Louisianaman
Member
New member and first post.Purchased a Canon 7 and it came with standard.50mm but I'd like a 35mm lens just can't spend a lot of money. Can y'all recommend a sharp lens that's economical?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've tried several Leica Screwmount 35mm lenses. Here's what I think of them:
Leica 35mm f3.5 Elmar: Don't bother with this one. It has the worst image quality and the prices are high due to collector interest. Also the aperture control on it is very hard to use. Most of them also have haze in the glass that lowers image quality further.
35mm f3.5 Elmar. Note image softness at the top and bottom, visible even in this little web-size image.
Leica 35mm f3.5 Summaron: An excellent lens, as sharp across the whole frame as a modern lens when stopped down to f8, and tack sharp in the center even wide open. Most have haze that reduces image quality. Mine was professionally cleaned. Disadvantage is price; they can be expensive, but good ones at low prices come up sometimes. I paid $250 for mine, and the seller had it serviced before he put it up for sale. This lens is tiny and some think its fiddly to use for that reason. I agree, but the image quality is wonderful.
Leica 35mm f3.5 Summaron
Canon 35mm f2.8: A lot of people on RFF like these; they're the cheapest 35mm lens you'll find. Image quality is ok, but not great. I had one briefly and it was not as sharp at the edges as I would have liked. It is small, light, and cheap. Watch out for haze, many of them have it.
Canon 35mm f2.8
Canon 35mm f1.8: This lens is great if you can find one. You have to stop it down to at least f8 to get sharpness across the whole image, but it is sharp in the center at all apertures. Tonal rendering is wonderful. They're typically about $300.
Canon 35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2: This model was an improved version of the 35mm f1.8. It is sharper across the whole frame at wider apertures and gives a slightly higher image contrast. This is styled more like a modern lens; it has no infinity lock, which is how I prefer it. The lock is an annoyance, but most old rangefinder lenses have them. $300-$400 depending on luck and condition. This one is fully competitive with modern lenses and would be my recommendation as the best to get. Extremely sharp!
Canon 35mm f2
Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Color-Skopar: I had one of these briefly. It was very sharp, but I did not like it. It has severe light falloff (vignetting) at the edges,even stopped down and image contrast is very high. Prices have been driven up by collectors, unfortunately, as it is not a rare or old lens. The M-Mount version is still in production.
I don't have any example shots with this lens, I sold it within a couple weeks of buying it because I disliked the way it rendered so much.
Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron ASPH: Build quality is poor; I have seen many of these lenses with wobbly lens barrels, which is unacceptable for such modern lenses (they were made 10-15 yrs ago), and prices are ridiculously high now. They sell used for twice what they cost new when they were still being made. An M-Mount version is still made. Image quality is actually really great. If you can find one at a good price in good condition, it is a first-class lens. Sharp and with nice bokeh.
Voigtlander 35mm f1.7
Leica 35mm f3.5 Elmar: Don't bother with this one. It has the worst image quality and the prices are high due to collector interest. Also the aperture control on it is very hard to use. Most of them also have haze in the glass that lowers image quality further.
35mm f3.5 Elmar. Note image softness at the top and bottom, visible even in this little web-size image.
Leica 35mm f3.5 Summaron: An excellent lens, as sharp across the whole frame as a modern lens when stopped down to f8, and tack sharp in the center even wide open. Most have haze that reduces image quality. Mine was professionally cleaned. Disadvantage is price; they can be expensive, but good ones at low prices come up sometimes. I paid $250 for mine, and the seller had it serviced before he put it up for sale. This lens is tiny and some think its fiddly to use for that reason. I agree, but the image quality is wonderful.
Leica 35mm f3.5 Summaron
Canon 35mm f2.8: A lot of people on RFF like these; they're the cheapest 35mm lens you'll find. Image quality is ok, but not great. I had one briefly and it was not as sharp at the edges as I would have liked. It is small, light, and cheap. Watch out for haze, many of them have it.
Canon 35mm f2.8
Canon 35mm f1.8: This lens is great if you can find one. You have to stop it down to at least f8 to get sharpness across the whole image, but it is sharp in the center at all apertures. Tonal rendering is wonderful. They're typically about $300.
Canon 35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2: This model was an improved version of the 35mm f1.8. It is sharper across the whole frame at wider apertures and gives a slightly higher image contrast. This is styled more like a modern lens; it has no infinity lock, which is how I prefer it. The lock is an annoyance, but most old rangefinder lenses have them. $300-$400 depending on luck and condition. This one is fully competitive with modern lenses and would be my recommendation as the best to get. Extremely sharp!
Canon 35mm f2
Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Color-Skopar: I had one of these briefly. It was very sharp, but I did not like it. It has severe light falloff (vignetting) at the edges,even stopped down and image contrast is very high. Prices have been driven up by collectors, unfortunately, as it is not a rare or old lens. The M-Mount version is still in production.
I don't have any example shots with this lens, I sold it within a couple weeks of buying it because I disliked the way it rendered so much.
Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron ASPH: Build quality is poor; I have seen many of these lenses with wobbly lens barrels, which is unacceptable for such modern lenses (they were made 10-15 yrs ago), and prices are ridiculously high now. They sell used for twice what they cost new when they were still being made. An M-Mount version is still made. Image quality is actually really great. If you can find one at a good price in good condition, it is a first-class lens. Sharp and with nice bokeh.
Voigtlander 35mm f1.7
retinax
Well-known
The very cheapest option is the Jupiter-12. It has a lot of character and crazy field curvature, but is pretty sharp in the center. It may be necessary to bend the light baffle in the Canon slightly out of the way of the large rear element.
GLL
Member
FWIW I owned the Voigtlander 35mm F2.5 CS in m-mount and loved it - it's a tiny lens, very sharp and with excellent modern contrast. It does vignette wide open, but personally i quite like that look (and definitely prefer it to the soft flow of older LTM 35s).
GLL
GLL
zenza
Well-known
The Voigtlander 35/2.5 is a stellar lens. Despite having faster options I still find myself putting it on my cameras often. Super sharp, super affordable. You can find them for <$250 in N America with some patience. It was a fantastic compliment to my Canon P before I sold the camera. Still love using it on my Bessas. I've used both LTM versions and never experienced the extreme light falloff another poster has alluded to.
Here's an example shot wide open.
Here's an example shot wide open.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
The only affordable 35 mm lens in RF is Jupiter-12. The rest cost more than Canon 7.
J-12 is sharp lens. Sometimes needs to have shim added, but it is very easy DIY.
It will need wide angle hood which is sold for few dollars on ebay.
J-12 is sharp lens. Sometimes needs to have shim added, but it is very easy DIY.
It will need wide angle hood which is sold for few dollars on ebay.
My 1952 KMZ J-12 works beautifully with my Leica M9.
BUT- it hits the light baffles of the Canon 7 and Canon P.
The Canon 35/2.8, chrome- is very good.
BUT- it hits the light baffles of the Canon 7 and Canon P.
The Canon 35/2.8, chrome- is very good.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Agree on the chrome Canon 35/2.8. Taken a few months back on Ferrania P-30 film.
Jim B.
Jim B.
newst
Well-known
As a group, 35mm LTM lenses tend to be more expensive than 50mm lenses. Other than the Jupiter-12 you can expect to pay from $00 on up, depending, of course, on the condition of the lens.
The 35mm lenses that I have owned.
Canon:
2/35, A good quality lens with excellent clarity, sharpness, color rendition, and contrast. It has a clean look, almost impossible to tell its images from far more modern lenses. This is, however, why I eventually sold it on. I like an older, more 'classic' look on film than this lens provides.
2.8/35, A decent performer. One could be happy with it as their only 35mm rangefinder lens. I sold it on because the 1.8/35 did everything that it did as well as providing additional speed, in a smaller package.
1.8/35, My go-to 35mm. Small, sharp, producing a lower contrast image that I prefer.
2020-09-26 Stage Canon L1 Canon 35-18 Kentmere 400 000549310016 (2) by newst54, on Flickr
3.5/35, I really can't say how it performs as I just bought it and sent it off to Youxin Ye for a CLA. As I said about lens condition impacting price, I got this lens for $100 because the focus ring isn't functioning properly. I am taking a gamble that Youxin can fix it. A tiny coated Tessar that I want to compare with my uncoated Elmar.
Leica
Elmar 3.5/35, One of my bucket list lenses. Tiny, sharp (a Tessar design) with old-world character. With patience, you can find one in the $250-$300 range. My copy is uncoated and provides a classic image.
2020-01-14 Canon P LOMO800 Elmar 35-35 000371740006 by newst54, on Flickr
Summaron 3.5/35, This is the lens Leica replaced their Elmar with. It is a planar design, a top-notch performer on all levels. Sharp edge-to-edge, good contrast, good color rendering. Small and beautifully made.
2015-11-02 Fence 02 Summaron 35-35 by newst54, on Flickr
Jupiter-12 2.8/35, The least expensive LTM 35mm on the market, this is a copy of the Contax mount Zeiss Biogon. Essentially it is a wide-angle modification of Zeiss' Sonnar lens design. As such it provides excellent sharpness in the center of the image will falling off toward the edges. It is also a low contrast lens. It has a huge rear element that protrudes deeply into the camera body, and an aperture control that is a pain to use.
2020-09-26 Home Canon L1 Jupiter-12 Kentmere 400 000549300033 (2) by newst54, on Flickr
Voigtlander Ultron 1.7/35, I only owned this lens for a brief time. I sold it off quickly because I was not happy with the harsh treatment it provided in the out of focus areas of an image.
The 35mm lenses that I have owned.
Canon:
2/35, A good quality lens with excellent clarity, sharpness, color rendition, and contrast. It has a clean look, almost impossible to tell its images from far more modern lenses. This is, however, why I eventually sold it on. I like an older, more 'classic' look on film than this lens provides.
2.8/35, A decent performer. One could be happy with it as their only 35mm rangefinder lens. I sold it on because the 1.8/35 did everything that it did as well as providing additional speed, in a smaller package.
1.8/35, My go-to 35mm. Small, sharp, producing a lower contrast image that I prefer.
2020-09-26 Stage Canon L1 Canon 35-18 Kentmere 400 000549310016 (2) by newst54, on Flickr3.5/35, I really can't say how it performs as I just bought it and sent it off to Youxin Ye for a CLA. As I said about lens condition impacting price, I got this lens for $100 because the focus ring isn't functioning properly. I am taking a gamble that Youxin can fix it. A tiny coated Tessar that I want to compare with my uncoated Elmar.
Leica
Elmar 3.5/35, One of my bucket list lenses. Tiny, sharp (a Tessar design) with old-world character. With patience, you can find one in the $250-$300 range. My copy is uncoated and provides a classic image.
2020-01-14 Canon P LOMO800 Elmar 35-35 000371740006 by newst54, on FlickrSummaron 3.5/35, This is the lens Leica replaced their Elmar with. It is a planar design, a top-notch performer on all levels. Sharp edge-to-edge, good contrast, good color rendering. Small and beautifully made.
2015-11-02 Fence 02 Summaron 35-35 by newst54, on FlickrJupiter-12 2.8/35, The least expensive LTM 35mm on the market, this is a copy of the Contax mount Zeiss Biogon. Essentially it is a wide-angle modification of Zeiss' Sonnar lens design. As such it provides excellent sharpness in the center of the image will falling off toward the edges. It is also a low contrast lens. It has a huge rear element that protrudes deeply into the camera body, and an aperture control that is a pain to use.
2020-09-26 Home Canon L1 Jupiter-12 Kentmere 400 000549300033 (2) by newst54, on FlickrVoigtlander Ultron 1.7/35, I only owned this lens for a brief time. I sold it off quickly because I was not happy with the harsh treatment it provided in the out of focus areas of an image.
agfa100
Well-known
Way back in 1969 when I was in viet-nam I had a Canon 7Sz and a Vt-deluxe with 4 lenses 19mm 3.5 35mm 2.0 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm 3.5. The 35mm 2.0 is worth getting if you can find one without haze. Also the 100mm 3.5 in black is a great lens. The issue these days is finding those lenses without any haze. As best bang for the buck the 35mm 2.8 Jupiter is a really nice lens that is still cheap/inexpensive good luck on your hunt.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I like the Canon 35mm f2.8 lens and I am also a fan of the Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 lens too and I have two examples of this lens in LTM and the Canon 35mm f2.8 lens is not much different in its image making capabilities than this fine Nikkor lens.
I had good luck with J-12 lenses on the Canon 7 camera..never had one that would not fit the camera and the optical performance is very acceptable and the price cannot be beat.
I had good luck with J-12 lenses on the Canon 7 camera..never had one that would not fit the camera and the optical performance is very acceptable and the price cannot be beat.
Bingley
Veteran
I’ve had most of the lenses that Chris Crawford mentions in his post, and my views are similar to his, although I think the Canon 35/2.8 is better than he does (but not as good as the Summaron 35/3.5). Note that the Voigtlander Skopar 35/2.8 was made in a number of different configurations, including a pancake version; all have the same optical formula so the differences come down to handling. Again, I think the Skopar 35 is a better lens than Chris does (very sharp and modern in rendering), but there can be sample variation.
My most used 35mm lens on my LTM and M mount cameras is the Canon 35/2.0, and I think Chris’s assessment of this lens is right on. In addition to being very sharp and modern in its rendering, it’s also v lightweight due to the aluminum body. My next most used 35mm lens is the Leica Summaron 35/3.5. It’s a stunning little lens, beautifully made, and very sharp w/ medium contrast. You couldn’t go wrong with either of these lenses. Good luck!!
My most used 35mm lens on my LTM and M mount cameras is the Canon 35/2.0, and I think Chris’s assessment of this lens is right on. In addition to being very sharp and modern in its rendering, it’s also v lightweight due to the aluminum body. My next most used 35mm lens is the Leica Summaron 35/3.5. It’s a stunning little lens, beautifully made, and very sharp w/ medium contrast. You couldn’t go wrong with either of these lenses. Good luck!!
Louisianaman
Member
Doesn't the back of the lens hit something in the Canon 7?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
One person who answered in this thread said the J12 works fine in his Canon 7 and another person said it doesn't work in his. The J12 was made for many years so there are probably differences in lenses made in different years, design changes, etc. That may be true of the Canon 7 as well, so its likely a matter of being lucky enough to have the right 'version' of both the camera and the lens.
I have never used a Canon 7; I shoot my LTM lenses on a pair of Leica IIIf bodies and an M3, so I can't give you any firsthand advice on that. Keep in mind that Russian lenses do not focus accurately on Leicas or Canons. The Soviet lenses used the same mount but the focusing calibration was slightly different and the lenses will backfocus unless someone has adjusted them.
retinax
Well-known
Not sure if that's enough in all cases, but I suspect it is.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Some J-12 lenses protruding rear sides might hit the internal baffles on certain Canon 7 cameras and possibly any other Canon RF camera that has these baffles. Not all will do this depending on your lens and your camera.
I found the later made black J-12 lenses to be mostly free from this problem and I own several of these J-12 lenses that I also use on my Zorki and Fed cameras and also on my Nicca/Tower cameras.
Louisianaman
Member
Thanks that kind of rounds it up for me. I'll try to find an affordable 35 3.5 Summaron.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Summarons are good. I have two of them. I also have a CV 35/2.5 in LTM and I have to say that it is a better lens for most people: Parallel mount, sharp, modern good contrast, small but not fiddly small, standard 39mm thread filters, just an all-around excellent lens for most people, especially film users. I think most people would find it a better fit to a Canon 7 in terms of ergonomics as well. Now if we were talking about a Barnack body, there's an argument (perhaps the only one) for the summaron....sleek and "pocketable" package.
I find the 3.5 LTM summaron to be a pain to use by comparison. That's why mine tends to sit unused (and I still need to clean out some haze); because I have nicer lenses to use instead - for LTM, that would mostly be my CV 35/2.5. Now in M mount.... I won't go into that.....
A really nice 35 in LTM would be a UC Hexanon. But, not likely to fit your budget expectations.
Prices for LTM CV 35/2.5 (in good cond) are about equivalent to prices for a clean LTM 3.5 summaron. It will depend on condition and luck. In fact, I would not suggest buying a summaron that hasn't undergone a service recently. Otherwise, it will almost certainly be sluggish focus, stiff aperture (drives me crazy), and that haze will be there and obvious in images. A serviced (CLA'd) summaron is nice enough to use, but still not as ergonomic as the CV and will possibly be more expensive than a fine functioning CV lens.
So, my recommendation is the CV 35/2.5 in LTM (silver). I'm surprised Chris doesn't like this lens. Perhaps he had a bad example. Mine seems to perform well.
I find the 3.5 LTM summaron to be a pain to use by comparison. That's why mine tends to sit unused (and I still need to clean out some haze); because I have nicer lenses to use instead - for LTM, that would mostly be my CV 35/2.5. Now in M mount.... I won't go into that.....
A really nice 35 in LTM would be a UC Hexanon. But, not likely to fit your budget expectations.
Prices for LTM CV 35/2.5 (in good cond) are about equivalent to prices for a clean LTM 3.5 summaron. It will depend on condition and luck. In fact, I would not suggest buying a summaron that hasn't undergone a service recently. Otherwise, it will almost certainly be sluggish focus, stiff aperture (drives me crazy), and that haze will be there and obvious in images. A serviced (CLA'd) summaron is nice enough to use, but still not as ergonomic as the CV and will possibly be more expensive than a fine functioning CV lens.
So, my recommendation is the CV 35/2.5 in LTM (silver). I'm surprised Chris doesn't like this lens. Perhaps he had a bad example. Mine seems to perform well.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is often the case with 50mm FSU LTM RF lenses.
J-12 (I had several) shimming was not making significant difference. And as I mentioned before it is totally DIY. Six minutes to get to the shim and put new shim in (cut from paper with scissors) and take test shows W/O from 1m. If sharp at 1m, it is sharp on greater distance (DOF).
Orion-15 rarely needed shimming, if any at all. And so is Russar.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Summarons are good. I have two of them. I also have a CV 35/2.5 in LTM and I have to say that it is a better lens for most people: Parallel mount, sharp, modern good contrast, small but not fiddly small, standard 39mm thread filters, just an all-around excellent lens for most people, especially film users. I think most people would find it a better fit to a Canon 7 in terms of ergonomics as well. Now if we were talking about a Barnack body, there's an argument (perhaps the only one) for the summaron....sleek and "pocketable" package.
I find the 3.5 LTM summaron to be a pain to use by comparison. That's why mine tends to sit unused (and I still need to clean out some haze); because I have nicer lenses to use instead - for LTM, that would mostly be my CV 35/2.5. Now in M mount.... I won't go into that.....
A really nice 35 in LTM would be a UC Hexanon. But, not likely to fit your budget expectations.
Prices for LTM CV 35/2.5 (in good cond) are about equivalent to prices for a clean LTM 3.5 summaron. It will depend on condition and luck. In fact, I would not suggest buying a summaron that hasn't undergone a service recently. Otherwise, it will almost certainly be sluggish focus, stiff aperture (drives me crazy), and that haze will be there and obvious in images. A serviced (CLA'd) summaron is nice enough to use, but still not as ergonomic as the CV and will possibly be more expensive than a fine functioning CV lens.
So, my recommendation is the CV 35/2.5 in LTM (silver). I'm surprised Chris doesn't like this lens. Perhaps he had a bad example. Mine seems to perform well.
Prices are strange animals. And going up every other month now.
I couldn't find anything special with Summaron 35 3.5. I had it twice. Goggled and just in M mount. Not even close to one Boris Kireev had.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=43507559@N06&view_all=1&text=Summaron 35
Same with Color Skopar 35 2.5. I had all three versions and all three were flat on BW film, prints.
But if they are same in price, CV CS 35 2.5 is way better lens. Because it is newer. You never know then and how old Leitz glass is going to hit you.