Fraser
Well-known
I've been thinking about getting another 35mm lens for my M9 maybe 35mm asph Summicron but I would probably prefer the pre asph Summicron, but I've already got a pre asph 35mm summilux and a 28mm Summicron. So the question is will I gain anything from another 35mm lens?
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
Fraser what exactly are you looking for from this "new" lens that the Summilux doesn't give you? From f2 up the pre asph Summilux and ver 4 Summicron are very similar.
Fraser
Well-known
That's kind of what I was wanting to hear, ie no real reason to go for the Summicron.
umcelinho
Marcelo
if you are looking for a fast lens and don't mind the size, the 1.2 nokton is a great lens, very resistant to flare and a more modern look vs the pre-asph lux. also, a tad faster.
but if you're looking for a slower but sharper lens, maybe the 2.8 biogon could complement it well.
having lenses with very different looks in the same focal length is useful sometimes if you don't mind switching, for some situations some are best, some are worse.
i am not a big fan of lens flare, so i like flare resistant lenses. but i also like low contrast, old looking images... so having lenses in both directions is nice when you want to achieve a specific visual character.
i like the v4 cron a lot, it's tiny, has nice color tones and i dont see any distortion, but it can flare a lot (purple toned), the square hood helps but won't 100% keep it flare free.
the 1.4 nokton is quite versatile, but since it's pretty much a pre-asph lux copy, it'd be redundant.
the f2 canon ltm is a very nice lens, i've been shooting with it these days, haven't got many frames with it but it's tiny, light, sharp, renders nicely. min focus 1m, though, and odd filter size (i dont use any, so not an issue for me).
1.7 ultron is a very nice lens, a tad faster than f2, but sharp, resistant to flare (i can use it even without the built in hood and it won't flare), good ergonomics but not as tiny as the others. very nice bokeh.
but if you're looking for a slower but sharper lens, maybe the 2.8 biogon could complement it well.
having lenses with very different looks in the same focal length is useful sometimes if you don't mind switching, for some situations some are best, some are worse.
i am not a big fan of lens flare, so i like flare resistant lenses. but i also like low contrast, old looking images... so having lenses in both directions is nice when you want to achieve a specific visual character.
i like the v4 cron a lot, it's tiny, has nice color tones and i dont see any distortion, but it can flare a lot (purple toned), the square hood helps but won't 100% keep it flare free.
the 1.4 nokton is quite versatile, but since it's pretty much a pre-asph lux copy, it'd be redundant.
the f2 canon ltm is a very nice lens, i've been shooting with it these days, haven't got many frames with it but it's tiny, light, sharp, renders nicely. min focus 1m, though, and odd filter size (i dont use any, so not an issue for me).
1.7 ultron is a very nice lens, a tad faster than f2, but sharp, resistant to flare (i can use it even without the built in hood and it won't flare), good ergonomics but not as tiny as the others. very nice bokeh.
gdmcclintock
Well-known
You might like the Zeiss Biogon 2.8 lens. Chris Crawford has posted many terrific photographs he made with the Biogon.
ramosa
B&W
Fraser:
As compared to the Lux 35 pre-asph, the Cron 35 asph will be a stop slower (of course), sharper at 2.0, and with a more clinical feel (as compared to the unpredictable--and, at times, beautiful--coma-laden rendering of the Lux). The question is, is that what you want? (I think they're both fine lenses, but my first choice would be the Cron.)
As compared to the Lux 35 pre-asph, the Cron 35 asph will be a stop slower (of course), sharper at 2.0, and with a more clinical feel (as compared to the unpredictable--and, at times, beautiful--coma-laden rendering of the Lux). The question is, is that what you want? (I think they're both fine lenses, but my first choice would be the Cron.)
porktaco
Well-known
canon 35/2.0 ltm
roundg
Well-known
or canon 35/1.8. Canon lens always give me surprise on how well they were built and how good they can deliver.
The Meaness
Well-known
I'm surprised no one has piped up from the UC-Hex crowd yet.
raid
Dad Photographer
I still prefer the Version 1 Summicron 35/2.
I don't mind also using Version 2 Summilux 35/1.4.
Both are great lenses.
I don't mind also using Version 2 Summilux 35/1.4.
Both are great lenses.
rodl
Established
Or you could get a Cron 40mm and keep the Lux 35. Then you'd have the higher contrast of the Cron without breaking the bank. Best of both worlds.
magicianhisoka
Well-known
i personally don't think you'll gain much out of another 35mm if you're happy with your lux. unless you want sharpness in your pictures.
personally i've been tempted by a 35mm f2 biogon. my reasoning to delay the urge to buy it is...i can get so much more by spending my money on something else
personally i've been tempted by a 35mm f2 biogon. my reasoning to delay the urge to buy it is...i can get so much more by spending my money on something else
zleica
Established
semordnilap
Well-known
Yep. Just a bit closer... great lens, cheap compared to everything else!
The only thing you'd get with a 35 asph cron over the lux you have is the .7m close focus.
Fraser
Well-known
Anyone know the size of the Zeiss 35 2.8 compared to the 35 pre asph summilux would be good if it was nice and small for a carry all day lens. I do like the focus ring on the zeiss compared to the focus tabs.
Here's the lens on a M.
It is big compared to the older pre ASPH summilux...but small compared to other Zeiss ZM lenses.
It is big compared to the older pre ASPH summilux...but small compared to other Zeiss ZM lenses.
LCT
ex-newbie
Yes if you need more sharpness at f/2, more general contrast and less flare than your pre-asph 35/1.4. Best match with your 28/2 is the 35/2 asph imho.
Turtle
Veteran
If you get a cron asph and find it a better match to your tastes than the 35 lux, then you can sell the latter. In the end it will be roughly cost neutral. If you have money to spend and are merely interested in expanding things, a 21 would make more sense.