Good cheap 35mm LTM lens?

[djhurley92]

Hey,

I have a 50mm Summitar and a 15mm Heliar for my IIIf (and a Jupiter-11 135mm I've never used) and I'm obviously missing something between 50mm and 15mm. From my digital shots around 35mm would be my post ordinary size.

I don't have much money at the moment so I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for what could fill this gap. I've seen summarons but they're about £250, I've only got about half that.

Thanks
David

 

[Filzkoeter]

Jupiter-12s can be dirt cheap (although I've seen their prices have risen... paid ~25€ for my around 2 years ago)... and good ones are really good. But don't expect them to draw in a modern way, those are coated copies of the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 from 1936.
The ones untill ~1952-1953 should be Carl Zeiss Jena inside, but they're quite rare.

I have no experience with all those Canon LTM lenses, as they're quite rare here in Germany.

 

[NeeZee]

On German ebay the f3.5 Summaron in LTM seems to go for about 200€ (~160-170 pounds) recently. The only cheaper option would be the Jupiter-12, but they are a bit hit and miss (I know there are good samples around but I wasn't lucky with the two I owned). Your best bet would be to save up some more money and the go for a Skopar.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I'm with Filzkoeter about the Jupiter 12. They are cheap if you buy them on a camera, as no one here (UK) seems to buy cameras with lenses on them apart from the FED and Zorki 1's. It's just a matter of searching ebay for them.

Regards, David

 

[ray*j*gun]

Also recommend J12 but also Komura 35mm is quite affordable and a lovely lens. I have one in black and its small and sharp with good IQ

 

[02Pilot]

My experience with the J-12 (limited to one example) was mixed - I really like the look of it, but even with an additional lens hood I saw more stray light bouncing around than I prefer. If you're very disciplined about not shooting even in the general direction of light sources you may do very will with the J-12; I'm not that disciplined.

My solution was to go with a Canon 35/2.8 (the chrome Serenar version). I've been very happy with it thus far - somewhat more modern look than the J-12 (though not nearly as modern as a Color Skopar, for example), and far more flare resistant. Prices on these vary a fair bit, but they can be found relatively inexpensively on ebay from time to time. Had I not found a good deal on one, I would also have seriously considered the Komura mentioned above - I've been impressed with the photos I've seen from it.

 

[Filzkoeter]

My experience with the J-12 (limited to one example) was mixed - I really like the look of it, but even with an additional lens hood I saw more stray light bouncing around than I prefer. If you're very disciplined about not shooting even in the general direction of light sources you may do very will with the J-12; I'm not that disciplined.

It comes from chipped or weak paint mainly on the rear element. Repaint it with some good black paint and they become quite flare proof.

 

[ray*j*gun]

For full disclosure, I just checked my J12 file and I had forgotten that my version (1990's) was shimmed by Brian Sweeny to max sharpness on Leica III cameras. However as it sits its my Fav 35 for outdoor work as it is tiny, light and very sharp.

 

[02Pilot]

It comes from chipped or weak paint mainly on the rear element. Repaint it with some good black paint and they become quite flare proof.

No, that's not it in this case. There is nothing chipped, scratch, or otherwise flawed in any exterior or interior surface. I've been over that lens several times - including complete disassembly - and the only thing I can find is that one element in the rear group is not fully smooth right around the edge of (what should be) the polished surface. Unfortunately, this is bonded in place, and I don't have the tools or skills to rectify it, so it's staying as it is.

FWIW, it doesn't manifest itself as the common sort of flare. It's more like an internal reflection that's then being projected onto the film. In many cases, it's not so bad with B&W, but on color film it shows up as an ugly purple blot.

 

[filmtwit]

Take a look at the Canon 35mm f2 or f1.8

 

[Ko.Fe.]

CV CS 35 2.5 is much better overall lens which worth of saving extra $.
LTM versions are not so expensive. My perfect copy was one sale for 270 USD for weeks.

 

[rscheffler]

Another vote for Canon LTM. Though I have the 35/2, which depending on where you look, might be a bit above your current price point.

What I like about it:

- very small
- blend of vintage and modern character
- wide open it's centrally very sharp and has a nice fall off to a smooth, lower sharpness quality in the outer zones
- by f/5.6 it's very sharp and close to modern across the frame, though lower global and micro contrast (compared to my ZM35/2.8)
- can generate interesting flare patterns
- background rendering is a bit on the strong/aggressive side (this is a subjective matter)

Not so fond about:

- build quality feels a bit delicate and unrefined compared to modern Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica
- can flare somewhat easily
- weaker backlit performance due to contrast robbing flare
- somewhat noticeable barrel distortion when photographing architectural scenes, though it's basic barrel distortion and can be fixed in post if images are digitized
- if you like 50 Lux ASPH or RX1 35 Sonnar bokeh, it's going to be in the opposite, stronger, direction.

Canon's lens page for LTM wides

 

[Luddite Frank]

Re Canon 35 LTM.

I have the black & aluminum f:1.8 and it has never impressed me for sharpness.

I went back to using my 1940 un-coated Elmar 35. Not a great wide-angle, and not necessarily cheap ( mine was $150 on e-bay about 6 years ago), but I felt I got sharper images than with the Canon 1.8/35.

Several folks here at RFF seem to like the Komura 35's...

 

[rfaspen]

Some choices ordered by price:
1. J-12,
2. CV 35/2.5,
3. (tied) Summaron 35/3.5, Canon 35/2.8
4. Many others -- Canon 35/2, Komura, other Leica options.

Ordered by value (performance/$):
1. CV 35/2.5
2. why go further?
Seriously, the CV is such an enormous value I would recommend it above all other options unless you're looking for very high performance and your budget reflects that. I recently saw a perfectly nice Canon 35/2 offered at $400. That could be something to consider. The Canon version of summicron is, in my opinion, a darn good lens. The Komura lenses I've seen lately were offered at higher prices than I would consider a value point.

 

[jane7l]

i bought my almost mint cv 35 2.5 ltm version for 150 pounds... love it.

 

[Richard G]

There's a CV 35 2,5 in the classifieds here, perfect nick for Y33000 - around $300 US.

 

[Pioneer]

I use my W-Nikkor-C 35/2.5 and my CV Color Skopar 35/2.5 pretty much interchangeably. Neither lens was terribly expensive and I enjoy using both of them. But I can heartily recommend either one if you find them. Both produce terrific images. About the only thing I can say is that the older Nikkor may not have quite as good of lens coatings as the newer Color Skopar and may be more likely to need a good cleaning, but it is certainly very, very capable when in good condition.

Although it is a tad smaller than the Color Skopar, the W-Nikkor-C has that little, metal slug feel to it. The feel that it will last forever. It weighs a tad over 5.5 ounces. The Color Skopar is lighter at pretty close to 4 ounces but it still has a nice build quality feel to it. Not as solid as the older Nikkor, but still pretty nice.

Both of these lenses cost me $250 US each so neither was terribly expensive. And neither of them will disappoint you.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Depending on the sort of result you're looking for, if you want crisp, contrasty, corrected ( no distortion or aberrations ) images, given what the price of vintage lenses is, and the gamble on finding a good FSU lens (Jupiter), you might be well-served to save your farthings for a CV wide-angle... you might spend wiser this way in the long-run.

LF

 

[Tom A]

For a modern, coated, non-flare lens - as well as compact - I would go for the Color Skopar 35mm f2.5. There are several versions, from the v1 Pancake, the Classic LTM and the v II M-mount. The optical formula is the same in all of them - and it does rival a pre-asph Summicron 35. Older lenses might have more character - i,e flare, distrorsion etc - but the VC 35f2.5 is just a good lens. Check the Rf Classified or even Ebay for a used one.
Shot is with a Classic 35mm f2.5 VC Ltm, on a Canon L1, Arista Premium 400 in D76. Either wide-open or close to it.

 

[djhurley92]

For a modern, coated, non-flare lens - as well as compact - I would go for the Color Skopar 35mm f2.5. There are several versions, from the v1 Pancake, the Classic LTM and the v II M-mount. The optical formula is the same in all of them - and it does rival a pre-asph Summicron 35. Older lenses might have more character - i,e flare, distrorsion etc - but the VC 35f2.5 is just a good lens. Check the Rf Classified or even Ebay for a used one.
Shot is with a Classic 35mm f2.5 VC Ltm, on a Canon L1, Arista Premium 400 in D76. Either wide-open or close to it.

Thank you for the help, and everyone else too, I think I'll save up for the VC 35 f2.5. It does look like a good lens and not too expensive - I was mislead by ebay buy-it-now prices into thinking it was a lot more expensive than it is. I think it'll be nice to have a 35 with a modern character to compliment my summitar.

regards