Best 35mm lens for under $500?

sazerac

sazerac

Well-known
Local time
1:08 PM
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
238
I'm sure that this subject has been discussed in other forums, but that shouldn't keep anyone for throwing in their 2 cents.

I am a monogomous 50mm user, but am tempted to dabble in something wider. I have a wonderful Zuiko 28/2 that has served me well, but these days I prefer to shoot with the MP and would like something in M-mount.

I am most intruiged by the CV lenses, but have seen concerning barrel distortion from the 1.4 and the 1.2 is just too big. I have settled on the 2.5, but I wonder if I am missing out on not considering a Biogon? I am also concerned that that lens may be a bit large - I prefer the small and light. Are there some other options I should consider? When I look at Leica, I end up thinking that if I go that route that I should just bite the bullet and get a ASPH 'cron.

Any and all comments philosophical appreciated.
 
Seriously? Ultron 35/1.7 especially if you like smooth bokeh.

And possibly Nokton 35/1.4 Classic, if you can get one for under $500
 
All three CV lenses 35/2.5, 35/1.7 and 35/1.4 are great. 35/2.5 and 1.7 are sharp and distortion free; the 35/2.5 is very similar to a pre-asph Summicron. The 35/1.4 is small and fast, and has more "character".

I find comments on the 35/1.4 barrel distortion highly overrated. For instance, your Zuiko 28/2 has more distortion (I have that lens, too). The 35/1.2 is too big for my taste (not in size, but it obstructs the viewfinder).
 
35mm f2.8 Canon and, as maggieo suggests, the F3.5 Summaron are good choices in your price range. Your CV F2.5 is modern and "better" as to specs. Best, imho, is always a matter of opinion.

yours
FPJ
 
3.5 Summaron makes nice pics.

On the Leica forum,, there is a thread of old lenses in the M9. There are many 3.5 Summaron pics. 35 3.5 Elmar is a much different lens.
 
Great suggestions! I will look into the Summaron. Is there much difference between the 3.5 and 2.8 versions?
 
sazerac said:
Great suggestions! I will look into the Summaron. Is there much difference between the 3.5 and 2.8 versions?
Click to expand...

The original 3.5 Summaron is cheap.
The 2.8 Summaron has recently been "rediscovered" as a lens that some find to be better overall than a 35mm Summicron.
 
raid said:
The original 3.5 Summaron is cheap.
The 2.8 Summaron has recently been "rediscovered" as a lens that some find to be better overall than a 35mm Summicron.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that. Which bums me out, because they've gotten to be almost as expensive as the Summicrons! :eek:
 
Snag the 35 Summicron ASP. It is possibly the very best modern 35 -- compact and fast. Personally, I prefer the brass models since they are heavier than their alum(?) brethren.

Ive owned several of them as well as the Summilux pre-asph and Lux ASPH. The compactness of the cron wins for me.
 
Agree with robklurfield on the Canon 35mm f2. Tom Abrahamsson talked me into buying one from a vendor ($275) when we were at the LHSA meeting in St. Louis. Contrasty and center sharp and lens, and very compact.
 
Let me also throw this into the mix. I shoot a 50 'cron regularly, so which if the above lenses do you think would be a good compliment in terms of bokeh, sharpness, 3-dimensionality, etc?
 
the size/quality/price combination on this lens can't be beat. sure, there are lenses that do one or two of these things better, but none that fit all three criteria, IMHO. and, besides that, who am I to argue with Tom A???
JMQ said:
Agree with robklurfield on the Canon 35mm f2. Tom Abrahamsson talked me into buying one from a vendor ($275) when we were at the LHSA meeting in St. Louis. Contrasty and center sharp and lens, and very compact.
Click to expand...
 
I just got back from a trip to Europe, all I shot was the Canon 35/1.8, and the developed rolls are looking great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom