Consider a new 35mm for the MP, which one?

Film choice, printing methods and shooting style are I think more determining than the lens used. 35/2 Summicron (either latest pre asp or asp) or 35 1.2 Nokton is what I would chose. Nice thing about both is that you should not lose money in case you decide after a month to sell them on.
 
peter_n said:
But if you're creating a body of work of some kind on any kind of theme or subject, it is nice to have visual coherence with respect to the rendering of the pictures. It's less distracting and the viewer can focus on the image content.
Click to expand...
Well, if the theme is weak enough to be "distracted from" by the differences in rendering of the lenses, then it isn't much of a theme, is it? ;) We're talking about very subtle differences that most people would never ever notice, unless told about by the photographer.
 
Thanks for advices...

I think a new Biogon may be the best choice right now.
I have had a new summarit with the M8. Boring little lens. Useless at nights and spec. here in winter time.
Do not why Leica starts producing the "boring" summarit lens serie....

ferider: There are other things than photography in this world that cost money :eek:

Any images of the Biogon mounted on a Leica and any images taken by the Zeiss lens?
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Wait for a good 35/2 asph. They are very close in price to v4 pre-asph on the used market.

You didn't try to save 200 bucks when buying your MP or 50/1.4 ASPH. Why now with the 35 ?
Click to expand...

Good advice.
But if you just have to get something now - I'd probably go with a Zeiss 35mm - giving you more modern rendering to along with the 50 asph.
I guess I'd be a bit more wary of a beat-up pre-asph lux. However, the 35 cron (i like version 3) would have the advantage of being smaller, but still quite good.

Lots of good choices there.
 
Makten said:
Well, if the theme is weak enough to be "distracted from" by the differences in rendering of the lenses, then it isn't much of a theme, is it? ;) We're talking about very subtle differences that most people would never ever notice, unless told about by the photographer.
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way: It was pretty distracting for me at the recent HCB retrospective in New York. We're talking 50 years and quite a number of projects but in some ways the exhibit was quite uneven. To each his own I guess.
 
peter but how much of that variation was due to different printers, styles of printing, papers etc? I agree that very old lenses and, say asph Leica or ZMs will vary a lot but some older lenses like the 2.8 summaron dont look ancient on film, esp in B&W.
 
Good point Turtle the early stuff was all printed by HCB himself, the later stuff by Pierre Gassman. The big differences were the early work in the 1930s/40s and his later stuff in the 60s+. The major differences to my eye were tonality and sharpness. I use two Summicron 35s, a pre-ASPH v.1 and an ASPH. I can see similar differences between those two lenses on the same roll of film. Nowhere near as pronounced as the exhibit, but they're there. One has a bit of a vintage look and the other is well, really sharp. So I tend to use them for different projects. Maybe I'm being too picky... :)
 
time said:
... and I like one with better optical performance. I mostly shoot wideopen - f4. ...
Click to expand...

... then the 35mm pre-asph Summilux should not be on your list.

Of the choices listed I would opt for the 35mm ZM. Don’t rule out the 35mm f/1.2 Nokton either. If you like fast lenses, it isn’t bad and still performs better than the pre-asph Summilux stop-to-stop.
 
time said:
I have had a new summarit with the M8. Boring little lens. Useless at nights and spec. here in winter time.
Do not why Leica starts producing the "boring" summarit lens serie....
Click to expand...

Hi time,

I guess Leica makes them because they are enough for creating superb photographs...

Those f/2.5 lenses are fast... They're a stop faster than the most famous Leica lens ever, the 50 3.5, used by lots of great photographers then and now...

Brassaï in the 40's did Paris by night, one of the best night photography books, with slower lenses, and some of them were f/4.5 (on a Voigtländer, larger than 35mm, by the way...) and with films a lot slower than today's films...

He used to set his longest night exposures -sometimes- with a cigarette: "For this shot, half a Gauloise... For that one, a whole Gauloise..."

Now with fastest film I shoot by night or inside dark churches at 1/125 f/1.4, but there's almost nothing on focus at that aperture, so sometimes it's a better idea -depending on the subject- to use 1/30 f/2.8 or even a tripod to stop down... And if small grain is preferred, there's no way to avoid the tripod... I mean night photography is not night portraiture: some (lots of?) depth of field is needed to show the space, and even if a 1.4 shot can be made, for sure that's not the case of most of night photography...

A 35 for an MP is the same as a 35 for any camera: it depends on the kind of image you prefer and the size/weight you prefer, first... Budget is something to consider too... I don't think the best lens for night photography is the fastest one, because the best night photography is related to architecture photography and the best of it is related to the use of tripod... Again, it's your taste in architecture photography lenses, distortion, etc.. what should guide your buying, but not the speed... I don't use any 1.4, 2 or 2.5 Leica 35, but some slower lenses are optically better than faster lenses...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro: I totally disagree. Night photogr. is to caputure the natural light in all conditions. For me, night photogr. is only 20% architecture and the rest night portraiture/"candle light photogr.", because here in the north is much less night lights from the streets like in Barcelona (Have been there). And I LOVE smooth bokeh. No nice bokeh = boring and no characters IMO - for portraitures. This is the reason I sold the summarit 35mm one month after buying it with the M8.

"I don't use any 1.4, 2 or 2.5 Leica 35, but some slower lenses are optically better than faster lenses..." .... Have you tried summilux 50 and 35 asph? There are uperb wide open. There are lots of Noc shoots taken by members here in this forum. They are just lovely.
 
That's the great thing about this forum: it holds lots of opinions...

I think we disagree a bit at least: I wouldn't want a smooth bokeh lens for night photography.

I love the smooth bokeh of my Zeiss sonnar 150 2.8 on my Hasselblad, my Nikkor 105 2.5 on my Nikons, and my Leica 90 2 on my Bessas.

"Night photogr. is to caputure the natural light in all conditions". I don't think so... There's no natural light during the nights, except for the moon and stars...

"For me, night photogr. is only 20% architecture and the rest night portraiture/"candle light photogr". You can give any term the meaning you want: that's your right. For other photographers, night photography has a lot to do with showing the ambient spaces have during the night, is mostly architecture photography (again, check Paris by night, by Brassaï) and nothing like low light portraiture or people in nightlife... And definitely no: better night photography is not achieved with one stop faster lenses nor creamer bokeh lenses.

By the way, fast aspherical Leicas don't have great bokeh.

But you can try them, of course... That company will appreciate it, but your photography won't... All I said was best night photography is not done and historically hasn't been done handholding a very narrow focus 35mm lens...

And sharper lenses don't make better photographs. And faster lenses don't make better photographs. And creamer bokeh doesn't make better photographs.

If they did, this game that takes a lifetime, would be as easy, short lived, and cheap, as buying one of the lenses in your list.

You can make better photographs, but gear won't help a bit. And this is not personal in any way.

Cheers,

Juan
 
I'd say 2) Used Leica Summicron pre-asph (OK condition v3/v4?) ... why use a beautiful, expensive Leica with a non-leica lens? Nothing wrong with VC or Zeiss of course, but if I had one of the more expensive Leicas, I would feel right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom