35mm

I don't know much about the CV lenses, but I can tell you that you won't be disappointed with the 35mm Summicron asph. I bought mine several months back and am constantly amazed at its performance as well as its overall build quality (it's a jewel). I also own a Canon 35/2.0 LTM (what some folks call the Canon pre-asph Summicron) and can tell you that I find the bokeh of the Summicron asph much more pleasing than the Canon. If you can afford the Summicron-asph, go for it.

Jim Bielecki
 
The new Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2 is supposed to be similar to the 4th gen. preasph cron 35mm Leica. So, I'd get the new lens as opposed to a used one, unless of course the Leica is minty and clean and similar price.
 
The Ultron is said to be quite close to Leica in its signature, despite its modernity. There are plenty of outstanding pictures taken with the lens in the gallery here, notably those by member Peter. Take a look at his gallery to see what the Ultron can do...

 
peter_n said:
The Ultron is said to be quite close to Leica in its signature, despite its modernity. There are plenty of outstanding pictures taken with the lens in the gallery here, notably those by member Peter. Take a look at his gallery to see what the Ultron can do...
Click to expand...
Indeed! It was Peter's work that convinced me to get an Ultron.

Gene
 
I can tell you from experience that the Ultron is an excellent lens and well worth the money. All the CV lenses are a super value.
I can also tell you that although I've had the free use of the Ultron, I'm saving up for the Summicron (pre-Asph) because I just WANT one.!
I agree with Toby about being able to make fine photographs with cheap lenses. In my previous incarnation as a newspaper photographer I made a few award-winners on cheap second-hand Sigmas with my old Nikon. If the image is arresting enough no one is going to pick it apart for things like poor contrast or vignetting.
I find myself disagreeing with the post about Canon L lenses. I recently shot a wedding with a 20D and the EF-S 17-85 and the 70-200 f4L. The images from the L had (IMHO) superior detail, contrast and colour rendering. It's a super lens and I highly recommend it to any Canon EOS shooters. This is only MY opinion from my own observations and I'm not suggesting that anyone else is wrong or misinformed.
The more experience I acquire the more I find myself actually able to tell the difference between various lenses and the qualities they offer. A few years ago I never thought I would "waste" the kind of money it takes to get into a Leica system when I could get so much more for my Nikon, but here I am with my M4 and Summicron 50.
But ultimately, you should be shooting for yourself first so get the best lens you can afford.
PS: I've also saving up for the CV Color-Skopar 21!
 
All the arguments being more than valid, the one that grabbed me by the boo-boo's was that I could buy an Ultron, be perfectly happy with but would still want the Summicron, just because it's a summicron. I thought I wasn't that sort of a guy, but after a few glasses of Lagavullin and some horrible inner truth searching I think I might be that sort of a guy after all (hehehehe) ... so visiting peters Ultron gallery and comparing with summi's I personally see no difference (in technique that is, peters shots are nice) but went out yesterday afternoon and purchased a Leica M35 Asph. in very good condition with all papers/packaging etc. The price; high enough not to let my wife find out ..... But still going to test it later this afternoon and do some developing and printing tonight, I'm sure I will like it.
I am able to return it within 7 days and swap it for a 4th generation 35mm ....

Whilst in the shop my eye fell on the Elmarit 21mm .... mmmmmm
 
Last edited:
Pymm,

Congrats on the new lens! I'm sure you'll take some wonderful pictures. It would be interesting to try both the asph and non-asph and compare the same shots.

I recently purchased a used 4th generation 35 Summicron and love the character of the pics from the first couple of rolls. I have a 40 Rokkor (which is also a great lens) and the 35 cron is my first 35 lens but I think I see more naturally with it than the Rokkor. That extra 5mm seems to make a difference, IMO. Have fun taking pictures!

Way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tortellini_man
first M mount film body
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
JohnGellings
J
R
Leica M3 Lens issue
Replies
16
Views
1K
Richard G
Richard G
Photar
EL lenses for macro purposes?
Replies
6
Views
325
Photar
Photar
Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
p.giannakis
The concept of micro-contrast
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
peterm1
peterm1
Back
Top Bottom