Good cheap 35mm LTM lens?

Hi,

I'd beware of ebay for research of any kind. I was looking for something odd the other day and found several in the completed listings unsold at 99p and one at something like £175 after a bidding war.

The other problem with ebay is that problems with buyers (selling rubbish) are projected on to the poor innocent stuff they sell. I'm not saying FSU lenses are perfect but most of them are 50, 60 or more years old and no one can be sure of them unless they've been used and you see the prints or slides, or a dealer with a decent guarantee has sold it. (But sometimes a gamble on a FSU lens for 50p in a flea market pays off, as I know from happy experience.)

Also it's not much of a gamble in my experience. Buying used Leica or Contax stuff is just as much of a gamble; I'm not the only one to have scrapped a Leica lens or two because it was past repair at any price. Luckily, regardless of the make decent dealers will change, refund or repair them.

BTW, I agree with the others about the CV ones, although I prefer the look of the Leica ones on Leica bodies.

Regards, David
 
I had the VC 35 Classic for a while and found (on film) that it was a little too sharp and clinical for me, so I went back to Leica glass.

Having said that, the Komura is an excellent lens, and can be had for less if you find one of the examples that carries another name (such as Asanuma King) - I have one of those for my II and it is a super performer - even works well on the Nex and XE-1. Price wise possibly noticeably less than the CV for the "unknown" names.

I'm seriously thinking of finding a pancake version of the CV in LTM if I can - that would make a great addition to the XE-1 and makes the II nicely pocketable.
 
6866449108_3997763736_c.jpg


The "pancake" Color Skopar 35mm f2.5 on a IIIf. This is the first of the 35f2.5 Color Skopars. I like it because it is lightening fast in its focus. The large diameter of the barrel means that you can "flick" it from close focus to infinity very fast. Great for doing "follow focus" shots. No hood and I don't think Cosina ever made on either. Not a big problems as it is very flare resistant. Compact enough to stick in a pocket too. The finder is the Cosina 35mm finder - and as all Cosina finders, bright and solid.
 
I've got the Pancake, and have bought and sold a couple of the Classic LTM and also the M mount version. I like the Pancake best of all, for its handling , as Tom mentions. It did come with a hood, in fact -- similar in design to the hood on the Classic, though of course larger diameter. I think the LTM Classic is the easiest to find, and it's a nice and very small lens, so I would not look further. But jump on the Pancake if you come across one.
 
For what it is worth, I followed the path you are on and first bought at Jupiter 12, and it was sharp, but it did have the flare issues described early in this thread. Then I bought the CV 35mm 2.5 classic, and it was just too contrasty for my taste. So, then I bought the Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM, and I like it. In the US you can definitely get a LTM 3.5 for the same amount as a CV Classic 35mm. But I'm not sure about the UK market.
 
I had the M version of the CV 35 2.5 and found it to be exceptionally nice. It's a really good lens. The additional hood helps but it can be used without it.

Btw there's a Jupiter 12 at Ffordes for very little at the mo'.
 
KoNickon said:
I've got the Pancake, and have bought and sold a couple of the Classic LTM and also the M mount version. I like the Pancake best of all, for its handling , as Tom mentions. It did come with a hood, in fact -- similar in design to the hood on the Classic, though of course larger diameter. I think the LTM Classic is the easiest to find, and it's a nice and very small lens, so I would not look further. But jump on the Pancake if you come across one.
Click to expand...

I'd lie to revive this thread. I have the 35/2.5 LTM-C (classic) and I find it very easy to focus; or, at least it is a lot quicker to focus than the 5 cm Elmar ,for instance. However, I like pancake lenses, especially for my IIIf, and I am wondering is the 35/2.5 P actually faster to focus than the Classic?
 
traveler_101 said:
I'd lie to revive this thread. I have the 35/2.5 LTM-C (classic) and I find it very easy to focus; or, at least it is a lot quicker to focus than the 5 cm Elmar ,for instance. However, I like pancake lenses, especially for my IIIf, and I am wondering is the 35/2.5 P actually faster to focus than the Classic?
Click to expand...

The pancake version has a very short focus throw, but only focuses down to 0.90m instead of 0.70m like the classic version.
 
jonmanjiro said:
The pancake version has a very short focus throw, but only focuses down to 0.90m instead of 0.70m like the classic version.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will assume the short focus throw means quicker focus with the pancake. I don't know that the closer focus capacity of the classic matters all that much to me. I am trying to remember why I got the classic to begin with . . . and I think it had to do with the head bartender's advice. Let me see . . .

Ok, this is what I remember: "The 35/2.5 C is a delightful lens, very small, and with a quick focusing lever like the 25/4, because it is built on the 25/4 lens barrel ! Personally, I prefer the 35/2.5 C version over the 35/2.5 P 'pancake' because of the smaller size and the built in focusing lever."

But now I also see him saying that the 35/2.5-P is faster to focus. Somehow I read over that.

Still not sure whether it is worth trading for the pancake version.
 
I would like to recommend the CV 35mm f1.7 Ultron. This is an exceptionally sharp and contrasty lens, and while reasonably fast, is quite small. It takes 39mm filters, and focuses to 0.9m in a 90 degree turn of the focus ring. It is an LTM lens, but I have mostly used it on my M4 with an adapter. About the only complaint I have ever heard about this lens is that it is too sharp and contrasty for those who were seeking a more vintage rendering. I think I am willing to live with such a deficiency: if I want unsharpness or low contrast, I can always dial them in in Photoshop.

Cheers,
Dez
 
The Lone Dissenter

The Lone Dissenter

Having bought three CV's I ultimately sold all of them. All had minor issues that became flies in the ointment to me. Generally, they just don't have the 'look' and feel inexpensive. If you are into more arty photography they may be disappointing and coldly lacking personality. But, if you want to go pedestrian, practical, faster (at least they claim to be) and new, you can't find a better choice. Now, however, I'll take an older lens in good shape over a cheaper CV any time.

Here's a shot from a 1951 Canon Serenar 2.8 35mm, Leica IIIf and Ektar. Judge for yourself.
Click on it to see it at a better resolution:

14242498263_31366497d2_b.jpg
 
Dez, thanks for the tip. When I bought the Color Skopar some 3 years ago, I had originally thought about the Ultron but decided against it because of size. I think it must be great on a M, but I am looking for an ultra-portable lenses for my Barnack.

Hi Dan, well you are right about "the look"--whatever that means. Frankly the best lens that I have is an Elmar 5cm F/3.5. Even uncoated I love its rendering--with the caveat that it can be flat in well light conditions. Yeah, the Color Skopar is "boring" and not as sharp, by the way, as the 25mm Snapshot Skopar which is a scale focus lens. I haven't used that lens much but will try it more now. So if the 25 work out, maybe I don't really need a LTM 35. I must say, however, that 35mm is really the most flexible FL, I think; the virtue of the Color Skopar in particular is focus speed. It is good for street shooting; it is also a high contrast lens which means that the photos generally look ok. Oh and it is faster than my other LTM lenses.
 
I found the 25 Snapshot to be a fun lens. I practiced measuring distances with to each of the stops/dents in the focusing and got very good at it pretty quickly. It felt like a point-and-shot camera as I was able to adjust to the right dent as I brought the camera to my eye or was kneeling down to take a shot.

The distortion was so low on the 25 that I never felt the need for a 35. At one time my kit was 15-25-40-105, it worked well.

B2
 
Good and cheap do not always go together. I bought a cheap Komura and sent it to DAG to get it CLAd. It was a fine lens after that, great size, sharp, and fun. I've had several less than stellar FSU 35 and never warmed up to them. Had a couple of different Leica 35's and even the least expensive ($85 back in the mid 80's) were great, each had a different signature.

The challenge with old/used glass is figuring out if it's the design, that chunk of glass, or you that is the problem.

Cannon, Nikon, Leica LTM glass are all fine. Not too badly priced if you can live at f3.5 or 2.8. I've heard good things about Soligor glass too, though never owned or used any of that generation.

A lot depends upon where you are shooting and what. Outdoors f3.5 is fine, inside, I preferred f2 or 1.4 though I had really good luck with a OM-1 and a 35/2.8 inside.

The OP said that he had a 15mm and a 50mm. For one kit I had a 15, 25, 40, 105 and liked it very much. For him I'd say the 25 was much better than a 35. Unless he was going to change his 50 to a 90 or 105. Then I'd say 35.

Sorry if I took this down a different path of the rabbit hole complex that is lenses.
 
You need to go to the second line makers. While the 35 Ultron I had was OK (until my oldest dropped it onto a concrete stadium floor at Sea World, I was never really in love with the size and feel of her.

I've been out of the loop on prices for several years so I'm not sure where really old f3.5 35mms are. Before I left it's about a low as you could go price wise.
 
I'm missing something, it took 30 post before someone mentioned CV Ultron 35/1.7.

This is the *only* lens I use on my M4-P (with adapter). It might as well be welded to it.

Click on the image to see a bigger version of it. I think the forum auto-resizes images in posts recently.
6285377536_293b770b86_b.jpg
 
shadowfox said:
I'm missing something, it took 30 post before someone mentioned CV Ultron 35/1.7.

This is the *only* lens I use on my M4-P (with adapter). It might as well be welded to it.

Click on the image to see a bigger version of it. I think the forum auto-resizes images in posts recently.
6285377536_293b770b86_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Hi Shadowfox,

That's quite a shot; almost looks digital; is it C-41 film or tweaked in a digital program?
 
When the Whine Has Aged & Why I sold My Ultron

When the Whine Has Aged & Why I sold My Ultron

I sold my 1.7 Ultron to a member of this forum for twice what I paid for it. Good incentive, I think, but it has some sort of cult following nowadays and is no longer a cheap lens, at least as far as new and old CV lenses go.

For me it was,
1. not as bright rendering as a '50s Canon (although a tad sharper).
2. ergonomically difficult, both with focus and especially aperture.
3. like most CVs, useless at advertized wide open, except for a spot dead center about the size of a pencil eraser head.
and
4. (the deal breaker for me), close focus was from the next county, which is unacceptable in a modern wider lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Canon LTM 35mm f/2 - Good Deal at $260 + Shipping?
Replies
8
Views
495
Sonnar Brian
Sonnar Brian
CandidChronicles
Alternative to Voigtländer 35mm 2.5?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
1K
filmtwit
filmtwit
J
Certo Six - Vision Correction lens?
Replies
0
Views
163
j_3
J
N
Canon LTM 35mm f2, Canon 35mm f2.8, Jupiter 12 - opinions on these lenses?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
8K
ACullen
A
davidbivins
Jupiter 3 not detected on M11-P
Replies
5
Views
1K
rfaspen
rfaspen
Back
Top Bottom