mjm6
Established
folks,
Well, I'm thinking about getting a 35mm f2 lens (when I finally find one for sale), but I have a few questions...
I was wondering what a fair price is, in good (mint - or thereabout) condition? The problem is I normally watch the auction site and then get a sense for what things go for, but this lens has not shown up on there in the last two months or so.
I have seen the lens pricing list that has a sticky position on the top of the forum, but it sometimes seems the values are off to me. Sometimes quite low, and high on others. Looking at the typical used outlets can provide a shocking difference in price, depending on the condition as a collectable. I'm looking for a user, but with good, clean optics.
Is there a reason I should consider the CV f1.7 Ultron over the Canon? I've looked around a bit, and it is probably a little bit more expensive, but it is sharper and may have a bit more contrast. I'm thinking that the Canon is the better investment, but the CV is probably the better lens in the general bench test manner.
I was struck by how much better the bokeh (especially the OOF highlights) were in the more modern 35mm optics in the article at Luminous Landscape written by Sean Reid, comparing fast rangefinder lenses on the Epson camera. Unfortunately, the f1.7 Ultron in not in the comparison but I wonder if it will handle OOF details better then the Canon.
Any opinions on the subject? Anyone recall what the last few 35mm f2 lenses have gone for at auction? Anyone have one or know where one is available?
Many thanks one again for the opinions...
---Michael
Well, I'm thinking about getting a 35mm f2 lens (when I finally find one for sale), but I have a few questions...
I was wondering what a fair price is, in good (mint - or thereabout) condition? The problem is I normally watch the auction site and then get a sense for what things go for, but this lens has not shown up on there in the last two months or so.
I have seen the lens pricing list that has a sticky position on the top of the forum, but it sometimes seems the values are off to me. Sometimes quite low, and high on others. Looking at the typical used outlets can provide a shocking difference in price, depending on the condition as a collectable. I'm looking for a user, but with good, clean optics.
Is there a reason I should consider the CV f1.7 Ultron over the Canon? I've looked around a bit, and it is probably a little bit more expensive, but it is sharper and may have a bit more contrast. I'm thinking that the Canon is the better investment, but the CV is probably the better lens in the general bench test manner.
I was struck by how much better the bokeh (especially the OOF highlights) were in the more modern 35mm optics in the article at Luminous Landscape written by Sean Reid, comparing fast rangefinder lenses on the Epson camera. Unfortunately, the f1.7 Ultron in not in the comparison but I wonder if it will handle OOF details better then the Canon.
Any opinions on the subject? Anyone recall what the last few 35mm f2 lenses have gone for at auction? Anyone have one or know where one is available?
Many thanks one again for the opinions...
---Michael
Sonnar2
Well-known
I have both, see them at http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF.html
The 1.7/35 isn't better than the Canon 2/35 as far as I'm concerned. The Ultron isn't a small lens. The Voigtlander 2.5/35 is much more in the size of the Canon (but most user say the 1.7 is sharper than the 2.5)
You can put a Bessa-R attached with a 2/35 Canon in most belt cases designed for point&shoot cameras. This isn't possible with an Utron or Nokton attached.
I use the Canon mostly at f/8 or f/11, with very satisfying results. The f/2 as a reserve for low light, but to say the truth, you cannot await best performance at f/2 of any >40 year old wideangle lens. It's usable, you can shot people in b&w with it but no critical applications. For regular use as highspeed lens the Ultron is better. The Canon is such a good lens because of its performance at f/8, surplus you have a reserve of f/2 for low light what isn't common at such a compact lens.
Price and condition: ask for any "haze". My had a beginning spider-web type fungus which luckily could be completely removed. Any repairman experienced with Leica-type lenses can do a CLA. Even it's such a small lens, the f/-stop ring goes a little bit flimsy. The black color isn't very durable, i.e. when you use a clamp-on hood with it (use of a hood is always recommended with this lens except sun is in your back) Try to use a plastic-cap (i.e. FED/ jupiter-3 lenscap which also had 40mm) to prevent rubbing while transport. So there are always reasons why a lens isn't "mint" condition when it was used to some extend. I read also that Canon RF lenses weren't sold for a decade in the 60's and sold-out as new in the late 70's whatsoever...
So I would say 300 USD is acceptable for a very good "user" (not mint, nor abused) example with any caps. Both original plastic caps (Canon "A" back and "Canon" 40mm front) are also rare. I paid 450 for my with a Canon-7 (the camera was exc., the lens very good) two years ago at the bay.
cheers, Frank
The 1.7/35 isn't better than the Canon 2/35 as far as I'm concerned. The Ultron isn't a small lens. The Voigtlander 2.5/35 is much more in the size of the Canon (but most user say the 1.7 is sharper than the 2.5)
You can put a Bessa-R attached with a 2/35 Canon in most belt cases designed for point&shoot cameras. This isn't possible with an Utron or Nokton attached.
I use the Canon mostly at f/8 or f/11, with very satisfying results. The f/2 as a reserve for low light, but to say the truth, you cannot await best performance at f/2 of any >40 year old wideangle lens. It's usable, you can shot people in b&w with it but no critical applications. For regular use as highspeed lens the Ultron is better. The Canon is such a good lens because of its performance at f/8, surplus you have a reserve of f/2 for low light what isn't common at such a compact lens.
Price and condition: ask for any "haze". My had a beginning spider-web type fungus which luckily could be completely removed. Any repairman experienced with Leica-type lenses can do a CLA. Even it's such a small lens, the f/-stop ring goes a little bit flimsy. The black color isn't very durable, i.e. when you use a clamp-on hood with it (use of a hood is always recommended with this lens except sun is in your back) Try to use a plastic-cap (i.e. FED/ jupiter-3 lenscap which also had 40mm) to prevent rubbing while transport. So there are always reasons why a lens isn't "mint" condition when it was used to some extend. I read also that Canon RF lenses weren't sold for a decade in the 60's and sold-out as new in the late 70's whatsoever...
So I would say 300 USD is acceptable for a very good "user" (not mint, nor abused) example with any caps. Both original plastic caps (Canon "A" back and "Canon" 40mm front) are also rare. I paid 450 for my with a Canon-7 (the camera was exc., the lens very good) two years ago at the bay.
cheers, Frank
I think Frank's advise is pretty good. I have seen good Canon 35/2 lenses sell for as high as $475 though!!! $300 to $350 should find you one, and keep an eye out, I have one which I paid much less for. It did develop a fungus after I got it 
but I did have it cleaned successfully.
Is there a reason to consider the Ultron, yes, it is an excellent lens!!! It is bigger, about the size of a 50 Summicron, than the Canon, but at least as good at every aperture. I actually find the Canon to be too small at times for my chubby fingers. These are two very good lenses, no reason (other than size if that matters to you) to not buy either.
but I did have it cleaned successfully.Is there a reason to consider the Ultron, yes, it is an excellent lens!!! It is bigger, about the size of a 50 Summicron, than the Canon, but at least as good at every aperture. I actually find the Canon to be too small at times for my chubby fingers. These are two very good lenses, no reason (other than size if that matters to you) to not buy either.
Meleica
Well-known
back alley
IMAGES
igor has a 35/2 at a ok price.
joe
joe
back alley
IMAGES
djon
Well-known
I decided for Canon, paid $390 (!), partially *because* Ultron's huge by comparison. As well, CV build quality doesn't rival Canon.
I don't think it's established that the Ultron has any sharpness advantage at full aperture, but I'd imagine both are better at 2.8 (I'd be interested in comparisons).
For me, build quality is more crucial in 35mm than in other focal lengths because mine lives on camera, my primary lens, not just an alternative...heavy use...
I'm not a bokeh enthusiast, don't have the proper refined vocabulary, but the OOF of the Canon is creamy and interesting, no bizarre shapes...
I don't think it's established that the Ultron has any sharpness advantage at full aperture, but I'd imagine both are better at 2.8 (I'd be interested in comparisons).
For me, build quality is more crucial in 35mm than in other focal lengths because mine lives on camera, my primary lens, not just an alternative...heavy use...
I'm not a bokeh enthusiast, don't have the proper refined vocabulary, but the OOF of the Canon is creamy and interesting, no bizarre shapes...
mjm6
Established
Thanks for the input,
Can anyone tell me how to distinguish the two models of this lens? The Canon Museum only has photos of the first, and I have seen no other photos on the web of a different variation.
I am expecting the second version to not have meter markings for focus, is that correct?
I will go for the Canon. I like small, and the build quality is sure to be better, and I think it will have a better price ratio if I were to sell it later on. I think the only modern lens I am going to get is the 25mm or 21mm CV lens, or possibly a 21mm Kobalux, if I come across one. Other than that, all of my lenses are going to be 'classic'.
At this point, the only other lens I need to decide upon is the telephoto model. 100mm or 135mm...
---Michael
Can anyone tell me how to distinguish the two models of this lens? The Canon Museum only has photos of the first, and I have seen no other photos on the web of a different variation.
I am expecting the second version to not have meter markings for focus, is that correct?
I will go for the Canon. I like small, and the build quality is sure to be better, and I think it will have a better price ratio if I were to sell it later on. I think the only modern lens I am going to get is the 25mm or 21mm CV lens, or possibly a 21mm Kobalux, if I come across one. Other than that, all of my lenses are going to be 'classic'.
At this point, the only other lens I need to decide upon is the telephoto model. 100mm or 135mm...
---Michael
back alley
IMAGES
what body are you using again?
the p has the 100 fl built in so it's a bit easier.
the 85's or the 135's are so much bigger than the 100/3.5 that it might be easier just to get used to the 100 fov.
joe
the p has the 100 fl built in so it's a bit easier.
the 85's or the 135's are so much bigger than the 100/3.5 that it might be easier just to get used to the 100 fov.
joe
mjm6
Established
backalley photo said:
Joe,
I've got a P and a IIS2 operational right now, and also have a Leica IIIF RD that needs to be repaired. I'll probably acquire a few more bodies in thime, and then pare it down to just a few. Oh, I have a CV Bessa-R also, which probaly has the best 35mm capability of all of them, so it may still get use for that reason.
The P will work well for a 100mm, but the IIS2 can handle a 135mm OK apparently. I'm a bit worried about the ability to get the RF accurately adjusted for a longer lens with that camera, however.
I am leaning toward the 100mm for size reasons.
---Michael
djon
Well-known
It's good to visit Michael's website, and especially to click on the titles of his workshops (the site design's unclear about the presence of lots of substance behind each workshop's representative photo) .
www.mutmansky.com ...michael's site
www.mutmansky.com ...michael's site
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's clear that i like canon gear but i just wanted to say something positive about the cv gear also.
i had a bessa r with both 35/2.5 and 75/2.5 and i thought the quality was first rate.
the lens build quality was fine and i loved the small size too.
quality of pics goes withour saying.
i just don't want people scared away from getting good deals on cv gear cause they think it might be inferior.
i would have kept the r if finances allowed and if i were not feeling guilty about it just sitting around.
i prefer the feel of the p and the cv was ignored because of it.
but i gave the cv stuff a good workout at one time.
joe
i had a bessa r with both 35/2.5 and 75/2.5 and i thought the quality was first rate.
the lens build quality was fine and i loved the small size too.
quality of pics goes withour saying.
i just don't want people scared away from getting good deals on cv gear cause they think it might be inferior.
i would have kept the r if finances allowed and if i were not feeling guilty about it just sitting around.
i prefer the feel of the p and the cv was ignored because of it.
but i gave the cv stuff a good workout at one time.
joe
djon
Well-known
My next lens will probably be a 75 2.5 CV.. there's more to life than build quality ...I have a 50 Nokton and a 25 Skopar...neither equals the best contemporary Leica glass but they're both in Leica ballpark, at less than a quarter of Leica price.
Nokton's negative is the same as Ultrons: size. The Skopar vignettes, but I've found that attractive...love that lens. I'm kicking myself, however, for not bidding on a Canon 25mm finder that appeared recently...looked a LOT better than my CV finder...were the optics better?
...I have a 50 Nokton and a 25 Skopar...neither equals the best contemporary Leica glass but they're both in Leica ballpark, at less than a quarter of Leica price. Nokton's negative is the same as Ultrons: size. The Skopar vignettes, but I've found that attractive...love that lens. I'm kicking myself, however, for not bidding on a Canon 25mm finder that appeared recently...looked a LOT better than my CV finder...were the optics better?
back alley
IMAGES
a canon 25 finder on ebay?
how'd i miss that?
(i sometimes miss things cause i filter out anything that won't be sold to canada.)
how much did it go for?
joe
how'd i miss that?
(i sometimes miss things cause i filter out anything that won't be sold to canada.)
how much did it go for?
joe
djon
Well-known
Dunno... last I saw, 4 hrs before close, it was around $130...I'd have bid if I knew anything about the item..crinkle-finished metal, looked more compact than CV...CV's vaguely OK optically but the outside edges are total fuzz, wouldn't want to spend real money to get another like that...
ScottS
Established
The new CV 25mm finders are brightline -- the older CV and Canon ones are not. Optically, I didn't notice a huge difference between the (non-brightline) CV 25 and the Canon 25 finders, although I no longer have the CV finder so I can't compare them directly. I'm not sure what the Canon finders generally cost by themselves -- kevincameras has a 25mm canon finder for $250, although I'd imagine they would go cheaper on ebay. You could always wait for a Canon 25 lens+finder to show up, but expect to pay at least $500 for the two together.
Scott
Scott
djon
Well-known
Scott.. I thought the 'new" CV finder only had a bright parallax line at the top...does it also have bright lines at sides and bottom? I'd love one like that!
ScottS
Established
djon,
I've never seen the new one in person (the one I used to have was so old it was labeled "Cosina" rather than "Voigtlander" -- well, old by CV standards, much newer than my Canon gear. But from this picture on cameraquest it looks like a full brightline finder.
Scott
I've never seen the new one in person (the one I used to have was so old it was labeled "Cosina" rather than "Voigtlander" -- well, old by CV standards, much newer than my Canon gear. But from this picture on cameraquest it looks like a full brightline finder.
Scott
Sonnar2
Well-known
if the C/V 4/25mm "vignettes".... have you ever seen the vignetting of a Classical topogon design like the 3.5/25 or Canon or Nikon RF?? The coverage is 6x as big as a 50mm, therefore you need a print of 6x the size to view at the same distance for "natural perspective", or projecting it on a large wall. I'm sure you will not claim its "vignetting" afterwards! Expecially if you see how sharp and contrasty these C/V 15, 21, 25mm lenses are! I use these quite often, and I'm happy the Canon 2/35 plays in the same league! (the Ultron 1.7/35 doesn't, as far as I'm concerned)
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras