35mm Opinion?

existrandom

existrandom

Established
Local time
1:55 AM
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
188
hello all,

have tried the Canon 35/1.8, and VC 35/1.7, they are nice but certain things amiss... now torn between deciding which 35/2 to go for, thought i would go for a Canon black but its price has been going unreasonable, plus the use of LTM-M adaptor which, in theory, discout the performance with flange tolerance

it would be very nice if member with some experience of the 2 listed lens, to share your comment: optics performance and use, the bottom line, does the leitz worth the extra dough?

4th summicron or M-Hexanon

cheers and thanks!

lee
 
After looking for a reasonably priced Leica in that particular focal length, I purchased a Konica Hexanon 35/2. It was the best lens purchase in ages! I think it's a match made in heaven!! :)

I paid (in a private transaction) a total of $ 575 for the lens. Granted, it came almost brand new, and with me it's gone places (from Barcelona to Costa Rica). Now it has spots in the barrel where the paint chipped, but then, it's a tough player and its quality in built and performance is superb. This is a very sharp lens...

So, in case you find yourself within reach of one, grab it! :D

Take a load of this example: from the Millenium Park in Chicago, days after its opening...
 
I've had two before the current Summilux ASPH 35mm- a CV 1.7 and Summicron ASPH.

I liked the Ultron (not to be confused with the Real Voigtlander Ultron, for the Prominent, a wonderful 50mm lens in its own right- shouldn't CV called that 35 the Skoparon?) a heck of a lot more than the Summicron ASPH- which has been my least favorite of the three, though I might have had a bad sample. There's someone else about on the forums here that had similar problems. It was... Flat- not terribly sharp at any aperture, seemingly; it didn't have a "bite," and was quite expensive for that performance. The Summilux ASPH is supposed to have the same look, but in my opinion and experience, it's a far (far(far)) better lens than that 'Cron, with strong sharpness and a delicious look wide open.

Why don't you like the Ultron? Mine had a wonderful drawing, and if I didn't have the 'lux, I'd own another in a heartbeat. Heck, I might get one someday just for the heck of it. Wish they made it in SC mount. The rumor is that the Ultron has a similar look to the 4th generation Summicron 35mm, so if you didn't like overmuch the look of the Ultron, you mightn't like the look of the gen. 4.
 
solares,

is your hexanon the UC (LTM) version or the M version? do they differ? your pics is nice and have a surreal quality... any nightshot example?

beniliam & jdos,

i have been using the VC 35/1.7 for awhile, but i things its contrast is a bit too much for my liking, i don't like its cold/blue tint when i do color as well

thanks!

lee
 
Lee I believe Francisco's M-Hexanon is an M bayonet lens. I use the CV Color-Skopar P1 and that is a wonderful lens. I would agree with Beniliam's assessment of the current pancake as I have seen some great shots taken with it. There is also the so-called "classic" version of the original lens which is less expensive than the current pancake. I believe that all these lenses with the exception of the P1 have a closest focusing distance of 0.7M.

I'm a big fan of the M-Hexanon lenses although I don't have the 35mm/f2. There is one for sale at the moment on eBay out of the UK. See the link below:

Konica 35mm f/2 M-Hexanon lens (fits Leica)

 
be careful of the cv 35/2.5 classic if you prefer a lower contrast lens as it has plenty of contrast.

try a canon 35/2.8 for lower contrast and very nice sharpness and for under 250 easy.

joe
 
IMHO, the Canon 35/2 also has very high contrast, as well as a slightly blue/cold rendering with color, moreso than the ultron in both cases. If those are your main dislikes with the ultron, you probably ought to cross the 35/2 off your list as well.
 
I have no experience with the 35/2 Hexanon, but the 50/2 hexanon is very contrasty, like most modern glass such as the current version 50 summicron. With color, Hexanon's tend to be warmer.
 
If you ask me, given the qualities I think you are looking for, you should seriously consider the new Zeiss 35/2.
 
Biber said:
OT: Would $600 be a reasonable price for a 4'th generation Summicron 35/2 in good condition?
Click to expand...

Yes, $600 is a decent price, this is the KING-O-BOKEH edition of the 35 Summicon. Mint they sell for over $1000. Check the front ring to see if it rotates at all or if the click stops line up correctly. If not, then the glue holding the lens together has to be re-sealed. It is an inexpensive fix. If the lens has this problem try to shoot a roll of film with it before buying. If the elements are out of line the repair will be a little more involved. The elements most likely are still in alignment even if the front ring glue problem is present.
 
Thanks Rover. I'll have a look at it on Tuesday, the seller agreed to send it to me to have a look before I buy it. He told me that it had some signs of wear, but no dents and otherwise in good mechanical and optical condition. I can barely wait... :)
 
hello all,

thanks for your comment and suggestion!
perhaps i am not so good at words, but i found the pics i did with CV35/1.7 a bit too hard/harsh for my liking, it may be contrast, or too much sharpness? and that some very subtle tonal difference is lost...

i have a Hexanon AR 24/2.8, and i like its rendition very much, both B/W and colour work... i have no experience of leica glass... the canon 35/1.8 is smooth, but lack a bit of "bite"... so i sold it and is now back on ground zero for a 35

any advice? or sample shot?

thanks!

lee
 
hi richard,

thanks for your suggestion, that pic is great, is that yours?
also, curious to know the priceline of summaron 2.8

thanks

lee
 
The 40mm Summicron or Rokkor lenses for the CL/CLE are also excellent and viable alternatives for a 35mm lens.
 
Another vote for the Canon 35/2,8.
I bought the Canon because i also wanted a lower contrast lens .. my other 35 is a Summicron 35mm asph. And i must say the Canon is a delight to work with.
The Canon was better build and sharper then expected when i bought it.


You have to like the vintage look it gives to your pictures though.


I have a couple of B&W pictures with the 35/2,8 up here:

http://www.shutterfreaks.com/gallery/album206


The colors are pastel... i like them a lot

the pictures #6 & #7 in the following gallery are in color with the Canon 35mm/2,8

http://www.shutterfreaks.com/gallery/album161

Han
 
Last edited:
Well... I really cannot compare contrast here. First off, I'm not too good at it, and second... I don't really have a term of comparison.

Now, as Peter noted, my Konica Hexanon is the KM version (that is the bayonet mount's moniker in Konicaland). As for night shots... here is one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom