a Canon f2, and I love it. It might need a little lubrication at some point this year, but it's a beauty and sharp! This was shot at f.2.8 1/30th on Tri-x pushed to 1600.
Thanks to everyone for advice and helping me make the choice!
C
So I went for a Canon f2, and I love it. It might need a little lubrication at some point this year, but it's a beauty and sharp! This was shot at f.2.8 1/30th on Tri-x pushed to 1600.
Thanks to everyone for advice and helping me make the choice!
C
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Is this the image taken with the Canon 35/2?
cavcha1
Member
Is this the image taken with the Canon 35/2?
No, that's the 50 Summicron collapsible. This one is the Canon - https://flic.kr/p/2ifBTBu (sorry I tried to get the image in a post, it didn't work) .
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Both are very nicely done! Here it is below. With Flickr, you need to hit share icon. Then select BBcode and the size you prefer. Then copy and paste in the RFF comment field the HTML code.
analoged
Well-known
Solinar beat me to it
