jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Yes, I know, yet another thread about "bokeh"....
I've seen some examples of expensive Leicas, but wanted to know what people think about more reasonably-priced lenses. Basically, I'd like to know some people's thoughts on what ltm or M mount 35mm lens has the best "bokeh for the buck". Nice, creamy out of focus area, as opposed to harsh, choppy lines.
JP
I've seen some examples of expensive Leicas, but wanted to know what people think about more reasonably-priced lenses. Basically, I'd like to know some people's thoughts on what ltm or M mount 35mm lens has the best "bokeh for the buck". Nice, creamy out of focus area, as opposed to harsh, choppy lines.
JP
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Maybe a 35/3.5 Summaron in LTM? There was also a 35/2.8 Summaron in M mount
I don't have any bokeh examples, because I tend to use 35mm length at longer distances.
I don't have any bokeh examples, because I tend to use 35mm length at longer distances.
axiom
Non-Registered User
35 C Biogon
kxl
Social Documentary
CV 35/1.2 and ZM 35/2.0
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
May not be the cheapest, but for its bokeh and high speed, it's a wonderful and cheap lens: Nokton 1.2
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Pinhole.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Krosya
Konicaze
I'd say CV 35/1.7 ULTRON is the best bet - great lens overall and has a nice bokeh IMO
I don’t think that the CV 35mm 1.2 counts as a cheap lens. Just because it is cheaper than a leica lens doesn’t make it cheap. Everything is cheap compared to a leica lens because leica lenses are the most expensive lenses you can buy!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm right there with you on price, but f/256 is a killer for bokeh.
Yeah, but arguably, as nothing's really sharp, everything you get is bokeh...
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
But what about focus shift?
More to the point - here's why talking about bokeh in a cheap 35mm lens doesn't make sense:
35mm lens, shot wide open at f/2.8, subject distance maybe 1.5 m. Any comments on the bokeh? OK, thanks guys. So much for the Summaron 3.5 suggestions etc.
Here's another, also at f/2.8:
So if the original poster wants out-of-focus areas on his wideangl,e he should get ready to spend some money on a fast lens, f/1.4 or faster.
And then there aren't really that many choices in the first place, and even less with the creamy look he wants.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Being aspherical, and the fastest RF 35mm ever in any mount, it's not cheap, it's so very cheap, even new!
Cheers,
Juan
MCTuomey
Veteran
CV Ultron 35/1.7
Canon 35/2.8 ltm
Canon 35/2.8 ltm
DNG
Film Friendly
I have nothing :bang:
Right that’s like saying the M9 is very cheap because it’s the only digital full frame rangefinder.
The only thing that makes an M9 or a 35mm f1.2 cheap is earning a really high salary. But for the majority these items are classed as expensive.
filmfan
Well-known
Easy: VC Ultron 35mm 1.7
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
OK, I realize that "cheap" is relative. I should have clarified in saying something like: around say 500 USD, give or take a couple hundred ( new or used ), and the less the better...
And yes, I still hesitate to say that that's "cheap", but when talking about lenses, it seems to be.
And yes, I still hesitate to say that that's "cheap", but when talking about lenses, it seems to be.
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
I had thought about the CV lenses. I wanted an Ultron when I bought my Bessa, but they had just recently all been sold out, and a used one was not around ( of course, I saw a couple of them about a month or two after I got the Color Skopar - Murphy's Law kicking in... ). I do think that the bokeh of the CV 35mm 1.2 ( which is a "bargain" in terms of lenses, I'd agree ) is nice, but man, that is a big lens.
What about the Canon ltm 35's?
What about the Canon ltm 35's?
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Check out this thread from a few weeks ago: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87189