Favorite 35mm lens under $1000

[jonmanjiro]

UC Hexanon.
V2 Summilux.
3.5cm f/1.8 Nikkor

All of these can be found for under $1000 with some looking and patience.

Phil Forrest

Doubtful the UC Hex can be found for less than $1000 these days.

Ditto the W-Nikkor 35/1.8, unless you get very lucky or are willing to buy one missing an aperture blade (like this one).

 

[esc_ctrl]

For sheer image and build quality the 35mm 2.8 C-Biogon. Super sharp, flare resistant, small, well built. Weird filter size, if that's a concern. For the rest of the money go on a weekend trip and shoot.

 

[teddy]

Leica Summaron 35/2.8 is my favourite... Until I get my hands on the 3.5 or a Zeiss.

Leica M3, Leitz Summaron 35/2.8

Fomapan 100

Provia 100F

Velvia 50

 

[maddoc]

35mm Summicron v2 or v3.

 

[presspass]

Another vote for the C-Biogon 2.8. A wonderful lens at a reasonable price. If you want small, cheap, and Leitz, don't overlook the original 35, the Elmar 3.5. I've got one that needs a CLA - the focus is so stiff the lens will unscrew before it starts to turn - but the results are remarkable.

 

[eric4]

Doubtful the UC Hex can be found for less than $1000 these days.

I really love my UC Hex too!

A budget friendly option although not immediate would be to pick up a dead hexar af and wait for MGR Production to release a lens body that you can adapt the glass to. I contacted the company and was told that it is in the works, and will also have a .7m MFD which is the one complaint people seem to have about the UC Hex.

I already have my dead Hexar AF waiting for the release

 

[rscheffler]

Late to the party but my vote for hitting this budget:

Modern: CV 35/1.7 M (the current version) - very sharp already wide open with pleasing color and rendering, if not quite 'Zeiss pop' - sharper across the frame at wider apertures IMO than the ZM 35/2.8 which I shot for years. My choice over the ZM 35/2 and even over the ZM 35/1.4 (though this is also a great lens, but outside your budget)

ZM 35/2.8 - pleasing rendering at near distances with great flare resistance, color, contrast, Zeissy characteristics

Vintage: Canon 35/2 LTM - somewhat busy rendering and can generate interesting flare effects (both of which I like) but stopped down is very sharp if lacking a bit of modern color richness, saturation, contrast. Not as dreamy as the older, faster 35s, but it can serve a dual purpose with its moderate wide open imperfections and great sharpness by f/5.6. Physically it feels a bit fragile and I seem to recall reading about these sometimes seizing up, but it's also tiny.

 

[ACullen]

Tiny-----Canon 35mm f2---( as above)

Bigger-------Zeiss Biogon f2 sharper and better contrast, flair resistant

 

[David Hughes]

Sometimes, instead of putting the Summaron on the M9 I pick up the Fuji X100...

Regards, David

 

[kermaier]

I actually just picked up a copy of the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar. I really love the way it handles, (and just finished first few rolls so we'll see how I like the shots.) But I plan on using it on my M2, which obviously doesn't have the 40mm framelines, how do you do framing with those lenses?

I use an adapter that brings up the 35mm frame lines. Since the frame lines are actually conservative (i.e., 10-15% smaller than you really capture with a 35mm lens), they almost exactly match the field of view of a 40mm lens. Just be aware that there's no leeway in the framing, and parallax starts to matter at close range, and it works great.

 

[michaelwj]

Sometimes, instead of putting the Summaron on the M9 I pick up the Fuji X100...

Regards, David

😱😱😱😱😱😱

 

[adamr1699]

I use an adapter that brings up the 35mm frame lines. Since the frame lines are actually conservative (i.e., 10-15% smaller than you really capture with a 35mm lens), they almost exactly match the field of view of a 40mm lens. Just be aware that there's no leeway in the framing, and parallax starts to matter at close range, and it works great.

Awesome, depending on the images I'll probably just keep the 40!
Thanks!

 

[Erik van Straten]

I am a big fan of the Summaron 35mm f/3.5. Not very fast, but very easy to carry around. The optical quality is second to none.

Leica M5, Summaron 35mm f/3.5 (latest M-version), 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The VC Ultron 35mm f/1.7 LTM is also a very fine lens.

Leica III, VC Ultron LTM, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

 

[infrequent]

...to pick up a dead hexar af and wait for MGR Production to release a lens body that you can adapt the glass to. I contacted the company and was told that it is in the works...

Oh! That would be brilliant.

 

[taomei]

Used MS-Optical to convert the Hexar AF lens

Used MS-Optical to convert the Hexar AF lens

Hoping to see the results of the MGR production Hexar AF conversion! I had my dead Hexar AF converted via JCH and MS-Optical and while I love the images it's produced so far, the handling leave a little something to be desired (clickless aperture handle and entire lens rotating with the focus).

It's also a bit prone to flare if I don't have a hood with it, and it tends to drift a little in focus wide open at minimum focus distance, so I generally shoot it at F2.8 or higher longer than 0.9m.

I really love my UC Hex too!

A budget friendly option although not immediate would be to pick up a dead hexar af and wait for MGR Production to release a lens body that you can adapt the glass to. I contacted the company and was told that it is in the works, and will also have a .7m MFD which is the one complaint people seem to have about the UC Hex.

I already have my dead Hexar AF waiting for the release

 

[Ccoppola82]

I would have to ask a couple questions first
1. What are you shooting?
2. What are you shooting with?
3. Do you like clinical sharpness or vintage character?

I shoot BW film with an M2 and chose my lenses specifically to give a vintage feel (something I was trying to emulate in digital post processing from my canon gear). So keep in mind, my experience comes solely from that perspective. Also, I use film as a daily carry, not landscape specific or portrait specific. For that type of work I use my canon and some L glass.

Summaron 2.8 - This is my most used 35mm. I think it gives a lot of versatility and I LOVE the way the lens draws. If I was to keep just ONE 35mm, this would be it IF I didn't plan to do any night or lowlight work a lot. 2.8 with film pushed to 1600 still isn't fast enough a lot of times. If your camera can handle 6400+ ISO, maybe go for it. All in all it's my favorite lens on film followed closely by the 50mm Rigid cron

Nokton SC - this lens allowed me to go into a concert at night and shoot without a press pass and pushing to 1600. It didn't look like a "pro" camera, so I was allowed in. Had I not had this lens, I wouldn't have gotten to shoot. I've had good results from this lens and it's about the size of the Summaron. It has its critics, but for the price IF you are planning night shots, or just a cheap, non-critical lens....it's hard to beat the value.

Elmar 3.5 - mine is a 1938 I think. I got this old dog at an estate sale and I think it's a lens that is very specific to a classic look. Its totally uncoated and WILL NOT take filters without an attachment. Also, the aperture control is not intuitive (for me anyway). Where it's fun? Where I'm gonna want some flaring, and can walk around with a set apertureand not move it much. Maybe some creative street stuff? This thing is TINY though. I meant it's about as small as a lens cap when mounted.

Hope this helps! Most important thing to do is go take pictures. So if you see a good deal, just get it and make good compositions and exposures.

 

[raid]

The cost of lenses has changed over time. What was offered for below $1000 ten years ago may not be available these days for this price.

I got a V2 pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4 for $1600 a few years ago.
I got recently a Biogon Zeiss 35/2 M used for $600 or so.
The Canon 35/2 is an excellent lens. Cost may be about $400-$500.
The Summicron 35/2 costs far more than $1000.
The Summaron 35/2.8 is a great lens for B&W, it is stated online. Cost=$750-$900.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The cost of lenses has changed over time. What was offered for below $1000 ten years ago may not be available these days for this price.

I got a V2 pre-asph Summilux 35/1.4 for $1600 a few years ago.
I got recently a Biogon Zeiss 35/2 M used for $600 or so.
The Canon 35/2 is an excellent lens. Cost may be about $400-$500.
The Summilux 35/2 costs far more than $1000.
The Summaron 35/2.8 is a great lens for B&W, it is stated online. Cost=$750-$900.

They are still cheaper than new ones. These lenses are used above all on digital Leicas I guess. But how to understand this quote from Jonmanjiro in this thread: What's it about the Color Skopar 28mm 3,5 LTM? (

1 2):

Hi Erik, passé as in pre-digital lenses no longer have color shift problems on digital Leicas? Leica has certainly made improvements with each subsequent model, but I don't think they've quite reached that stage yet.

Erik.

 

[Pioneer]

I absolutely love Mr. Myazaki's Perar Triplet 35/3.5 pancake. It fits perfectly on the front of my M-A making it darned near pocket sized. Ergonomically it is a bit quirky, and it isn't terribly sharp in the corners until f5.6, but it is so small and light I forgive it for its small imperfections.

I prefer to call it "character." 😀