40 rokkor or 35 summaron or 40 nokton?

[like2fiddle]

Hi folks,
I've read a wide range of opinions regarding 35 to 40mm lenses. I purchased a 40mm CV Nokton MC back in August when I bought a CV R3M. The R3M had a couple of problems so the dealer was willing to take it back. I kept the lens however, because the "restocking fee" was quite hefty. I took the refund and did what I probably should have done in the first place, I bought a user M2. I have been very happy with the M2. The Nokton lens produces nice images, but when I compared them to those from the 50mm Summitar I picked-up, there is a discernable difference. It's not that I don't like the Nokton images, there's just a difference in sharpness and contrast between the two and I like the Summitar results better. So... the question I really want to get advice on is: I'd like a wider lens than the 50; 35 to 40 is my preference. I've read many opinions supporting the 40 rokkor over the 35 summicron because there doesn't seem to be enough difference in the results to justify the significant difference in price. The other lens I've read about and am tempted by is the 35 2.8 summiron which seems to fall into a price range somewhere between the 40 rokkor and the 35 summicron. Jupiter has also been often mentioned as a low cost quality result lens. Has anybody out there tried all five lenses? Any advice?

 

[like2fiddle]

hey ManGo,
thanks for that advice. I was wondering about the pancake lens. The group pool at Flickr has some great shots.

 

[nightfly]

I bought an M4-P with a 40mm Summicron because I couldn't justify the cost of a 35mm Summicron.

Long story short, I sold the 40 and bought a 35 because a 40 is too in-between a focal length for me. I just didn't like it and although the image quality is similar, it really depends if you are OK with that focal length.

 

[like2fiddle]

Ferider, Nightfly

To my eye the summitar is sharper than the Nokton and the OOF areas, both in foreground and background are more "softly" out of focus. As far as contrast goes, I don't see a tremendous difference. I don't know much about the Canon 35 f2 lens, but I'm willing to learn.

The 40 vs 35 field of view, etc. really isn't overwhelmingly important to me. One reason I would go for the 35 is that it might "force" me to get a little closer to my subject in some cases, something I've always had difficulty with.

 

[rover]

Let me throw my hat in for the 40 Rokkor (CLE). I had one and sold it due to my having a nice 35, but I have to say in retrospect that it is one lens that still stands out to me.

 

[nrb]

I too like the look of the Summitar images. In my limited experience the Summaron is the 35 lens that most approaches that look.
Nuno

 

[summaron]

I've done a quick test with a 40mm Summicron verson of the Rokkor against the 35mm 2.8 Summaron in b&w. The Summaron had more contrast in the out of focus areas and an overall more interesting look. That said, I use a 40mm f2.8 Sonnar most of the time because I like that focal length.

 

[richard_l]

I have the 40/2 Rokkor and the 35/2.8 Summaron. The Rokkor is a fine lens. This is very subjective, but I prefer the look of the Summaron images as well as its ergonomics.

Richard

 

[3js]

Let me throw my hat in for the 40 Rokkor (CLE).

Well, that´s two hats now🙂 Just get the 40 Rokkor.

 

[sleepyhead]

Hello, I've used all three of the lenses that you ask about, and summicron was the 4th version with the "reknowned" bokeh. If you didn't already have a 50mm summitar and love it, I would sugest the 40mm rokkor as a good choice, certainly more bang for the buck than the 35 summicron.

But, since you have the 50 summitar, I think the 35mm summaron would make a great pair with it, field-of-view wise, and "signature/look" wise. The 35mm pre-ASPH summicrons are a bit over-rated and over-priced in my opinion.

 

[lns]

I have the 50mm Summitar and the 35mm Summaron. The Summaron is my favorite lens. They are a great pair.

 

[Crasis]

You know, I was thinking about this and I've come to the conclusion that the Summicron pre-asphs are not overpriced. There's no monopoly, there's no one forcing you to buy them at these prices, yet people are buying them.

Want to know overpriced? Wedding rings. Diamond wedding rings. ZERO resale value yet you spend what.. 2 months salary on it and for what? So De Beers can get rich off of an ad campaign they started in the 1940s. Would you or have you bought your significant other a diamond wedding ring? Congratulations on buying a worthless and overpriced item.

Lenses? Never worthless. Never overpriced.

 

[xabi]

Well, that´s two hats now🙂 Just get the 40 Rokkor.

Three hats now. The rokkor is a fine lens and the 40mm focal length is very easy to get used to.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Want to know overpriced? Wedding rings. Diamond wedding rings. .

Don't you know? It is about 'love' ... which is priceless as we all know 😉

And I'd suggest you say that to your significant other too 😛

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Three hats now. The rokkor is a fine lens and the 40mm focal length is very easy to get used to.

Back on topic ... make that four hats ... best combination of sharpness, size, bokeh, and price.

 

[vrgard]

Back on topic ... make that four hats ... best combination of sharpness, size, bokeh, and price.

Make that five hats for the reasons Tom has so simply stated.

-Randy

 

[3js]

Back on topic ... make that four hats ... best combination of sharpness, size, bokeh, and price.

Oh my, oh my, what shall we do with all these hats?

 

[ERV]

Oh my, oh my, what shall we do with all these hats?

Anyone read the childrens book "Hats for Sale" ?
Well, the punchline is 'you monkeys you, give me back my hats!"

Anyway, I have a 40 cron and it is one of my favorites.
The summitar is a 1950's lens and matching its quality in a wider focal length will be difficult I think. The 35 2.8 summaron is expensive and hard to find, and the 3.5 may be too slow. The 35 color skoper is too contrasty for my taste and is nothing like a summitar. I have both and plan to sell the skoper.
Another idea; sell the CV40 MC and get a CV40 SC. Steven Gandy has it on sale for a couple more days. It may have the look that you're interested in.
Good luck!

 

[like2fiddle]

Okay, I'm glad I asked. Lot's of information/opinions. As I have but one head on which to put all those hats... I am going to try out the summaron. Given that I shoot almost exclusively B&W and I really like the "signature" of the summitar, the summaron seems like it might have an edge in helping me get the look I like. The extra field of view from the 50 to 35 also makes more sense to me than 50 to 40. If I like it, I'll probably put the CV 40 up for sale, but I don't know, those extra couple of stops indoors... But, can't afford to keep everything!

 

[Gadge]

I have a 40mm CLE and an Ultron CV 35.

The Ultron makes really quite nice images. Mine is in chrome which has shown no wear to date. It has a naff hood though and can flare as a result. Depite liking the lens with no worries re frame sizing, I realise, in writing this, that I haven't actually used it since getting a 40mm a couple of years ago.

I find the Rokkor CLE to be wonderfully compact and nicely sharp. Personally I find OOF area is a weakness and not a strength of this lens so I'm surprised by comments in this thread that suggest otherwise. That said it is hardly ever off the camera as I really like the ergonomics when using it. I bought a cheap Ebay vented metal lens hood that screws on. This looks amazing and lens front is well protected. It also still fits a standard Leica ever ready case with the hood on so need for a lens cap. This was a pleasant surprise after receiving the hood.

I admit that I have sometimes toyed with the idea of selling both, adding a bit more cash 😱 and upgrading to a 35mm Asph 'chron but so far haven't succumbed to temptation. I can't honestly say that my use of the camera demands any extra quality so it would be a want rather than a need purchase.