Best ltm 35 under 250€

[retinax]

Hello,
I'd like read your opinions on this. I want an ltm 35mm lens to go with a Canon 7 or P I also plan to buy. I'm on a budget. I should be under 250€, would prefer if it could be found in Europe. It should be reasonably sharp at least when stopped down a bit, corners don't matter too much. And I want little geometric distortion. That's one of the reasons I don't stick with an SLR, the non-retrofocus designs. Focus tab would be nice.
Options that I've seen:
Summitar (Edit: nonsense, SUMMARON) 35 3.5 shows up from time to time in my price range.
Canon 35 2.8 rather rare in Europe, but they exist.
Canon 35 3.5: I haven't read a lot of good things about it.
Jupiter 12: distorts a bit too much for my liking, otherwise I like pictures I see online. No focus tab.
Color Skopar 35 2.5: Stretching the budget. And I like old things better.😛 Optically probably best. No focus tab.
Komura 35s: Not too common in Europe. No focus tab (?).

How would you rate these? Especially how do the Canons and the Summaron 3.5 compare?
Any input highly appreciated!
J.

 

[retinax]

Oh, and please suggest other lenses!

 

[Livesteamer]

Don't forget the Nikkors. I have a Nikkor 35mm f2.5 that is a very nice lens but at the top of your price range. The Nikkor 35mm f3.5 is also good and a good Jupiter 12 can be a fine lens. Or, maybe a Canon 28mm f3.5, also very nice. Too many to choose from. Joe

 

[xayraa33]

The Canon 35 2.8 is a very nice lens if you like that classic 1950s lower contrast look. I also would recommend the fine preforming Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 in LTM lens, a legendary lens in my opinion, so good it was also used on the Nikonos camera.

In today's world wide web marketplace, buying a lens outside Europe is a cinch.

 

[Scrambler]

Of these I only have the J12 - which you should get with plenty of money left in the bank. It's not a technical lens - sharp only in the centre and every form of issue by the edge (though not severely). However there are few wide angle lenses that have 80+ year old designs and that produce usable images.

Canon's quality lens line is very good, and while never aiming for perfection the CV lenses are, as you imply, probably the best optical formula short of the high-end Zeiss and Leica lenses.

Why exactly the 35s? There are good 28s, but perhaps more particularly good 40s.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

AFAIK, Canon LTM lenses and RF-Nikkors, particularly in LTM, are scarce in Europe (Continental at least), but sought after.

Hence they're often quite a bit more expensive than in the Anglosphere.

What do our British experts say?

 

[rumbliegeos]

I can say from experience that you can buy a very clean Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM lens, and it can develop haze within a few years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Color Skopar, easily.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ferider]

Don't forget the Nikkors. I have a Nikkor 35mm f2.5 that is a very nice lens but at the top of your price range.

^^^ this.

And regarding Color Skopar, try the second LTM version (39mm filter), it does have a tab (well a pin that functions as a tab). You should be able to get it for your budget.

For your budget, if you shop carefully, you might be able to get Canon 35/1.8 or even 35/2 as well.

Roland.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

retinax,

for a RF, a Canon 7 is a huge camera, quite as large as a, say, Canon F-1.

A typical 35mm LTM lens is tiny — it looks completely awkward on a Canon 7!

And since you're on a budget, why not simply take a much cheaper 35mm SLR lens with an adapter?

There are hundreds excellent 35mm SLR lenses that would look much better on a Canon 7 — and zone focusing isn't that complicated 😉

And, let's not forget: in the 1950s, when retrofocus was «dernier cri», Angenieux offered their 35mm not only for Exakta etc etc., but also for Leica 🙂

 

[retinax]

Don't forget the Nikkors. I have a Nikkor 35mm f2.5 that is a very nice lens but at the top of your price range. The Nikkor 35mm f3.5 is also good and a good Jupiter 12 can be a fine lens. Or, maybe a Canon 28mm f3.5, also very nice. Too many to choose from. Joe

AFAIK, Canon LTM lenses and RF-Nikkors, particularly in LTM, are scarce in Europe (Continental at least), but sought after.

Hence they're often quite a bit more expensive than in the Anglosphere.

What do our British experts say?

Indeed especially the Nikkors seem very rare here...

The Canon 35 2.8 is a very nice lens if you like that classic 1950s lower contrast look. I also would recommend the fine preforming Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 in LTM lens, a legendary lens in my opinion, so good it was also used on the Nikonos camera.

In today's world wide web marketplace, buying a lens outside Europe is a cinch.

Well, I'd rather avoid a) import taxes and b) difficulties and expensive shipping in case a return is necessary. I'd counsider buying form a member here though, as b) would be very unlikely.
Have you compared the Canon with the f/3.5 Summaron?

Of these I only have the J12 - which you should get with plenty of money left in the bank. It's not a technical lens - sharp only in the centre and every form of issue by the edge (though not severely). However there are few wide angle lenses that have 80+ year old designs and that produce usable images.

Canon's quality lens line is very good, and while never aiming for perfection the CV lenses are, as you imply, probably the best optical formula short of the high-end Zeiss and Leica lenses.

Why exactly the 35s? There are good 28s, but perhaps more particularly good 40s.

Well, 35 is the widest I can afford in the RF world, especially if I want to avoud auxiliary finders. Otherwise 28 would be nice, I do love my GR. I do like the 40 FoV as well, but I'm not aware of 40s in ltm beside the CV 40 1.4, out of my budget I think.
But I also plan to have a small kit that doesn't encourage me to change lenses too much, and 35 and 85-100, which I might add at some point, seems pretty good.

I might indeed go for the Jupiter, I'd like to spend less, but probably the distortion will eventually bug me...

I can say from experience that you can buy a very clean Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM lens, and it can develop haze within a few years.

But the haze can be cleaned out quite easily, no?

Color Skopar, easily.

Cheers,

R.

No doubt, but that's not what I wanted to hear 😉
I really only included it for completeness, but it's not really in the budget, and I'd like to have something that also satisfies my fetish for old precision machinery...

 

[02Pilot]

Of the ones you list, I had the Canon 35/2.8 and the J-12, and have a W.Acall 35/3.5 (same as the Komura with a different name on it). The J-12 is a lens which I found alternately fun and frustrating. With B&W it was good, but with color every once in a while I'd get a weird purple flare (I have a habit of shooting contre-jour); the ergonomics are irritating if you need to change apertures often. The Canon is very competent and well-built; I could have been quite happy with it as my only 35. I sold both because I fell in love with the look the slower W.Acall produces.

I also have a Canon 35/1.8, which I bough here on RFF for just a little over your price limit; it's quite nice, and the speed can be useful, though it doesn't make me willing to give up the little W.Acall. I also have a Nikon 35/2.8 from an L35AF that I hacked into an LTM mount for cheap, but that's probably not really an option unless you feel like a project.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . No doubt, but that's not what I wanted to hear 😉
I really only included it for completeness, but it's not really in the budget, and I'd like to have something that also satisfies my fetish for old precision machinery...

Yeah, but I'd rather have a new(er), sharp, non-hazy lens than an old, flat, hazy one. I had two 35mm Summarons before the Color-Skopar existed and they were both mediocre. I had two or three Jupiters too (Zorkii and Kiev) and they were awful. Then in 1982 I bought a then-current Summilux...

Cheers,

R.

 

[retinax]

retinax,

for a RF, a Canon 7 is a huge camera, quite as large as a, say, Canon F-1.

A typical 35mm LTM lens is tiny — it looks completely awkward on a Canon 7!

And since you're on a budget, why not simply take a much cheaper 35mm SLR lens with an adapter?

There are hundreds excellent 35mm SLR lenses that would look much better on a Canon 7 — and zone focusing isn't that complicated 😉

And, let's not forget: in the 1950s, when retrofocus was «dernier cri», Angenieux offered their 35mm not only for Exakta etc etc., but also for Leica 🙂

I suppose you're right about the looks, but then again, I don't care tooooo much. That is an argument in favor of a Canon P rather than 7 though...
I really do want RF focusing. Zone focus is nice in good light and longer distances, but with the subject closer than two meters it's not easy even with a 35 at, say, f/5.6. At least for me.
Retrofocus is indeed not a huge deal. I'll take one of those Angenieux if you insist in giving me one:angel:

 

[retinax]

Of the ones you list, I had the Canon 35/2.8 and the J-12, and have a W.Acall 35/3.5 (same as the Komura with a different name on it). The J-12 is a lens which I found alternately fun and frustrating. With B&W it was good, but with color every once in a while I'd get a weird purple flare (I have a habit of shooting contre-jour); the ergonomics are irritating if you need to change apertures often. The Canon is very competent and well-built; I could have been quite happy with it as my only 35. I sold both because I fell in love with the look the slower W.Acall produces.

I also have a Canon 35/1.8, which I bough here on RFF for just a little over your price limit; it's quite nice, and the speed can be useful, though it doesn't make me willing to give up the little W.Acall. I also have a Nikon 35/2.8 from an L35AF that I hacked into an LTM mount for cheap, but that's probably not really an option unless you feel like a project.

I like contre-jour, too... so Canon... Or what else can you say about the Komura/Acall? How does it compare to the Canon?

Yeah, but I'd rather have a new(er), sharp, non-hazy lens than an old, flat, hazy one. I had two 35mm Summarons before the Color-Skopar existed and they were both mediocre. I had two or three Jupiters too (Zorkii and Kiev) and they were awful. Then in 1982 I bought a then-current Summilux...

Cheers,

R.

Ouch, I thought the Summarons were at least decent generally, and the Jupiters when adjusted correctly, too... that does steer me toward Canon and CV, indeed.

 

[xayraa33]

"Have you compared the Canon with the f/3.5 Summaron?"

Yes i have, I own both makes plus the Nikkor and the Komura and the J-12

The Canon is most similar to the Summaron in its drawing but I have used the Summaron more because I had it before all the other ones (40 years now).

The full f 2.8 bore on the Canon is a nice feature but in reality it is not as important as one would assume, I would buy any of them if the price and condition are right. You cannot go wrong with any of them.

BTW, I am in Canada and I gotten use to paying high taxes and duty and high return postage on almost on any photo gear I have bought.

As even the few vintage pieces of gear I bought from local Toronto photo stores in pre internet days I had to pay through the nose.

Example : used 25mm Canon f3.5 lens in LTM , $ 450 CAD plus tax on top of that (1990 price) not mint, no 25mm finder incl.

 

[02Pilot]

I like contre-jour, too... so Canon... Or what else can you say about the Komura/Acall? How does it compare to the Canon?

Here's everything I've written on the lens, plus some sample photos:
https://filmosaur.wordpress.com/tag/w-acall-353-5/

If you have other questions, just ask.

 

[ForestCap]

I only have J-12 and komura 35/3.5. I like the komura better.

 

[venchka]

Canon 35/2.8. Tiny. Solid build. Sharp. Wonderful lens. Why did I sell it?
If you get one don't sell it.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kermaier]

The Canon 35/2.8 is a very nice lens, sharp enough. I prefer the older chrome-over-brass version with 34mm filter to the later anodized-aluminum-alloy with 40mm filter. Although the latter definitely has better ergonomics, it is more prone to haze, the aperture linkage is mechanically crap, and the filter size is a pain.

The Nikkor 35/2.5 is a better performing lens, IMO, than the Canon, but may be pricier in LTM than your budget. Also, it has a truly impossible-to-find 34.5mm filter thread, the whole lens barrel rotates with focusing, and the aperture ring turns in the opposite direction from Leica and Canon lenses.

::Ari