Pymm
"Clacker"
Hi all,
I have the funds to purchase a 35mm Summicron Asph. I have been reading up quite a bit on 35mm's and I've come across the Ultron, very much cheaper and supposably just about on parr with the summi, give or take some minor differences. I still tend to go with the Summi though, even if it is (much) more expensive. My question is, are VC lenses comparible to Leica lenses, obviously the VC crowd say they are, and the Leica crowd say they are not. What I want from any piece of photographic equipment is that it will last half a lifetime, and that I can pass my stuff over to my son. Does this go for VC lenses ? (I understand they are not that old yet so the proof isn't there) any views on this ?
I have the funds to purchase a 35mm Summicron Asph. I have been reading up quite a bit on 35mm's and I've come across the Ultron, very much cheaper and supposably just about on parr with the summi, give or take some minor differences. I still tend to go with the Summi though, even if it is (much) more expensive. My question is, are VC lenses comparible to Leica lenses, obviously the VC crowd say they are, and the Leica crowd say they are not. What I want from any piece of photographic equipment is that it will last half a lifetime, and that I can pass my stuff over to my son. Does this go for VC lenses ? (I understand they are not that old yet so the proof isn't there) any views on this ?
Goodyear
Happy-snap ninja
Can't speak for the Ultron, or compare with Leica glass, as I have none of these.
However, the CV lenses I do have (35/2.5 classic, 21/4, and 75/2.5) all have a very solid feel to them, and I have no reason to doubt they will last much longer than I will. Certainly, they compare favourably with other glass (various SLR bits) I have that is already about the same age as me and showing no signs of not lasting.
However, the CV lenses I do have (35/2.5 classic, 21/4, and 75/2.5) all have a very solid feel to them, and I have no reason to doubt they will last much longer than I will. Certainly, they compare favourably with other glass (various SLR bits) I have that is already about the same age as me and showing no signs of not lasting.
pvdhaar
Peter
Want something in between? Why not consider a Konica 35/2 M-Hexanon? M-Hexanons have fit and finish up to Leica standards, superb glass and are priced between the CV's and Leica.
Goodyear
Happy-snap ninja
Had I the funds, I'd be looking at some ZI fun as well.
I think it's the blue locator-dots speaking to me!
I think it's the blue locator-dots speaking to me!
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Are you sure you want an aspherical lens? The may be the sharpest around, but they all look like canon slr lenses, i think they miss the Leica signature.
I would rather think about a second hand 35mm summicron 4th.
But if you really want sharpness then go for the Ultron and save some money.
I would rather think about a second hand 35mm summicron 4th.
But if you really want sharpness then go for the Ultron and save some money.
GeneW
Veteran
The CV lenses are very good optically, but are not built as ruggedly or precisely as a Leica lens. For many of us, the CV lenses make economic sense -- they're a good trade-off between optical quality and build quality at a reasonable price -- but if you want the best of the best, get a Leica lens.
Gene
Gene
Toby
On the alert
The CV lens is only cheap if it cures the longing for the Summicron. If you buy the Ultron but still end up buying the 'cron later on you will actually end up spending more money
Goodyear
Happy-snap ninja
Man, this is RFF. That's crazy talk round here!Toby said:
Pymm
"Clacker"
All makes sense to me 
I'll check out the non-asph. summis, don't want my shots to end up looking liking resharpened digital slr. pics....
I'll check out the non-asph. summis, don't want my shots to end up looking liking resharpened digital slr. pics....
Pymm
"Clacker"
... a second hand 35mm summicron 4th"
excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a 35mm Summicron 4th ?
excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a 35mm Summicron 4th ?
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Buy a used 35/2 Summicron 4th version, you can't go wrong.
Who knows maybe 20 years from now people will be shelling out the big bucks for a 2004-2006 VC 35 pancake II....because of the "look".
Todd
Who knows maybe 20 years from now people will be shelling out the big bucks for a 2004-2006 VC 35 pancake II....because of the "look"
.Todd
Pymm
"Clacker"
OK Thanks I will look into that. Do you have any clue about serial number range I should look for ?
I found a couple of Canadian 35 Summicrons .... serial number 25xxxx something
And a German made ser. no. 22xxxx something
I found a couple of Canadian 35 Summicrons .... serial number 25xxxx something
And a German made ser. no. 22xxxx something
Pymm
"Clacker"
OK.... should of looked further ... I found a 4th version, 1980 with ser.number 31xxxxx. And also a 3rd. version with ser. number 27xxxxxx which has an A classification also but is more expensive.
I'll be looking at appr. 800€ for A grade 35 non. asph. this from a reputable shop. Is this a going price ?
I'll be looking at appr. 800€ for A grade 35 non. asph. this from a reputable shop. Is this a going price ?
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
If it's in good shape, 800 euros is a fitting price.
Now... if you have the funds, get the aspherical anyway. As Toby said, going for the Ultron will only relieve the itch, not cure it.
I speak from experience. Even though I have a Konica Hexanon 35/2 (which I didn't recommend because it's kinda hard to find), I still long for a Summilux 35/f1.4. Now, if I had grabbed the Summilux earlier...
I'd be even poorer than I am!
Now... if you have the funds, get the aspherical anyway. As Toby said, going for the Ultron will only relieve the itch, not cure it.
I speak from experience. Even though I have a Konica Hexanon 35/2 (which I didn't recommend because it's kinda hard to find), I still long for a Summilux 35/f1.4. Now, if I had grabbed the Summilux earlier...
I'd be even poorer than I am!
ywenz
Veteran
Pymm said:All makes sense to me
I'll check out the non-asph. summis, don't want my shots to end up looking liking resharpened digital slr. pics....
I don't think that's anything you have to worry about if you're working with an analog RF. The pics you get will NEVER be sharp like the DSLRs, dispite the lens you use.
GeneW
Veteran
I don't understand what you're saying here. When I take DSLR shots, they come out of the camera quite soft and need sharpening as an additional step. When I scan analog negatives in my scanner, they come out soft and need sharpening as an additional step. I see no differences between the two in terms of sharpness, though I see many differences in tonality.ywenz said:
Gene
JohnL
Very confused
My experience is similar to Gene's on this.
Actually, I think the differences between different film types and between film & digital are far more significant than the differences between different reasonably modern brands of lens. Add post-processing to that and you have even more variation. I really don't believe that anyone can consistently and reliably identify the different brands of lenses used by looking at the end results, except if there is a significant difference in format, and then only when the print size is rather large. Differences of lens contrast / colour rendition can easily be swamped by differences in film contrast / colour rendition and/or differences in post-processing. Virtually all modern lenses are capable of adequate sharpness for real-life images, where high sharpness is neither possible nor expected over the entire image, for DOF reasons if no other. The margin between the best and plain vanilla is much lower than it used to be.
In the final analysis I usually find I get good results when I manage to do things right (the reverse also applies) and this with mainly "consumer-grade" glass. Most of my recent experience is SLR, rather than RF, so taking that as an example, I have one Canon "L" lens out of a total of nine lenses in EOS mount from different makers. I cannot distinguish between any of them from scrutinizing the final results, except from perspective, which can tell me if I used a wide-angle or a tele. For example: I have four ways of getting 24mm (Sigma 12-24, Canon 20-35, Canon 24/1.4, Tokina 24-200). The only time I could guess which lens was used from looking at the images would be in "low-light and probably hand-held" situations, where I most likely would have used the 1.4.
Now I just got a RF body and 3 CV lenses. I expect they'll perform just fine, so long as I do my stuff properly.
Actually, I think the differences between different film types and between film & digital are far more significant than the differences between different reasonably modern brands of lens. Add post-processing to that and you have even more variation. I really don't believe that anyone can consistently and reliably identify the different brands of lenses used by looking at the end results, except if there is a significant difference in format, and then only when the print size is rather large. Differences of lens contrast / colour rendition can easily be swamped by differences in film contrast / colour rendition and/or differences in post-processing. Virtually all modern lenses are capable of adequate sharpness for real-life images, where high sharpness is neither possible nor expected over the entire image, for DOF reasons if no other. The margin between the best and plain vanilla is much lower than it used to be.
In the final analysis I usually find I get good results when I manage to do things right (the reverse also applies) and this with mainly "consumer-grade" glass. Most of my recent experience is SLR, rather than RF, so taking that as an example, I have one Canon "L" lens out of a total of nine lenses in EOS mount from different makers. I cannot distinguish between any of them from scrutinizing the final results, except from perspective, which can tell me if I used a wide-angle or a tele. For example: I have four ways of getting 24mm (Sigma 12-24, Canon 20-35, Canon 24/1.4, Tokina 24-200). The only time I could guess which lens was used from looking at the images would be in "low-light and probably hand-held" situations, where I most likely would have used the 1.4.
Now I just got a RF body and 3 CV lenses. I expect they'll perform just fine, so long as I do my stuff properly.
ywenz
Veteran
GeneW said:
You always have the option of adjusting the in-camera sharpness of your DSLR.. But back to my point, I feel digital always had this harsh / sharp definition in the image tonality. You can unsharpen the heck out of the image from film but it will still look softer than the digital image (in a visceral way). This is a fact that can not be changed by swapping the lens.
Toby
On the alert
I agree with g-man's assertion that it is difficult to differentiate between different lenses. When I got my first picture agency contract I didn't own a lens that cost me more than £100. I don't think that is the issue with this kind of purchase. This is as much about pride of ownership, there is a pleasure in owning nice things -a 35mm 'cron is a nice thing. In some ways old lenses have a magic that newer sharper kit does not have. It's the journey as much as the results.
Fred
Feline Great
Stumbling back to the original thread (although the whole lot makes very interesting reading)
The Ultron is said by some to be as 'good' as a pre ASPH cron and that really is good. I have been fortunate to use both the Ultron and the ASPH and would prefer the build and feel of the cron in use, however there really is a lot of difference in cost new or used. If this is your first RF 35 I'd go and get the Ultron and a shed full of film for the cost difference, it's a really nice lens.
If however you really want and can afford a new cron (arguably the best), go for it, a new Leica optic is hard to afford and even harder to beat.
The Ultron is said by some to be as 'good' as a pre ASPH cron and that really is good. I have been fortunate to use both the Ultron and the ASPH and would prefer the build and feel of the cron in use, however there really is a lot of difference in cost new or used. If this is your first RF 35 I'd go and get the Ultron and a shed full of film for the cost difference, it's a really nice lens.
If however you really want and can afford a new cron (arguably the best), go for it, a new Leica optic is hard to afford and even harder to beat.