35mm Screw Mount

The Canon 35mm f2.8, f2, or f1.8 are all excellent.
The f3.5 not so much.. it is only a 4 element lens.
There is also a f3.2 which should be good as it is a 6 element lens but I have never had one.

The Leica summaron had a good reputation.

Any of the Voigtlander 35s are excellent.
 
If you are on a budget, or even if you're not, The Jupiter-12 is superb, if you get a good copy. Buy from a reputable dealer such as fedka.com. Mine came from that site, and I'll put it's performance and rendering up against the current ZM 35/2.8. It's that good!
 
I am currently working exclusively with a Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5. A very nice lens with no major problems that I have found to this point. I can recommend it.

While the one I am currently working with is an M-mount version I have found the LTM mount version to be pretty much identical.
 
darinwc said:
The Canon 35mm f2.8, f2, or f1.8 are all excellent.
The f3.5 not so much.. it is only a 4 element lens. There is also a f3.2 which should be good as it is a 6 element lens but I have never had one..
Click to expand...

The 35/3.5 is a Tessar-based lens, the other Canon 35mm lenses are Gauss-based. Each have their own unique optical characteristics. Up to the shooter as to what you prefer.

Jim B.
 
Nikkor 35/2.5. A tiny gem, super sharp with a certain 'bite' the Canon f2.8 and f1.8 don't have (I haven't tried the F2.0 yet). It also has some of that vintage swirl wide open. It seems to have gotten hard to find lately however.
 
I have the Canon 35/2.0, 35/2.8, and the Voigtlander Skopar 35mm f2.5 PI. I would recommend the Canon 35/2.0 w/out hesitation; ditto the Skopar 35/2.5. They render differently, of course, but they’re both v compact, v sharp, and v well constructed lenses.

Thoughts on the Canon P: beautiful camera, very rugged, but 35mm framelines are really hard to see if you wear glasses. This is a camera that excels for 50mm and 90/100mm shooters. That said, if you can find a Canon 35/2.0 in good condition, I’d go for that. It’s such a lovely lens! If you can’t find one of those, then I’d look for a CV Skopar 35/2.5.
 
I agree 100% with Bingley. The Canon 35mm f2 is a great lens. The Skopar 35mm f2.5 (which I also have) is also a great lens, but different. If I had to choose I would keep the Canon but actually I keep both. The Skopar seems more contrasty and if the scene is high contrast the images can seem a little harsh. I have taken apart both lenses to lubricate and the engineering of the Canon feels better but both I'm sure are adequate.
 
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:

full frame:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

edge blowup:

Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

center blowup:
Neopan Acros 100 expired by John Carter, on Flickr

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.'
 
Retro-Grouch said:
If you are on a budget, or even if you're not, The Jupiter-12 is superb, if you get a good copy. Buy from a reputable dealer such as fedka.com. Mine came from that site, and I'll put it's performance and rendering up against the current ZM 35/2.8. It's that good!
Click to expand...

Just a note of caution on a Jupiter, I vaguely recall that some versions of the J-12 lenses won't mount on some Canon bodies because of internal baffles in the cameras. You might want to research that issue.
 
Larry H-L said:
Just a note of caution on a Jupiter, I vaguely recall that some versions of the J-12 lenses won't mount on some Canon bodies because of internal baffles in the cameras. You might want to research that issue.
Click to expand...
The baffles can be (gently!) bent out of the way. But maybe there are combinations where that's not enough, I don't know.
My Jupiter-12 is reasonably sharp and draws nicely but suffers from a) field curvature and b) quite a bit of pincushion distortion. I think it's sharper closer up than near infinity but I haven't done systematic tests.
Some people find the aperture ring objectionable but I can live with it. The great large focusing ring and super quick to read/zone focus distance scale make up for it.
 
For LTM, here are some suggestions.

The VC Color Skopar 35/2.5 is going to be the best considering cost/performance.

If you want to spend alot of money, the Konica UC-Hex 35/2 or the Leica Summaron 35/2.8. But neither of these lenses is clearly better than the Skopar.

For cheaper vintage options, the Canon 35/2 or the W-Nikkor 35/2.5. The Canon is more modern, smaller, and easier to focus.
 
The four element Elmar 35mm f/3.5 is very small but is a great lens. The uncoated ones are almost as good as the coated ones, but are easier to clean. The coating of old lenses is easily damaged. The six element Summaron 35mm f/3.5 is very nice too. The f-stop of this lens is more practical than the one on the Elmar.

Erik.
 
gelatine silver print (summaron 35mm f3.5 ltm) leica mp

Erik.

48007332973_ba0d17f7aa_b.jpg
 
bluesun267 said:
No love for the Nikkor?
Click to expand...

I have two Nikkor 35's in LTM mount, the 35/3.5 and 35/2.5. The 2.5 is the sharper of the two at the same apertures. Neither has the contrast of a more modern lens like the 35/2.5 Voigtländer I sold because of some mechanical issues. Of the three, my favorite for B&W is the 35/2.5 Nikkor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jbennett68
Reccomendation a leader trimmer for me.
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
stuart_115
stuart_115
aoresteen
Nikkor RF Lens Cleaning
Replies
3
Views
317
Bingley
Bingley
1
Canon p Lens mount confusion
Replies
3
Views
3K
123rr
1
azor
Need help identifying Leica and Canon screw mount camera models?
Replies
3
Views
1K
dexdog
D
G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
WJJ3
WJJ3
Back
Top Bottom