Cheapest 35mm ( ltm or M mount ) with nice bokeh

Sebben said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sebben,

Your comparison with an M9 makes no sense... We're talking about a $600 lens (used)... Sometimes buying a cheaper one is a bad idea, especially if who asked showed real interest in bokeh, even more than in the cheapest price...

Apart from that, lots of lenses of different brands are more expensive... For example, the new Nikon 24 1.4 goes for $2200, the (more than a stop) slower Zeiss 35 2 goes for $1100, and the Leica 35 1.4 goes for $4200...

The Nokton 1,2 is a cheap lens, no matter anyone's economy...

Cheers,

Juan
 
jpa66 said:
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?
Click to expand...

jpa66,

It's not easy to find a lens that's cheap, has great bokeh, and is small...

Maybe some other members could comment on canon 35 1.8's bokeh and price, and compare it to the 35 1.2 Nokton...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Yes, it appears that you're correct ( as are a couple of others who have already posted ). I also realize that 50mm would probably offer more options, but I only asked about the 35mm ( knowing that the choices would be limited ) because I'm not very fond of the 50mm focal length. It just never appealed very much as a shooter.

Juan Valdenebro said:
jpa66,

It's not easy to find a lens that's cheap, has great bokeh, and is small...

Maybe some other members could comment on canon 35 1.8's bokeh and price, and compare it to the 35 1.2 Nokton...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
 
I'd say get a CV 35mm 1.4: costs around $650, you get f1.4 qhich is good, it has an interesting bokeh (some like it, some doesn't) and it is pretty compact. A hood is recommended, my SC version flares a bit. I don't know if the MC version flares less.
 
I'm afraid that I fall into the "some don't like it" camp. I'm not very fond of that lens ( at least from a bokeh perspective ).

umcelinho said:
I'd say get a CV 35mm 1.4: costs around $650, you get f1.4 qhich is good, it has an interesting bokeh (some like it, some doesn't) and it is pretty compact. A hood is recommended, my SC version flares a bit. I don't know if the MC version flares less.
Click to expand...
 
jpa66 said:
Yes, it appears that you're correct ( as are a couple of others who have already posted ). I also realize that 50mm would probably offer more options, but I only asked about the 35mm ( knowing that the choices would be limited ) because I'm not very fond of the 50mm focal length. It just never appealed very much as a shooter.
Click to expand...

This is what I got when I was looking for a cheap 35 with good bokeh and small...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4549633224/

I love this lens... Some will say its bokeh is busy... But everything in a shot is a lot more important than bokeh...

Cheers,

Juan
 
There are so many nice things about the CV 35/1.4 I find I reach for it more and more over the Beast. As for the bokeh issue, hopefully it won't take over this thread, but I think it can be handled for the most part by knowing what the lens can and cannot do. If you don't point it at leaves in front of sunlight, the bokeh can be actually quite smooth and pleasing.

3562269829_cdbec45b6f.jpg
 
jpa66 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't consider myself a bokeh fetishist/expert, but my Canon 35/2 has produced some very pleasing wide open images over the years. It was the first lens I could afford to get for my M3. I paid $350 in the early 90's, which is still about right now. It is a very small lens, so if that is an issue, put it on your list.
 
I like the 40/2 Rokkor CL lens ~>$400

I also liked my VC 35/2.5 P in M-mount, those are $319 new

There are also the Russian 50/1.5 Jupiters; Summarits, etc.

I don't think you need to have a fast lens to have nice bokeh.
 
Last edited:
Technically a pinhole has no bokey, as there is no transition from sharp to out of focus, but then I guess that depends on one's definition of bokey.

I see several recommendations of the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.7 Ultron. As that is the only M mount lens I have I cannot compare it to anything else, but I am happy with the ... transition from sharp (which is very sharp) to blurry. There also seems to be an effect that the blurry part is rendered with slightly less contrast than the sharp parts.
 
+1 for the rokkor. I only have crappy pics so far but I think this one demonstrates its optical signature well. It vignettes a fair bit wide open but its sharp and very 3D:

normal_scan-644.jpg


normal_scan-644-2.jpg



edit: ^that j12 looks pretty good too
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
Technically a pinhole has no bokey, as there is no transition from sharp to out of focus, but then I guess that depends on one's definition of bokey.
Click to expand...

Dear Chris,

Yup. Bokeh is commonly defined as 'the quality of the out of focus image', and the Japanese word has conotations of soft, muzzy, confused, even slightly drunk. As everything shot with a pinhole is soft, muzzy, etc., and not sharply in focus, I'd say you get nothing but bokeh.

I can't get excited about it myself, but as others have pointed out, if you want a marked transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, you want a fast lens (especially with a wide-angle) and there's no way that's ging to be inexpensive for a 35mm focal length. Nick's advice to buy a Summar and take two steps back is more realistic, though I'd go even cheaper and suggest a 50/2 Jupiter.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom