fast lenses

[Tim Gray]

This has beat to death I'm sure, but I feel like asking it again. I'm rather happy with my 50 cron and 35 ZM biogon. However, it'd be great to have a lens that I can rely on in low light. Whether that means dumping the cron and getting a 50 lux, or buying something else, I don't know. I'd kind of like it to be in the 35 or 50 format, and don't really want to spend a ton of money on a third lens, so it should either be cheapish or if its more expense, be good enough to get rid of the 50 cron or the 35 ZM.

I'm thinking LTM or 50 Lux is the way to go. But which LTM (one of the many canons?), or which lux? Any suggestions?

 

[Stan001]

Try Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 VM Nokton Classic

Try Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 VM Nokton Classic

It is a pretty good performer for a reasonable amount of cash. I'm more than happy with its performance.

 

[vrgard]

If you're looking to replace the 50 Cron, then I would highly recommend the 50 Lux pre-ASPH. If you're simply looking for a low-cost fast 50 to augment your kit, you might search for a Jupiter 3 (particularly if you can find one that Brian Sweeney has collimated). A middle of the road approach that will provide the speed you want and may, or may not, be a replacement for the 50 Cron is to consider one of the older ltm Nikkor or Canon 50's (e.g., the Nikkor 50/1.4, the Canon 50/1.4 or the Canon 50/1.5, depending upon what use and look you're after). I'll leave it to others to comment on the possiblity of a Nokton 50/1.5.

-Randy

 

[Tom A]

I would always keep the 35f2 Biogon! It is in a class by itself for f2's and as it is a 35, it can be handheld at slower speeds than a 50.
Of course the "ne plus ultra" in 50's is the 50f1.4 Asph, but is is several tonnes of money these days!!! The 50f1/5 C-Sonnar has a matching image rendition to the Biogon 35 and that can be a point. It is plenty sharp, not as good in close as the 50f1.4 Asph, but better than the pre-asph Summiluxes. The Nokton 50mm f1.5 is another contender. Very good lens, again better than the pre-asph Summilux and remarkable wide open performance.
The older Nikon/Canon's are good resolution lenses, but modern coating and modern glass in the ZM and VC line gives better contrast. The Canon
50f1.4 is a very good lens of the LTM, I always found on par with the Nikkor 50f1.4 with marginally better resolution .
What to shoose depends to a great extent what you will be using it for! Low light critical work at f1.4-f1.5 - go for either the ZM 50f1.5 or the Nokton 50f1.5. Occasional low light, but mainly as a 50 "walk about" lens - either the Canon 50f1.4 or the Nikkor 50f1.4 would work and either one would give you a bit of 60's look to the shots. The biggest problem with these are condition as most of them are approaching 50+ years of age and if they have any scratches or haze, you will have to add service to the cost. Hoods can be a problems too.

 

[Tim Gray]

Main use would be low light since the 50 cron is a pretty good performer. If I went with something as expensive as the 50 lux, I'd have to sell the cron, and the lux would have to be both low light and general duty. It sounds like unless I'm going to go with Asph lux, then I would be better served with another cheaper lens.

I do very much like the Biogon and don't plan on getting rid of it, as much as I dislike having multiple lenses in the same focal length. Too many choices.

I keep reading issues with the Sonnar's focusing. Well, not issues, more a byproduct of the design, but since this would most likely be used for people pictures, wandering focus at different apertures scares me.

Maybe I should just go for the 35 or 40 nokton.

This is on film by the way, not sure if it makes a difference.

 

[Hacker]

For the 50mm, a good compromise is the M-Hexanon 50mm f1.2. It renders images in-between the Summilux ASPH and the Noctilux. Another alternative is the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (Millennium Edition). Images are very sharp but under some conditions, the bokeh may be a little bit too swirly. Both are cheaper than the Summilux ASPH and offer more resolution than the Summicron and at least a stop wider.

 

[Tim Gray]

how much do those 2 lenses run? And how hard are they to find?

 

[ferider]

If you really want it for speed, not for limited DOF, 35 is the better choice, you gain one stop in "hand-holdability" due to the wide angle. The fastest 50s out there have a min. focus of 1m. The fastest 35s have minimum focus of .7m, which allows you to almost do the same type of portraits as with a 50 at 1m.

So, if size doesn't matter, the best option is the 35/1.2 Nokton. Great signature, too. If you want to go more compact, a 35/1.4 is better. Like the new CV 35/1.4 Nokton or one of the Summiluxes, depending on the signature you like. If you want a fast, compact hybrid between 35 and 50, the CV 40/1.4 is great as well.

BTW, do not forget the CV 35/1.7 Ultron; it is very affordable, but a great lens.

Roland.

 

[angeloks]

The Canon 50mm f1.2 in LTM is good choice and kinda cheap compare to the others!

 

[Tim Gray]

The Nokton 1.2 looks like such a pig though. That might just be too big for me.

I can't afford a 35 Lux. If I bought one, I'd have to get rid of the ZM - can't justify both of those.

The Canon 1.2 is a good idea. Those aren't too expensive, right?

 

[cosmonaut]

I have the Nokton 40mm 1.4 and love it.

 

[Tim Gray]

Never mind guys. I don't know what I was thinking. The VC 35 1.4 Nokton it is. That's a lot of lens for a a reasonable amount of money. I'd go with the 40, but the 35 matches my frame lines better (and is a hair smaller to boot!)

Sharp, fast and small. Sounds like a good deal.