First 50mm lens decision, help!

[Daryl J.]

Opinion:

The very center of the fantastic sphere of 50mm lenses that work on M mount Leicas is the V.3 Summicron.

Learn it well and then branch out from there.


Other:
As a Hassey user myself, if that's the image style you're after, the Planar gets you the closest albeit with the limits of working with a relatively tiny negative.


I wish you all the best with your M4. It's a delightful piece of kit.
Daryl

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I guess I'd better chip in and point out that whatever you choose you just can't win because they are all compromises.

So go for one of them and, after a while, you'll notice what it lacks and will start looking at another to make up for it but that one will, after a while, be lacking in something and so, after a while, you'll get another and so it will go on and on and on because none of them are perfect and they all lack something.

And then, one day, you'll realise that the one you need is at home and then...

Well, at this point I'll say pick one with a pin; it will save a lot of agonising. Have fun.

Regards, David

 

[michaelwj]

What about 35mm? What's everyone's go to 35mm lens?

That's another 10 page thread...
For every lens there at 10 opinions, and like David says above they're all comprising something.

 

[Rob-F]

What about 35mm? What's everyone's go to 35mm lens?

Want to stay in the under $1000 range?

35mm F/2.8 Summaron
35mm Voigtlander f/2.5 Color Skopar

These are not compromises. They are world-class in the own way, at the right price.

 

[michaelwj]

Want to stay in the under $1000 range?

35mm F/2.8 Summaron
35mm Voigtlander f/2.5 Color Skopar

These are not compromises. They are world-class in the own way, at the right price.

Not to be picky, but they compromise speed. 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Used Color Skopar 35 2.5 is well under 300$ for LTM versions now. It was my go to lens three times. And I let it go all three times. I place it as way better than better than nothing lens for bw and fine lens for color. All three versions are build with real metal and all have clean and clear glass.
Next to it is Nokton 35 1.4 by popularity and affordability for fresh lens. Focus shift and barrel distortions. The Ultron 35 1.7 is better lens for go to (both versions), but unfortunately it is missing focus tab.
Some people are using old made Nikon, Canon lenses as go to lens. But I have bad luck with fungus and else coming with old lenses.
Some could afford old Leitz made glass, Summaron 35 2.8 and Summicrons, Summilux. To me it is terribly overpriced. My go to 35 lens is Leica made Summarit-M 35 2.5, purchased NiB for 1200$ in 2016. It is registered under my name with Leica customer support and it is my lens by all means. Aspherical element, micro contrast, super nice rendering and best handling. Hood is sexy.
Oh, here is Zeiss ZM lenses for 35. But I don't like handling. I think they are safest bet and some if not most are finding them to be nice in rendering.
And if you broke, here is always Jupiter 12. Cost is next to nothing. Always clean glass, always stiff focus due to gunk instead of lubrication. Oil on aperture blades is the signature of this lens construction. Huge flare is the signature on negatives you will get.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Ko.Fe., it seems that you tried them all. About the Summarit 35mm f/2.5 you say it has an aspherical element. This I didn't know.
I've heard a story that the new Summarits 50mm f/2.4 and 35mm f/2.4 are optically the same as the f/2.5 versions. Do you know anything about that?

You have tried the 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar. Does this lens have any barrel or pincushion distortion?

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Erik, for 250$ used lens Color Skopar is only missing micro-contrast on bw. It is all I was able to notice. I owned/used all three versions of this lens. Two of them were the only lens I used for year or so. I don't think it has the Nokton 35 1.4 problems, because it is 2.5 lens.

Summarit-M 35 2.5 and 2.4 are exactly the same optical formula lenses.
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leic...it-m/?utm_source=20140915en&utm_medium=E-Mail

No new optical design was need to achieve the bigger aperture. Leica engineers were able to increase the maximum aperture by 1/8 exposure value by tighter tolerances in the production process. The lens design for the Summarit-M 35 mm includes one aspherical lens element, the predecessor included the same lens element, but it was not mentioned in the official lens name.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Thank you, Ko.Fe. Very interesting information.

However, I never quite understand what "micro-contrast" means. I will study that. I like the Color-Skopar for LTM because it is so small. I dislike somehow the bayonet-clamp for the lens hood on the M version.

Erik.

 

[kxl]

For 35mm, I like the ZM 35/2.8 Biogon-c.

 

[Bingley]

I'm very happy with the Canon 35/2.0 and the Summaron 35/3.5, both LTM. The Canon is sharp, gives more of a modern look (my sample dates from around 1971), yet can render subtleties in tone and hue that a higher contrast lens might miss. It's got a recessed front element and is fairly flare resistant, so I never use a hood with it. The aluminum body means it's lightweight, good for travel.

The Summaron is a classic, vintage Leica lens from the late 1940s. It's tiny, beautifully made, very sharp but with moderate contrast as one would expect from a coated lens of that era. It rocks on a Barnack-style camera. Again, I've found my sample to be relatively flare resistant, so I don't use a hood with it. The 3.5 version of this lens is often much cheaper than the 2.8 in either LTM or M-mount. I think the 35/3.5 is good value if you get a clean sample.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, Ko.Fe. Very interesting information.

However, I never quite understand what "micro-contrast" means. I will study that. I like the Color-Skopar for LTM because it is so small. I dislike somehow the bayonet-clamp for the lens hood on the M version.

Erik.

"micro-contrast" is something which is very hard to explain by me.
Here is something close to my experience. Canon L and non-L is 100% spot on for me.
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/8/micro-contrast-the-biggest-optical-luxury-of-the-world
Most astonishing lens with micro-contrast in color I have on DSLR was modern Zeiss ZE 50 1.4 lens. Disaster on 1.4, but under good light and f5.6 it was unbeatable on how smooth and detailed transitions were. With perfect balance of contrast and details.

Now for me it is something more visible in bw and for me it is mostly on bw darkroom prints. I was never happy with CV CS 35 2.5 prints. I look at them and they are sharp, but it was kind of empty, something was missing between sharp lines. Something similar with many non expensive MF lenses.
But some lenses just have it. For example Olympus XA lens is flat on bw, yet Trip 35 is juicy on bw prints. Cheap Oly.Z 50 1.8 has it, even 50/2 lens on Kiev-19 renders not just sharp, but brings a lot between sharp lines.
I think it is more visible with f5.6 and smaller apertures and it is something to look at the image part where it is in focus.

UPD: Summaron 35 3.5 is less to none "micro-contrast", 2.8 is one of the best. IMO.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The Summaron is a classic, vintage Leica lens from the late 1940s. It's tiny, beautifully made, very sharp but with moderate contrast as one would expect from a coated lens of that era. It rocks on a Barnack-style camera.

Yes, Steve, it is a great lens, I think it is better than the Summaron f/2.8. But the screw-mount version is very confusing in use. The f/stop ring turns when you focus, so when choosing the right f/stop I need my glasses. The M-versions are ergonomically better but optically the same.

P.S. There are also later LTM versions of the Summaron f/3.5, they are like the last bayonet version. The latest versions are ergonomically the best.

Erik.

 

[Cabledog]

This is the one I'm leaning towards. After looking back through my photos I think 35mm might suit my style more. I'll also be able to see if I like the zeiss rendering on 35 negative and if I do I can grab the planar. If not I'll go for the elmar or summicron. 😀

For 35mm, I like the ZM 35/2.8 Biogon-c.

 

[danielsterno]

u can get a summicron rigid and MAYBE a Jupiter 3 50 mm 1.5 as well?

 

[Huss]

Surprised no-one has mentioned this..

Surprised no-one has mentioned this..

Instead of the 50 and/or the 35, just get the Summicron 40mm f2.

It's fantastic!

😀

M4-2 + Summicron 40

 

[Cabledog]

Actually this would fit my need of 35/50 and being compact. How is this lens for black and white? Is it similar in sharpness and contrast as say the summicron 50?

Instead of the 50 and/or the 35, just get the Summicron 40mm f2.

It's fantastic!

😀

 

[aizan]

it might be the "water lens," but the bokeh wide open and closeup is really harsh. ymmv.

 

[Cabledog]

So you would recommend separate 35 and 50?

it might be the "water lens," but the bokeh wide open and closeup is really harsh. ymmv.

 

[Cabledog]

Someone had mentioned the color skopar a few times. What's the difference in character between that and the nokton?