jett
Well-known
OK so in a few months (after saving up and selling gear) I want to purchase a Leica M with 1-2 lenses.
The M's that I'm thinking of are Leica M3 and Leica M2. I prefer the 50mm focal length which makes the M3 ideal but i may* want to shoot with a 35mm focal length lens which makes the M2 more practical.
The lenses, I'm not sure yet but I have to do some more research. I'm interested in B&W only. It's down mainly to Leica, Zeiss, and Konica...but I'm leaning towards Leica, or maybe Zeiss because they're more readily available it seems. Leica seems to be the benchmark of all comparisons while Zeiss/Konica optics are just as good/better but with some focusing/quality control issues (Zeiss wobble). I think I'd prefer a less - contrasty lens, so Leica is my pick as of now but I think that I'd have to try a Zeiss/Konica in the future because I may favor their renderings more. I'm not sure.
I'm mostly interested in the 50mm and 35mm focal lengths but I have some questions on some lenses.
Zeiss Lenses:
1) Are all of their lenses prone to the Zeiss wobble, or just a certain kind? I haven't looked into the wobble too much but that's a big turn off for me since they command a premium.
2) I'd probably be purchasing this lens used, and without warranty, so how much would it cost to repair? I don't want to be hacking into the lens myself unless it's a very easy DIY job.
3) The Zeiss Sonnar really interests me because it's unique rendering. I know that there is a focus shift problem and some hate it and others deal with it, but does anyone use this as their standard 50mm lens? As opposed to a special one? I'm hesitant because I don't want to make the decision of having it optimized for only one focal length and it seems like a pain to have to compensate every other time you shoot at a different aperture.
Leica Lenses:
1) How is the 35mm f2.8 Summaron, wide open? If I want a 35mm lens, I'd probably have to go with a Summaron because the Summicron's are pricey. Or just get an expensive 35mm and a cheap 50mm...because I'd want that 35mm f2 sooner or later...
Hexanon Lenses
1) How is the build compared to Leica and Zeiss? Any common issues?
Not sure what setup I'd go with.
I'm mostly thinking:
-M2 + Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar + 35mm f2 Zeiss Biogon
-M3 + Leica 50mm f2 Summicron DR + 35mm f2.8 Leica Summaron
-M2 + Leica 35mm f2 Summicron
Decisions are tough when the glass is so expensive.
The M's that I'm thinking of are Leica M3 and Leica M2. I prefer the 50mm focal length which makes the M3 ideal but i may* want to shoot with a 35mm focal length lens which makes the M2 more practical.
The lenses, I'm not sure yet but I have to do some more research. I'm interested in B&W only. It's down mainly to Leica, Zeiss, and Konica...but I'm leaning towards Leica, or maybe Zeiss because they're more readily available it seems. Leica seems to be the benchmark of all comparisons while Zeiss/Konica optics are just as good/better but with some focusing/quality control issues (Zeiss wobble). I think I'd prefer a less - contrasty lens, so Leica is my pick as of now but I think that I'd have to try a Zeiss/Konica in the future because I may favor their renderings more. I'm not sure.
I'm mostly interested in the 50mm and 35mm focal lengths but I have some questions on some lenses.
Zeiss Lenses:
1) Are all of their lenses prone to the Zeiss wobble, or just a certain kind? I haven't looked into the wobble too much but that's a big turn off for me since they command a premium.
2) I'd probably be purchasing this lens used, and without warranty, so how much would it cost to repair? I don't want to be hacking into the lens myself unless it's a very easy DIY job.
3) The Zeiss Sonnar really interests me because it's unique rendering. I know that there is a focus shift problem and some hate it and others deal with it, but does anyone use this as their standard 50mm lens? As opposed to a special one? I'm hesitant because I don't want to make the decision of having it optimized for only one focal length and it seems like a pain to have to compensate every other time you shoot at a different aperture.
Leica Lenses:
1) How is the 35mm f2.8 Summaron, wide open? If I want a 35mm lens, I'd probably have to go with a Summaron because the Summicron's are pricey. Or just get an expensive 35mm and a cheap 50mm...because I'd want that 35mm f2 sooner or later...
Hexanon Lenses
1) How is the build compared to Leica and Zeiss? Any common issues?
Not sure what setup I'd go with.
I'm mostly thinking:
-M2 + Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar + 35mm f2 Zeiss Biogon
-M3 + Leica 50mm f2 Summicron DR + 35mm f2.8 Leica Summaron
-M2 + Leica 35mm f2 Summicron
Decisions are tough when the glass is so expensive.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
My experience is that you'll want a M2, as you're biased towards the 35mm. The M3 is the "best" M in my opinion, because I really like longer lenses. When I go wide, I go really wide; my M3 generally has a 15mm Voigtlander mounted and I only use the 50mm Summicron, or the 90mm Elmar, otherwise.
In the 35mm length, two alternatives to the Leitz offerings, which I've used and enjoyed, are the Canon 35/2 and the Jupiter 12. The Canon stands comparison with the Summicron, in my opinion. I used one in the 'sixties and the results were always better than I deserved. The Jupiter is, in every way, a gamble. Get a good one and you'll get superb quality for one tenth the price of the Leitz. The problem is that you may well not. I was lucky and bought an alloy bodied "12" that looked terrible but was optically excellent. I used it for several years but only for one or two shots per roll, so I eventually purged it.
If you're on a budget, as you seem to be, I'd think that the Canon is the best, middle of the road choice. Good luck!
In the 35mm length, two alternatives to the Leitz offerings, which I've used and enjoyed, are the Canon 35/2 and the Jupiter 12. The Canon stands comparison with the Summicron, in my opinion. I used one in the 'sixties and the results were always better than I deserved. The Jupiter is, in every way, a gamble. Get a good one and you'll get superb quality for one tenth the price of the Leitz. The problem is that you may well not. I was lucky and bought an alloy bodied "12" that looked terrible but was optically excellent. I used it for several years but only for one or two shots per roll, so I eventually purged it.
If you're on a budget, as you seem to be, I'd think that the Canon is the best, middle of the road choice. Good luck!
Papercut
Well-known
You'll get a ton of advice, I'm sure, so I'll leave specific recommendations to others. I want to give a piece of psychological advice, instead.
The quoted comment below is true, but it implies that a mistaken purchase is "money wasted." That just isn't so for M-mount glass. If you buy any of these lenses used, you will be able to sell them on either for what you paid or for a little more / little less. The actual cost for trying a lens is quite low when you buy used as long as you are willing to sell the 'mistakes' off to try something different. That should encourage you to experiment. These decisions are not permanent -- and you will be able to recoup your money (or all but a tiny fraction of it) to try other options if your original choices do not work for you.
The quoted comment below is true, but it implies that a mistaken purchase is "money wasted." That just isn't so for M-mount glass. If you buy any of these lenses used, you will be able to sell them on either for what you paid or for a little more / little less. The actual cost for trying a lens is quite low when you buy used as long as you are willing to sell the 'mistakes' off to try something different. That should encourage you to experiment. These decisions are not permanent -- and you will be able to recoup your money (or all but a tiny fraction of it) to try other options if your original choices do not work for you.
redisburning
Well-known
the summaron 2.8 is a good lens.
I don't know how common the wobble is. As with all things, YMMV.
if all you care about is b&w my recommendation to you is an M2 or M3 and a V2 50 summilux. I own the Planar, it's great for color and for modern t grained b&w. but I would describe it almost as being characterless; my pictures with it almost don't strike me as being photographs, but the way it actually was when I was there.
I wanted technical perfection and I think I got some. Unfortunately, one should always be careful what they wish for; I'm still coming to grips with the lens.
I think the pre-ASPH summilux with any film which shows it's grain reasonably is a special combination. Pictures have an almost artistic immediacy which lets you know that someone was there, and took a picture because they wanted to take a picture.
btw the DR cron is a nice lens too. I won't recommend against it, I just would get the Lux personally.
as far as a 35 goes, I might go for the c-biogon. IMO most shots at infinity aren't that interesting. the bigger brother does have an emergency f2 though, and very strong fine detail rendering stopped down. either is a fine choice.
do you wear glasses? I do. that was why I went M2 over M3 even though I like 50s the best.
I don't know how common the wobble is. As with all things, YMMV.
if all you care about is b&w my recommendation to you is an M2 or M3 and a V2 50 summilux. I own the Planar, it's great for color and for modern t grained b&w. but I would describe it almost as being characterless; my pictures with it almost don't strike me as being photographs, but the way it actually was when I was there.
I wanted technical perfection and I think I got some. Unfortunately, one should always be careful what they wish for; I'm still coming to grips with the lens.
I think the pre-ASPH summilux with any film which shows it's grain reasonably is a special combination. Pictures have an almost artistic immediacy which lets you know that someone was there, and took a picture because they wanted to take a picture.
btw the DR cron is a nice lens too. I won't recommend against it, I just would get the Lux personally.
as far as a 35 goes, I might go for the c-biogon. IMO most shots at infinity aren't that interesting. the bigger brother does have an emergency f2 though, and very strong fine detail rendering stopped down. either is a fine choice.
do you wear glasses? I do. that was why I went M2 over M3 even though I like 50s the best.
jett
Well-known
Yeah, actually, I think an M2 might be better for me.
The thing is, I've been shooting for ~1 year so i'm not a seasoned shooter. I've iterated across a few cameras and I've only stuck with a 50mm. I've shot mostly fixed-lens rangefinders and TLR's and I've been mostly happy with the 50mm but I find it to be too narrow at times. Gets kinds of stale/boring but that's also because I'm no good
.
I think I'm just dieing to try a 35mm! If I don't get an M2/35mm then I'll still want that 35mm, so I'll get an M2 first.
I had an XA shortly but I sold it because I hated the camera. The difference in FOV was definitely noticeable. I find both focal lengths useful. Not sure if I'm a 35mm guy, 50mm guy, or a 35mm & 50mm.
I don't wear glasses. Yeah, one reason for me to go Leica is that it's sort of an investment. Of all the lenses, the vintage Leica lenses are most likely going to appreciate in value.
The Lux is another possibility. Instead of planning two lenses, I might just go with one Leica 50mm f1.4 and a cheap 35mm or a Leica 35mm f2 and a cheap 50mm.
The thing is, I've been shooting for ~1 year so i'm not a seasoned shooter. I've iterated across a few cameras and I've only stuck with a 50mm. I've shot mostly fixed-lens rangefinders and TLR's and I've been mostly happy with the 50mm but I find it to be too narrow at times. Gets kinds of stale/boring but that's also because I'm no good
.I think I'm just dieing to try a 35mm! If I don't get an M2/35mm then I'll still want that 35mm, so I'll get an M2 first.
I had an XA shortly but I sold it because I hated the camera. The difference in FOV was definitely noticeable. I find both focal lengths useful. Not sure if I'm a 35mm guy, 50mm guy, or a 35mm & 50mm
.I don't wear glasses. Yeah, one reason for me to go Leica is that it's sort of an investment. Of all the lenses, the vintage Leica lenses are most likely going to appreciate in value.
The Lux is another possibility. Instead of planning two lenses, I might just go with one Leica 50mm f1.4 and a cheap 35mm or a Leica 35mm f2 and a cheap 50mm.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Don't dismiss Voigtlander:
One of their 35mm lenses and a 50 summicron would make a good pair.
One of their 35mm lenses and a 50 summicron would make a good pair.
magicianhisoka
Well-known
I'd get a versatile first camera, an M2. Then I'd decide which focal length I used most and dump the most cash on it. Splurge on a 50 cron and maybe a CV 35 2.5
jett
Well-known
Yeah, thinking about it some more I'm leaning towards an M2 and a 35mm Summicron.
The reason is because:
1) I'm secretly dying to try a 35mm lens. If I don't like it, then I can sell it easily.
2) Although The Summaron is probably a great lens, it's kind of a compromise since I like speed (I shoot a lot of available light).
3) It'll probably be harder to obtain this lens later since the Leica glass is appreciating...especially with the rise of digital mirrorless cameras. I think that these lenses will be even more desireable since they create a nice 50mm in FF equiv.
If I feel the need to have a 50mm then I'll go for a less expensive Canon LTM since those are less expensive and plentiful, or save up for a DR Summicron/Lux.
A Leica M3 + 50mm f2 Summicron & Leica M2 + 35mm f2 Summicron would be a dream come true...until I lust for that 50mm f1.4 & that 35mm f1.4. haha But I really think that f2 is good enough for me. Only reason for me to get the 50mm f1.4 is the character, maybe.
The reason is because:
1) I'm secretly dying to try a 35mm lens. If I don't like it, then I can sell it easily.
2) Although The Summaron is probably a great lens, it's kind of a compromise since I like speed (I shoot a lot of available light).
3) It'll probably be harder to obtain this lens later since the Leica glass is appreciating...especially with the rise of digital mirrorless cameras. I think that these lenses will be even more desireable since they create a nice 50mm in FF equiv.
If I feel the need to have a 50mm then I'll go for a less expensive Canon LTM since those are less expensive and plentiful, or save up for a DR Summicron/Lux.
A Leica M3 + 50mm f2 Summicron & Leica M2 + 35mm f2 Summicron would be a dream come true...until I lust for that 50mm f1.4 & that 35mm f1.4. haha
But I really think that f2 is good enough for me. Only reason for me to get the 50mm f1.4 is the character, maybe.redisburning
Well-known
if you're not sure about a 35, either buy a cheap SLR 35 or rent a 35 before you buy.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
The Konica lenses IMHO are better built than the Zeiss and Leitz lenses. I owned the Konica 50/2.0 and the 28/2.8, they were more 'tight' than any other lens I ever owned in the same focal length. The Zeiss lenses apparently can develop a wobble, I owned the Summilux 50/1.4 and the Elmarit 28/2.8 and both disappointed in build quality when compared to the Hexanons.
The Hexanon 35/2.0 I owned was less tight. May have been sample variation.
I'd say get a Biogon 35/2.0 and a Hexanon 50/2.0. The Hex offers Summicron quality for a lot less cash, while the Biogon is a stellar lens and if it does develop a wobble you can always invest later savings into a Summicron 35/2.0.
The Hexanon 35/2.0 I owned was less tight. May have been sample variation.
I'd say get a Biogon 35/2.0 and a Hexanon 50/2.0. The Hex offers Summicron quality for a lot less cash, while the Biogon is a stellar lens and if it does develop a wobble you can always invest later savings into a Summicron 35/2.0.
jett
Well-known
QUOTE=redisburning;1852166]if you're not sure about a 35, either buy a cheap SLR 35 or rent a 35 before you buy.[/QUOTE]
Very good advice but I kind of did that, sort of. I wanted a RF but something was "wrong" with every non-Leica RF that I've owned/tried (poor RF/VF, ergonomics, build, etc.). I didn't want to pay the Leica price so I bought an OM with a 28mm f2.8 and 35mm F2 but I hardly use it because I just prefer RF's, my Kodak Retina's in particular. A Retina with a 35mm lens would be great but I didn't like the IIIs nor did I like the Canon RF's (7/P) so I feel like an M is almost unavoidable. Yeah there is a Zeiss Ikon, and CV bodies. But I feel that the ZI is atleast comparable in price to a Leica M2/M3 (Haven't looked into the prices, honestly) and the CV bodies are lacking in build (but I've never touched one, either).
Maybe going Leica 35mm F2 Summicron is extreme. Maybe I ought to start with Canon/CV for a lower price (I'd not like to get FSU gear bc of QC issues).
I think that I want to go 50mm f2 and/or 35mm f2 (eventually atleast) but I'm trying to not be so Leica-centric with the glass since there are many great alternatives.
Also, kind of irrelevant but..
I'm kind of thinking of selling all/almost all of my gear because I've tried many cameras/bodies/lenses and there are very few ones that I like. I don't like most of them. (Olympus OM, Bronica SQ, Mamiya TLR, 120 Folders, DSLR, FL RF's, etc.). The only ones that I use now are my Kodak Retina's and Rolleiflex MX-EVS.
Now I want to stick with Leica M and Rolleiflex TLR. I really don't want to have a lot of cameras/lenses so ideally it'd be simple with 1 Leica M, 1 Leica Lens, and 1 Rolleiflex TLR (but maybe some backups in the future).
I'm going to try a 3.5E Rolleiflex and sell my MX-EVS if I prefer the 3.5E.
With RF's, the only other RF that I'd seriously consider is Leica M. I was thinking of going M3 + 50mm f2 (or 50mm f1.5/f1.4) but I don't know if a 50mm will always work. I never feel the need to have a longer focal length but sometimes I think my images would look better if my lens were a little wider (35mm). So I think I might need both which is why I was thinking of going M3 + 35mm lens with goggles, or just an M2 with a non-goggled 35mm.
I think I'll aim for an M2 with 2 lenses.
I feel that an M2, 35mm f2, and a 50mm f2 would be perfect for the rest of my life (so long that film exists, atleast). There may be times when I want a focal length that is little wider, a little longer, a lens that is a little faster, a little sharper, bokeh that is a little smoother, but with time and discipline I feel that this will eventually work out 100% of the time and my style will just develop around those limitations...or until I get another GAS attack and allow myself to add more lenses and M bodies. haha
Very good advice but I kind of did that, sort of. I wanted a RF but something was "wrong" with every non-Leica RF that I've owned/tried (poor RF/VF, ergonomics, build, etc.). I didn't want to pay the Leica price so I bought an OM with a 28mm f2.8 and 35mm F2 but I hardly use it because I just prefer RF's, my Kodak Retina's in particular. A Retina with a 35mm lens would be great but I didn't like the IIIs nor did I like the Canon RF's (7/P) so I feel like an M is almost unavoidable. Yeah there is a Zeiss Ikon, and CV bodies. But I feel that the ZI is atleast comparable in price to a Leica M2/M3 (Haven't looked into the prices, honestly) and the CV bodies are lacking in build (but I've never touched one, either).
Maybe going Leica 35mm F2 Summicron is extreme. Maybe I ought to start with Canon/CV for a lower price (I'd not like to get FSU gear bc of QC issues).
I think that I want to go 50mm f2 and/or 35mm f2 (eventually atleast) but I'm trying to not be so Leica-centric with the glass since there are many great alternatives.
Also, kind of irrelevant but..
I'm kind of thinking of selling all/almost all of my gear because I've tried many cameras/bodies/lenses and there are very few ones that I like. I don't like most of them. (Olympus OM, Bronica SQ, Mamiya TLR, 120 Folders, DSLR, FL RF's, etc.). The only ones that I use now are my Kodak Retina's and Rolleiflex MX-EVS.
Now I want to stick with Leica M and Rolleiflex TLR. I really don't want to have a lot of cameras/lenses so ideally it'd be simple with 1 Leica M, 1 Leica Lens, and 1 Rolleiflex TLR (but maybe some backups in the future).
I'm going to try a 3.5E Rolleiflex and sell my MX-EVS if I prefer the 3.5E.
With RF's, the only other RF that I'd seriously consider is Leica M. I was thinking of going M3 + 50mm f2 (or 50mm f1.5/f1.4) but I don't know if a 50mm will always work. I never feel the need to have a longer focal length but sometimes I think my images would look better if my lens were a little wider (35mm). So I think I might need both which is why I was thinking of going M3 + 35mm lens with goggles, or just an M2 with a non-goggled 35mm.
I think I'll aim for an M2 with 2 lenses.
I feel that an M2, 35mm f2, and a 50mm f2 would be perfect for the rest of my life (so long that film exists, atleast). There may be times when I want a focal length that is little wider, a little longer, a lens that is a little faster, a little sharper, bokeh that is a little smoother, but with time and discipline I feel that this will eventually work out 100% of the time and my style will just develop around those limitations...or until I get another GAS attack and allow myself to add more lenses and M bodies. haha
Richard G
Veteran
Impassively rational original post. I agree with M2: younger camera is possible, more modern looking and with the more modern frame lines and the 35 frame lines. I hated the M3 50 frame lines and reject all the claims that it is the best M.
The ZM C Sonnar can definitely be your standard 50. It is not specialist. I did tests to see whether mine is optimized for 1.5 and I still can't be sure. I don't care. Focus shift might on just one occasion have affected an image of mine, but mostly it is an irrelevance. I just don't think about it and have loved so many pictures from that lens. I thought I would retire my little Summicron, but lately I have been using that a lot, partly for its compactness. I really like the look of the f2.5 Summarit for this reason: it's a staggering 10.5mm shorter than my Summicron. Compared to the Summilux, the C Sonnar is compact too. And lighter. If I had only one lens it would be the C Sonnar.
P.S. I have three Zeiss lenses. None wobble. I have dropped the Sonnar THREE TIMES, once with the M5 trailing it down to the wooden floor from the piano stool. Apart from one bent hood and one bent filter lip, no damage. I have no complaints about Zeiss build quality.
The ZM C Sonnar can definitely be your standard 50. It is not specialist. I did tests to see whether mine is optimized for 1.5 and I still can't be sure. I don't care. Focus shift might on just one occasion have affected an image of mine, but mostly it is an irrelevance. I just don't think about it and have loved so many pictures from that lens. I thought I would retire my little Summicron, but lately I have been using that a lot, partly for its compactness. I really like the look of the f2.5 Summarit for this reason: it's a staggering 10.5mm shorter than my Summicron. Compared to the Summilux, the C Sonnar is compact too. And lighter. If I had only one lens it would be the C Sonnar.
P.S. I have three Zeiss lenses. None wobble. I have dropped the Sonnar THREE TIMES, once with the M5 trailing it down to the wooden floor from the piano stool. Apart from one bent hood and one bent filter lip, no damage. I have no complaints about Zeiss build quality.
Moriturii
Well-known
Hexanon lenses are as well built as Leica lenses, easily, I don't think anyone would disagree on that point. You might want to consider Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton lens too, it's the same as 35mm Summilux Pre-ASPH, and if that's not good enough for ya...
I personally don't like modern lenses, I like the "oldeys".
I personally don't like modern lenses, I like the "oldeys".
robbeiflex
Well-known
I have been using the C Sonnar as my only 50 since last August. It's a fantastic lens! Focus shift is not a problem, it's a physical property of this lens. Go out and take some photos of a fence at an angle or similar object that let's you see in detail your depth of field. It will only take a few seconds of looking at the results to figure out if your lens is optimized for 1.5 or 2.8 and what that means in practical terms. Sharpness, 3D "pop", smooth bokeh, compact size - all amazing. I am yet to experience any wobble in two years of using Zeiss lenses.
Also, ditto on the comments above about the CV 35/1.4 Nokton. A great lens in it's own right, and then consider the low price. Some focus shift there too but less than the Sonnar and I've already explained above how to deal with that.
Cheers,
Rob
Also, ditto on the comments above about the CV 35/1.4 Nokton. A great lens in it's own right, and then consider the low price. Some focus shift there too but less than the Sonnar and I've already explained above how to deal with that.
Cheers,
Rob
jett
Well-known
Yeah, I should look seriously into this CV stuff. An incredibly fast 35mm a fraction of the price of a Summilux sounds incredibly tempting.
segedi
RFicianado
This would be a great kit. 35/50mm are my go to lenses.
lcpr
Well-known
I have a very similar set-up to you jett, an MX-EVS plus a M4 with a VC 35/1.2 on it - loads of fun. I chose the 1.2 over the 1.4 since I like how close it is to the Summilux ASPH, but the 1.4 is no slouch either. I also use a VC 50/1.5 as well.
jsolanzo
Established
The C-Biogon 35 2.8 is really nice.
TennesseJones
Well-known
I have a hexanon 50, and it's build is terrific.
Also have the Summaron 2.8, which is excellent, built, quality and size.
Have photographs from both on my Flickr...
Also have the Summaron 2.8, which is excellent, built, quality and size.
Have photographs from both on my Flickr...
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
My most used 50 mm is the C Sonnar 50f1.5. If you are going to be shooting a lot of blac/white it has a quality that is all its own. I have just about every other 50 available - and I do use them, but for "seroius" bl/w - it is the C Sonnar 50!
As a 35 I would recommend either the VC Color Skopar 35f2.5 (version II - the m-mount version). It doesn't really matter which version you get, optically they are all the same - but the vII is truly compact.
The C Biogon 35f2.8 is outstanding too. The Summaron 35f2.8 is another good choice - but they are all 45-50 years old and you have to be careful to pick a 'clean" lens, no fog, no scratches etc and also check that it is a true M2 version, not converted from a M3 mount.
The Leica lenses have gone up too much in price right now. The prices does not reflect the performance!
Of course, I am biased towards the M2 - and for a 35 it is perfect. The M3 is nice, but it limits your options.
For the specific "look" of a lens, check out Flickr for samples. Just type in the tags "Leica Summicron 35mm f2.0 I " (or II, III, IV) or "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" etc. 1000's of samples and though not a perfect reference library (low resolution etc) - it is the best available.
As a 35 I would recommend either the VC Color Skopar 35f2.5 (version II - the m-mount version). It doesn't really matter which version you get, optically they are all the same - but the vII is truly compact.
The C Biogon 35f2.8 is outstanding too. The Summaron 35f2.8 is another good choice - but they are all 45-50 years old and you have to be careful to pick a 'clean" lens, no fog, no scratches etc and also check that it is a true M2 version, not converted from a M3 mount.
The Leica lenses have gone up too much in price right now. The prices does not reflect the performance!
Of course, I am biased towards the M2 - and for a 35 it is perfect. The M3 is nice, but it limits your options.
For the specific "look" of a lens, check out Flickr for samples. Just type in the tags "Leica Summicron 35mm f2.0 I " (or II, III, IV) or "Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8" etc. 1000's of samples and though not a perfect reference library (low resolution etc) - it is the best available.