35mm Screw Mount

[Swift1]

The Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35/2.5 is tough to beat both for price and performance.
Here's a Flickr album of my photos from the Voigtlander,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daiku_san/albums/72157676260382487

The Canon 35/2 is superb and would probably be my first choice for a 35mm under $500.
Here's a Flickr album of my photos from the Canon 35/2,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daiku_san/albums/72157711866993856

For a budget choice, the Jupiter-12 is really quite good, other than its strange ergonomics and then the issue of it fitting your camera. I have done a fair amount of internet research on this question and from everything I have found, I say that more often than not the Jupiter-12 will fit the Canon P/7.
Here's a Flickr album of my photos from a few different Jupiter-12 lenses,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daiku_san/albums/72157695091907634

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I kept the 35/1.7 Ultron in LTM over the Canon 35/2. Both run about the same price these days. The Bokeh is smoother with the Ultron, the Canon 35/2 - more "swirlies".

The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 - kept it over the Leica Summaron 35/2.8.

My Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 "MIOJ" is very good, but had one years ago that was soft.
My Minolta 3.5cm F3.5 is the best of the Tessar wide-angle lenses that I've owned. It is rare.

 

[bluesun267]

I kept the 35/1.7 Ultron in LTM over the Canon 35/2. Both run about the same price these days. The Bokeh is smoother with the Ultron, the Canon 35/2 - more "swirlies".

How is the contrast on the Ultron? I'm thinking of getting another 35 that I can use on both my Hexar RF and IIIg--the Nikkor, being so small, its focus tab bumps into the preview lever on the Hexar 🙁

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I would describe the contrast as "medium" or "average". Higher contrast than the Summarons and Canon 35/1.8. About the same as the Nikkor, which is noticeably higher than the Summaron. Stopped down to F4: the Ultron is very sharp. I need to rebuild the upload directories I had before Flickr changed ownership and limited images.

 

[Darinwc]

No love for the Nikkor?

A couple people mentioned it. I left it out in my earlier post. I have the Nikkor 35mm f2.5 and it is indeed excellent. I also had the Nikkor 35mm f3.5 which is good but the f2.5 is just better so I kept it.

 

[Darinwc]

Some of the best lenses are four elements: Tessars. I have a Serenar (Canon) f 3.5 35mm lens that is prone to haze, I easily clean it myself. Most people that have never used this lens almost universally describe it as soft wide open.

I did a test wide open:

I can't really in real life tell the difference between this lens and other lenses with more elements.

I would not recommend it because of the haze problem but I use it and never have thought it 'soft.'

That's a good example and certainly respectable.
I did have a Canon 35mm 3.5.. it was not nearly as good as your example. Maybe there was some haze in my sample or other problem.

 

[Arthur]

https://filmphotograph.com/leica-summicron-lens-m39-f235mm-asphchrome-1999

Here is reference. It is very rare and expensive if you find one.

 

[phosci]

35/2 UC-Hexanon.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I'm also a fan of the Voigtländer Ultron LTM.

gelatine silver print (voigtländer ultron 35mm f1.7) leica m2

Erik.

 

[Arthur]

https://filmphotograph.com/leica-summicron-lens-m39-f235mm-asphchrome-1999-190