sweathog
Well-known
I'd like to add my support my for the CV35/2.5. That was my main lens for a while and it gave some cracking results.
Good 35mm ltm lens?
- Thread starter mscott2757
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 6K
FrankS
Registered User
I've settled on the Canon 35f2.
I've owned in the past:
cv35f2.5 - too modern/clinical rendering
Summaron f3.5 - slow, poor ergonomics
Summaron f2.8 - too rich for my snack bracket
I've owned in the past:
cv35f2.5 - too modern/clinical rendering
Summaron f3.5 - slow, poor ergonomics
Summaron f2.8 - too rich for my snack bracket
kermaier
Well-known
And I guess the more expensive/exotics options are out of the question here, but it's fun to throw fuel on people's GAS. 😉
Canon 35/1.5
Nikkor 35/1.8
UC-Hex 35/2
L-Hex 35/2
Canon 35/1.5
Nikkor 35/1.8
UC-Hex 35/2
L-Hex 35/2
goamules
Well-known
Personally, I like the personality of the Canon 35/1.8. I have the 35/2 Canon also, but prefer the 1.8.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
Started with a Jupiter 12 - too much flare and care required with the rear element - moved onto a CV Skopar 2.5 Classic - too contrasty for me - ended up with a Summaron 3.5 (LTM). I like the optical performance, but as mentioned before, it is ergonomically not so great. When possible, the next step is likely to be a Summaron 2.8, or in case of a big windfall, a Summicron.
goamules
Well-known
I've also got a Summaron 3.5. What is it that is not ergonomic? I don't have any problem with the lens.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
I really like the Canon 35mm 1.8 for B/W. The Voigtlanders I've had seemed good for color, but lacked depth/personality for B/W. I think "clinical" was the word someone used.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
On a camera with a built-in lightmeter the ergonomic problem of the A36 version is not big as you set the f/stop wile reading the meter.
On other cameras you must set the f/stop on the index. That is quite difficult as the index moves wile focusing and the engraved f/stop numbers are very small and placed very close together.
Very handy lens when traveling though.
Leica MP, Summaron 35mm f/3.5 LTM A36, Tmax400.
Erik.
MaxElmar
Well-known
Some folks don't like the older Summaron design - let's call it the one with the lever. Later one with the tab is pretty wonderful (to me, anyway). I believe the later design also takes regular filters. (Thanks, Erik - for posting a better description of the operational difference. I guess one refers to the earlier version as A36 and the later as E39 ?)
goamules
Well-known
I guess the M version Summaron I have is different. It's very easy to see the markings for aperture and depth of field scale. And the markings do not rotate as you focus.
rumbliegeos
Well-known
At least on my Summaron 3.5, which is an A36 fitting model, if you adjust the aperture the focus changes: you quickly learn to meter the shot with the infinity focus lock on, then focus after the aperture is set. And the placement of the aperture ring makes it a bit difficult to "locate" and adjust for someone with big hands. Also, the need to use an expensive SOOGZ (?) for 39mm filters also limits its flexibility compared with later models. However, the going price for the lenses and their optical quality compensate for these hassles (up to a point).
Erik, your photographs are terrific, whether by Leica or Nikon.
Erik, your photographs are terrific, whether by Leica or Nikon.
pete hogan
Well-known
^^My 1953 A36 ltm Summaron 3.5 is just as you describe. Aperture first then tab focus, all very compact. Leica's ads at that time emphasized hyperfocal at f/11 and distortion-free images. It works nicely for my slow-paced method, but it's probably not universal in appeal.
traveler_101
American abroad
I've had trouble getting good lenses that are old (caution: you can end up throwing away good money); what I read was the Summicron for LTM used very soft glass and it is very hard to find a good one. That discouraged me. I did manage to get a very good 1946 Elmar 50/3.5, but not on e-bay, rather directly through Youxin Ye who also cleaned and lubricated the lens for me.
I have the CV Color Skopar (the "classic" version with the focusing tab) that i did pick up on e-bay. I agree that it is contrasty lens, but I like that look at times and the ergonomics are fantastic--you can focus the thing instantly. It is small and light also. I took some really nice shots of New York scenes at night with this lens, also in a snow storm at night disembarking the metro in Oslo. I don't see the 2.5 maximum aperture to be so problematic.
After wanting this lens for years, I just bought it; it was not inexpensive, but more reasonable than the prices it commanded used three-four years ago ($450-500). Somewhat bulky, but not too bad. Some complain that they move the aperture ring when they go to focus the lens. So far not a problem for me. The images are sharp with a moderate contrast. Very good lens.
RichL
Well-known
The W-Nikkor 35/3.5 is also woth looking at.
lukitas
second hand noob
I have a rather nice Elmar 3,5 cm 1:3,5. I like the low contrast, good for keeping skies in check. Nice stars around highlights. On the Sexy Two, with the APS-C crop, vignetting or loss of corner sharpness aren't much of a problem.
I can't find a serial number, so I wonder when it could have been made.
I know they were produced from '30 to '49. Does anyone know when numberless lenses were produced, or do I have to open it up to find a number?
Cheers
I can't find a serial number, so I wonder when it could have been made.
I know they were produced from '30 to '49. Does anyone know when numberless lenses were produced, or do I have to open it up to find a number?
Cheers
Similar threads
