Color Skopar 35/2.5 - Good enough?

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
7:38 AM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,601
Location
USA
View My Gallery
Hi ,
I keep coming back to an idea of getting a small lens to walk around with and there several candidates :

Hexanon UC 35/2 - would love it, but it's a bit more than I'd like to spend.

Color-skopar 35/2.5 - all versions, more so the Pancake one, as it's a smaller one. Now this seems like a good choice price-wise, but what do you guys think of it? I found some pics on flicker with it, but while some look pretty good, others seem rather so-so.

Would you get one? If so - which one - there are 3 versions - 1st Pancake, Classic and 2nd Pancake? And why?

Or should I stay away from it all together and save up for a Hex UC?

Thanks in advance for your advice!

PS. I have a Nokton 35/1.2 for low light and selling Ultron, as it's been basically replaced by Nokton.
 
I got a 35 PII, Its a really good lens. I have one although I am getting ready to sell it. Why? Because I want something that falls in line with my Zeiss planar more. Its a rendering thing. This lens is good though, very good, but im love struck by leica and zeiss optics. What can I say...
 
I have the original version and I'm very happy with it... contrasty, which some people don't like but I do. I may be wrong, but I think all the versions have the same optics. The latest one though is supposed to have the best build.

It's a sharp lens & very good wide open. Oddly enough, I don't recall shooting any color film with this so I can't comment on color rendition.
 
Last edited:
I have a couple of the 35 Color Skopars, including the big diameter version 1. Optically they are very good, on par with pre-asph Summicron's, though fractionally slower. The version II pancake is small, compact and easy to work with. The first version, screw-mount is one of the great street shooting lenses of all time as it is very fast to focus or follow focus with. The large diameter makes it posible to go from 3-4 meter to closes focus in a spllt second! I never bothered with a hood for it either and has had no problems with flare in almost 8 years of using it!
 
I had the pancake II version and I loved it. One of the best lenses I've owned in terms of value and usability. To this day I regret selling it.

Very sharp, very contrasty, excellent flare control and built extremely well.

1051973962_3b92d4ea06_o.jpg


1051084649_e17554712b_o.jpg


wide open - f2.5
1051938178_fb83abd73a_o.jpg
 
Good enough?

Good enough?

It really does come down to your personal self-esteem, doesn't it?
 
I like my Skopar a great deal. Sometimes I shoot the same view with my Ultron, and the Skopar, as a side-by-side test. Both are excellent and good to have.
 
Good enough? More than.

I don't know how much I've had published that was shot with the 35/2.5, but it's plenty.

Though quite honestly, I've not used a 35 lately that couldn't produce publishable pics.

Cheers,

R.
 
A good lens, indeed - but mine was not built strong enough...maybe it's just me not taking good care of it. I have a 40mm Nokton f1.4 now, and I must say that size is not an issue...it is not very big compared with the 35mm. Since you already have a 35mm lens, why not consider the snapshot-skopar 25mm?

Best Regards,

Toby Vidnes
 
It's good sense to buy the 35mm 2.5. For the price, you may find it's the cheapest lens you buy, use, and keep. The Classic has the advantage of using 39mm filters, like many Leica lenses. I got the larger LH-2 lens shade, and it obscures the finder on my M5 somewhat. Maybe there is a better solution in one of the vented shades out there.
--Lindsay
 
It's a really good lens. One of the advantages over the UC is that it goes down to .7m. Helps if it's the only lens you carry.

I personally prefer the PII. But you might not like focus tabs ... It's really small, smaller than the 40 Summicron and you have to use the
tab to focus.

Roland.
 
It's the only lens I have for my R2A right now. It works quite well. It's very small and I find it has a nice look to it. It's probably best suited for colour photos, as it seems to be quite contrasty -- which isn't a real word.
 
I think any and all of the VC lenses are certainly "good enough"...
 
I'm not a big 35mm user, so when the Mk I came out it was ideal for me. I was impressed by it's size, which protrudes no further from the body than a collapsed 50mm Elmar-M, but above all by the quality of the images. It is indeed crisp and contrasty. When the Mk II came out, I "upgraded". Mistake. There is nothing wrong with the Mk II, and the formulation is indeed the same, but it is significantly different in handling and the hood adds significantly to the size. To cut a long story short, I went back to the Mk I after a period of time, teaming it with a B&W metal hood. My logic was as follows. 1. Identical performance. 2. Better (for me) handling. 3. More compact 4. LTM, so still compatible with my Barnacks.

Results?

Oh yes.

2350876968_bb6b6d3420_b.jpg


2350937976_8f5b215b34_b.jpg


1387712986_d4732f1488_o.jpg


1967547459_1ef40cd79f_o.jpg


Regards,

Bill
 
Bill
Those pictures are nice, I really dig the tones in the last one and the eye contact with the "KKK-kid" (What are those people?)
Im getting one of these lenses by the way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom