Compact 35mm/40mm choices.

[MCTuomey]

Couple useful links re the zeiss c-biogon (read around the zm 35/2 comparisons):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1067136/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1129234/1

*Denoir* posting(s) on the first thread are quite insightful and also reliable, imho.

I think the 40/2.8 sonnar or c-biogon would be my choice if shooting people primarily. Need speed? Nokton 35 or 40 f/1.4, except that a well-priced early f/2 summicron in fine optical shape (if possible) would trump the noktons for me.

 

[rickp]

MS Optical Perar 35mm f3.5

MS Optical Perar 35mm f3.5

hard to get much smaller 😉

 

[Godfrey]

Summicron-C 40/2 is a beautiful lens -- I'm baffled that people recommend the Rokkor ahead of it (same lens design, different glass) as the Summicron to my eye gives a richer rendering especially in the blacks. ...

I'm with ferider on this. I've used all three (Summicron-C, M-Rokkor gen1 and M-Rokkor gen2 40mm f/2) lenses extensively—the one I've kept is the 2nd generation M-Rokkor. All three are excellent, but this one has multicoating which reduces veiling flare better than either of the other two (better blacks). It's also a little bit lighter and smaller than the other two.

I've used it on all of my M-mount bodies (M9, M4-2, CL and GXR-M) but it's become the standard lens I keep on the CL most of the time.

Not ready to spring for one yet, but I would like a Summaron M 35mm f/2.8 at some point. I have a Voigtländer Color Skopar 35/2.5, which is excellent, but I'd like the option of the Summaron's older-style rendering qualities. Both of them are very compact. I use the Color Skopar on M9 and M4-2 most of the time.

I also have a Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC, which often seems the perfect match to the Ricoh GXR-M. It becomes a long-normal instead of a wide-normal on the smaller format, but many times that's exactly what I'd like.

G

 

[ferider]

BTW, there is evidence that late Summicron-C copies were multi-coated. That all of the 40mm Summicrons are single-coated is an internet myth.

I once did a 40mm comparison of Summicron-C, Rokkor and Nokton here, if you are interested: http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Tests/40mm-Tests

 

[redisburning]

Couple useful links re the zeiss c-biogon (read around the zm 35/2 comparisons):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1067136/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1129234/1

*Denoir* posting(s) on the first thread are quite insightful and also reliable, imho.

well this is an individual question, but how often do you shoot a 35 stopped down at infinity?

I owned the 35/2 Biogon. I had it for like a week, shot two rolls of 100 iso t-grained film with it and sold it because it was *almost* as good as the 50/2 planar (which has signifcantly worse 40 lp/mm graphs) under a loupe. the reality is that the 35/2 has substantial sharpness falloff as you get closer to MFD and less microcontrast (which is frankly more important than fine structure detail for the impression of sharpness at nearly all "normal" output size/viewing distance combinations). I had intended to keep only one, and since the planar is (nominally) a 50mm lens, I kept that.

personally I found what the Biogon f2 does at f2 compelling, but I think most people would HATE it for what it does in a scene like this:

Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

I don't mean to detract from the lens AT ALL. It definitely has a ton of upside and if f2 is what youre looking for and you dont mind a bit of blockage then by all means, go ahead.

there is a marketing phrase: perception is reality. and I think with lenses it's the same way. apparent sharpness IS sharpness, even with less fine detail.

 

[semilog]

Couple useful links re the zeiss c-biogon (read around the zm 35/2 comparisons):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1067136/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1129234/1

*Denoir* posting(s) on the first thread are quite insightful and also reliable, imho.

I agree, but with two caveats. First, IMO Denoir exaggerates the relative importance of small differences in MTF at infinity focus. For his work, which appears to focus on landscapes at or near infinity focus, this is persnickety but valid. For essentially any other sort of photography, it is of less importance. Lloyd Chambers had a similar experience with the f/2 Biogon versus the Summicron ASPH. He also shoots landscapes and the field flatness of the Biogon won him over. He couldn't deal with the field curvature of the Summicron ASPH.

I think both of them would agree that no other M-35 is as suitable for landscape work as the 35/2 Biogon. For most of us, who use a rangefinder to work mostly closer in, the requirements are different and other parameters (front and back OOF rendering, lack of veiling, etc.) are of equal importance.

 

[MCTuomey]

#semilog
#redisburning

horses for courses, can't disagree.

But the "persnickety but valid" judgment about another's choice of lens seems unnecessary, even defensive. Denoir's pictures, his preferred subject, his tools - are simply all his choice and, at least judging from his results and the care he's taken specifically in the link to demonstrate mid-frame performance of the c-biogon, well thought out. Lots of photographers, especially landscapers, get particular about lenses. Who are we to judge the extent of one's particularity?

Anyway, good luck to the OP in his search for a 35/40. You might find *Denoir* helpful, especially if you shoot 'scapes.

 

[semilog]

My choice of words was intended to be descriptive, not a value judgement. In the context of what I wrote, I think that's obvious. In fact, I point out that at least one other persnickety landscape photographer has reported similar results for the ZM 35/2 versus other 35's.