35vs40mm with lowest contrast and on a budget

[Dunn]

I've been looking to buy a 35 for my M6. I have just a 50 and want something wider. I'm on a budget right now until I can afford something better. I've been looking at the CV 35mm skopar pII, the CV 35mm ultron, zeiss 35mm biogon (this being high price choice), and, recently leica 40mm summicron or minolta 40mm rokkor.

I shoot 95% black and white and a lot of times in low light, high contrast. Out of those lenses which offers the least contrast. I've read mixed things online. The skopar seems like a good option, but I would like a wider aperture.

Also, is 40mm really that much different from 35? And is it far enough away from 50? I know it will bring up 50mm framelines, but I think I can get used to that.

Thanks.

 

[biakalt]

i was in the same situation once and decided to go with Summicron-C, good bang for the bucks. in terms of angle, its far away from 50mm focal length, more like a 35mm. some said it behaves like the Cron 35mm IV version (king of bokeh). i've also use the 35/2.5 Color Skopar which proves to be a sharp and compact lens, but i didnt really enjoy its rendition that much.

with the 40mm you can file the lens flange to bring up 35mm frame on M6, I've done that and it works perfectly and accurately with M6's 35mm frameline.

you can see some of mine that taken with both lens here:

cron-c 40mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/blind_idiot/tags/summicron40mmf20/

35/2.5 skopar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/blind_idiot/tags/voigtlandercolorskopar35mmf25pii/

cheers

 

[ferider]

The same people that will tell you that 40 and 35 are very close, will emphasize that 28 and 35 or 75 and 90 are very far apart (same difference).

I recommend to use the focal length the camera framelines were made for; this is what I moved to eventually, after trying 40/2 Summicron and Rokkor, and the two 40/1.4 Noktons - all excellent lenses.

The 40/2 options are basically of similar design and rendering than the seven element 35/2 Summicron v4 - meaning same bokeh, and moderate to high contrast for color films such as Velvia. If you decide to go for one of those, the best built one is the CLE Rokkor version, the one with straight RF cam.

WRT lower contrast 35mm lens, you could look for a 35/1.7 Ultron. Or one of the classic lenses, like 35/2 Summicron v1, Canon 35/1.8, Nikkor 35/1.8, where the Canon is very good and usually more affordable than the other two.

Or - just try the 35/1.4 Nokton SC and see if you like it. They hold value well, and having an f1.4 lens is often very useful.

Best,

Roland.

 

[jsrockit]

Canon 35mm f/2 or the CV Ultron 1.7

 

[Rob-F]

I have the 35mm f/3.5 CV, and find it to be quite contrasty. For that reason I'm thinking you may not like it. I have the 40/2 Rokkor and the 40m/1.4 CV. I'd say the Rokkor would be worth considering. Nice rendition, and the contrast is not too high (though I wouldn't call it "low"). It also works well with the M6 and MP 35mm framelines, which are undersized compared to, say, my M2. The accuracy at medium to long distances has been very good. From across the width of a four-lane city street, I get exactly--and I mean exactly--the same picture width I see in the finder. I wrote down in my notebook where I placed the left and right framelines, something like "right frameline on right edge of building; Left frameline on window frame;" and the mounted slide matched exactly. A black and white negative would include a tiny bit more width.

With my M2, I usually use a 35mm lens. Even with the M2, it still covers a bit more than the framelines show; but it's close enough.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

buy CV skopar P and use low contrast film like HP5

color skopar is contrasty lens.

 

[Roger Vadim]

Really low contrast - and some charming atitude: Jupiter J12 2.8/35
You'll need an adaptor for it, but its really cheap.
Great for indoors. But be aware: its got character😉

wide open & REALLY bad scans, curved neg on an ancient epson 1640... wetprints are nicer

 

[john neal]

Why not try a 35mm Elmar in LTM + a LTM to M converter - lowest contrast, guartanteed

 

[wlewisiii]

I've had the Canon 35/1.8 in the past and would recommend it for your described use. It's a very nice, underrated lens.

A good J12 can be a very nice lens but you need to buy from a known source. I've had good ones but the last one was a bit soft on my IIIf and probably needed shimming by an optical engineer... 😉

 

[Mablo]

For lowish contrast but otherwise a pleasing image quality in B&W a Canon 35mm/1.8 is the one for me. It's really tiny and you won't even need a shade.

 

[Dunn]

Thanks, guys.

I'm going to look into some of those Canon lenses.

Also, I forgot to ask about the CV 40mm Nokton. It seems to be a good lens at a good price. But I saw some guy on Flickr say it's really like 43mm. I didn't really understand why he said that. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

 

[braver]

From my experience with Canon LTM lenses and common reputation, I'd say the 35/2 is really the ticket. Otherwise the 40 Summicron-c is a great bang for the buck, and optically it's excellent. It's a bit of a problem with filters though, and I didn't like the ergonomics that much. If that's no matter to you, 35mm framelines are accurate enough for it and you get a whole lot of value for your money.

 

[back alley]

a bit slower but sharp with low contrast is the canon 35/2.8...very nice lens.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I wouldn't be afraid of using an f/2.8 or f/3.5 in low light. I've owned both the pre- and post ASPH Summiluxes, a 35 v.3 Summicron, the 40 Rokkor-M, the CV 35/2.5, and a 35 Summaron-M.

In the end, I think you get the same number of "keepers" or in-focus shots with the slower lenses as you do with the faster lenses. Shooting at f/1.4 with its shallow depth of field isn't a whole lot better than shooting a slower shutter speed with f/2.8's wider depth of field.

In the end, you adjust your shots to what will work, the lens will define you (or you'll sell it).

For character and value, I'd try a 35/3.5 Summaron LTM with an adapter. And faster film. It would be the most forgiving of crappy mixed harsh light too, I think.

For a good general lens, the 40/2 Rokkor is probably the best value, it is easier to find hoods for it than it is for the 40/2 Summicron.

The reason to get a faster 1.4 or 1.2 lens is more for isolating your subject by focusing on it with a very shallow depth of field. Not to get that extra stop of shutter speed in the bar....

I think the framelines for the 35 are really better for the 40 ;-) they are slightly different between the M-versions so it is best to just practice and adapt to your camera.

See I really think we adapt to our gear and not the other way around!

 

[ChrisC]

.... 35 for my M6...... 95% black and white and a lot of times in low light, high contrast........

Hi - Had you been wedded to shooting transparency film I would understand your post's concerns better because of the inherent contrast of 'trannies'. But you are shooting B&W, so I don't understand why you wouldn't grab the benefits of contrast/resolution in a good modern lens and tame any perceived contrast problems in your negatives by amending their processing. That's what I would do, and my 35m lens of choice is the outstanding Zeiss C-Biogon f2.8, a lens which replaced my former 35mm C.V Colour Skopar Classic, and which is noticeably quite superior to the C.V. for my work.

I know that f2.8 is regarded by some to be a slow lens; but not by me.

................ Chris

 

[venchka]

a bit slower but sharp with low contrast is the canon 35/2.8...very nice lens.

I have the early version-chrome over brass, 34mm filters, tiny. Great lens.