CV 35mm 2.5 vs leica 35mm summarit

CV 35mm 2.5 vs leica 35mm summarit

  • I prefer buying the summarit new. Worth it.

    Votes: 28 28.3%

  • No. I'll prefer the CV. Cheap, small and good enough.

    Votes: 71 71.7%
  • Total voters
    99
the CV (mine is the pancake II version) is a fine lens, but has a lot more vignetting on full frame film than the Summarit. This does have a real impact on the look of the images.

I have both and prefer, overall, the Summarit, but the CV is a darned good lens and I use both of them. I tend to take the CV when doing one lens street work as the focus is much stiffer, so I can set it to a specific distance and know it won't budge. The focus action on the Summarit is much lighter.
 
Turtle said:
the CV (mine is the pancake II version) is a fine lens, but has a lot more vignetting on full frame film than the Summarit. This does have a real impact on the look of the images.
Click to expand...

This can be a good thing sometimes too.

I tend to take the CV when doing one lens street work as the focus is much stiffer, so I can set it to a specific distance and know it won't budge. The focus action on the Summarit is much lighter.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
I didn't like CV lenses for their color rendering and contrast. The advantage of owning them for me was that they are cheaper. I decided though that it's better to own the lenses that I want, to help me get the pictures that I want, and the latter are priceless enough to justify the amount I spend.
 
Denton said:
My skopar was also superior, at comparable images size, to a new 28mm f2.8 elmarit I tried.
Denton
Click to expand...

I like the skopar as well but this seems a bridge too far--I don't know about the elmarit ASPH (it's meant to be superb) but I do have a 28 summicron and my skopar is not in that league, and personally I much prefer the smooth and sharp cv 35/1.2 to the 50 cron-like drawing of the skopar.

The skopar 3D is sometimes just too extreme for me, but it has to be one of the great RF lens values, that's for sure.
 
I got my CV 35/2.5 from a very nice man on this forum for a really really good price. I had doubts about it's image quality because of its price... but I realized that after 6 months of use, I can't ask for anything more from this lens. It's sharp, has nice bokeh, minimal distortion, and all fits in a tiny, portable package. It's an all around reliable lens.

Here are some images I took with my M8 and the CV 35/2.5

6703356485_bd9f6cd89a_b.jpg

6703360867_7c47c8210e_b.jpg

6703346997_2203d964e3_b.jpg

6608559865_ea4536ac0d_b.jpg

6608553715_53f7e627bc_b.jpg
 
I had the CV and it was a wonderful lens for the $220 I purchased it for, but I also had the Summarit 35 (replaced with a cron ASPH) and it was on a different level. Though it is impossible see real differences (besides flare) with these small photos, I'll leave a couple from each lens any way.

With that said, if you are planning on getting the Zeiss or Summicron later, then just get the CV, but if this is your 'forever' lens I'd go with the Leica.

one and two Summarit 35:





three and four CV 35 f/2.5:



 
I've read a lot about how the high contrast of the 35mm f2.5 isn't so great for black and white. Have people had challenges with that? If so, can you just pull film slightly to compensate?

More context:
I'm using a Canon 35mm 2.8 lens currently. While it works well most of the time, I've had a growing number of shots recently where I found myself shooting wide open (or close to it). At that aperture, I'm seeing more softness in the corners and swirling than I prefer. As I'm using LTM cameras, the Voigtlander offerings seem like the most practical alternatives. In the past I produced mostly high contrast work but over the last two years I've come to prefer lower contrast imagery.
 
While CV 35/2.5 is a good lens - it didnt work out for me personally. I dont even know why, really. Had ALL versions and liked them Ok, yet kept selling it. I guess for me it just didnt have enough or right character. I have Ultron 35/1.7 - lovely. CV 40/1.4 - great all around lens not much bigger than Skopar. Of course CV 35/1.2 is the king of them all. So, while I'm not going to say that CV 35/2.5 is a bad lens, I wouldnt recommend it much either when lenses like CV 40/1.4 are around for a little more.
No experience with Leica, but I did use UC-Hex 35/2, M-Hex 35/2, Canon 35/2, CL and CLE Rokkors and some others in a past. 35mm Skopar somehow just seems too "plain" compared to all of them as far as images it produces. They also seem to have some sample variation when comes to quality (as many CV lenses do, unfortunatelly).
 
Krosya said:
So, while I'm not going to say that CV 35/2.5 is a bad lens, I wouldnt recommend it much either when lenses like CV 40/1.4 are around for a little more.
Click to expand...

On the M9, the color skopar has no shift, while the 40mm nokton does. That and the framelines are too tight for the M9's 35mm frames.

35mm Skopar somehow just seems too "plain" compared to all of them as far as images it produces. They also seem to have some sample variation when comes to quality (as many CV lenses do, unfortunatelly).
Click to expand...

I've owned a handful of color skopars and none of them had issues. This lens is one of the good ones that CV makes and you do not hear of issues with this lens ever. I guess it isn't a charecter lens, but that word always seems to equate to judging bokeh. Bokeh isn't everything. I think the most important charecteristic of a photo is content, not lens signature. I think many don't want to like it because it is cheap... and cheap cannot be as good. :D
 
The CV 35/2.5 Pancake I was my first rangefinder lens and I loved it. It was really well built and had a short focus throw so it was fast. The only thing I didn't like was the 0.9M closest focus which CV fixed with the M-mount version. An old pic from it below was taken at closest focus. The current lens is optically identical and it renders really nicely. It's just a great value lens.


U353I1106340785.SEQ.0.jpg
 
back alley said:
having tried so many lenses over the years i decided that for the money...the non cv lenses were just not worth it...for me.

also...i love using the smaller cv lenses on my cameras...they tend to be slower but it has not been a major burden at all.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was at first paranoid by such a "slow" lens (2.5), but it really hasn't been a problem at all.
 
So, having owned the 35mm Summarit twice now and sold the first one, then traded the 2nd for a 75mm Summarit (which is REALLY nice) AND having had the CV 35mm 2.5 twice as well, I can say that for MYSELF (shooting with a film M and an M8) - I really prefer the CV35mm. It's handling is really nice, the vII in m mount looks nicer with a hood, it's really compact, AND I preferred the slightly higher contrast of the CV to the Summarit. I shoot mostly BW and hardly any of my M8 shots remain in colour. The only negative is I sometimes bump the aperture ring on the CV with my fingers, but I've gotten used to it - so yeah I've kept the CV 35 the 2nd time around.

As a side note, the 75mm Summarit is superb. While I don't have 75mm framelines on my M4-2, I just use the 90 and accept that I have a bit more space around the lines.
 
I would go with the Summarit 35mm. Great little lens, with a rendering part classic, part modern. Heck, Puts and some even say it is better than the Cron 35 in some ways. (That said, I'd prefer the Cron 35.) I have been completely happy with each Leica lens that I have used, so that has really guided my lens choices.
 
bensyverson said:
Interesting blog post on Steve Huff's site comparing 35's, including the CV.

It seems to fly in the face of the many crazy-sharp Skopar photos I've seen around the web, including 100% crops. Could it be a bad sample? Or motion blur? I'm scratching my head.
Click to expand...

Strange for sure... but the rest of the field performed as you would have expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom