Fabrizio Arena
Newbie
I've been on the search for a classic 35mm lens for my iiif, I've seen lenses like the Jupiter-12, the Summaron, the Elmar, and several from Canon.
Kantocamera uploaded this photo and caught my attention; it looks to be of an appropriate size and I don't mind the 3.5 aperture at all. The thing is, what lens is that?
After researching on the great depths of the internet, I drew a blank, I didn't find anything like it.
This is kind of like a double function post. First, identifying the lens in the photo, second, helping me to find an affordable 35mm lens for my iiif.
Regards, Fabrizio.
Kantocamera uploaded this photo and caught my attention; it looks to be of an appropriate size and I don't mind the 3.5 aperture at all. The thing is, what lens is that?
After researching on the great depths of the internet, I drew a blank, I didn't find anything like it.
This is kind of like a double function post. First, identifying the lens in the photo, second, helping me to find an affordable 35mm lens for my iiif.
Regards, Fabrizio.
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
That looks like a Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible lens in collapsed position.
I would recommend a Summaron 35mm f3.5 or a Color-Skopar 35mm f2.5 LTM.
I would recommend a Summaron 35mm f3.5 or a Color-Skopar 35mm f2.5 LTM.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Concur, that's a 50/3.5 collapsed into the body. Mine lives on my IIIg most of the time.
As to a 35, there are lots of options. What kind of a look do you want? How much do size and/or ergonomics matter? Define "affordable".
As to a 35, there are lots of options. What kind of a look do you want? How much do size and/or ergonomics matter? Define "affordable".
Scrambler
Well-known
35s: I have a mid 70s Jupiter 12. That gives usable f2.8 but is not sharp to the sides. But its cheap by Leica compatible standards. The Leica compatible lenses are mostly more affordable.
peterm1
Veteran
In your search, the little Canon Serenar 35mm f3.5 is a nice lens if you are looking for an inexpensive 35mm option which seems to be cheap only because it is common and not especially sought after given its modest specs. Allow for a CLA however as it is likely to have haze.
http://daddiest.com/canon-serenar-35mm-f3-5-a-lower-cost-alternative-of-leica/
http://camerafan.jp/dat/blog/77/1349937774198.jpg
For a more expensive option (but slightly more in keeping although not quite contemporary with your camera's era) the late black and chrome offerings from Canon all seem to have good reputations but are highly sought after. have a look at this page for alternatives. The accessory finder for this is very nice too.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/Canon_RF/index.htm
http://daddiest.com/canon-serenar-35mm-f3-5-a-lower-cost-alternative-of-leica/
http://camerafan.jp/dat/blog/77/1349937774198.jpg
For a more expensive option (but slightly more in keeping although not quite contemporary with your camera's era) the late black and chrome offerings from Canon all seem to have good reputations but are highly sought after. have a look at this page for alternatives. The accessory finder for this is very nice too.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/Canon_RF/index.htm
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I have one of these: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...Canon_RF/CanonRF-35mm/CanonRF-35f28/index.htm
...and can vouch for it being one of my favorite lenses on my Sony cameras. Very sharp panoramic views, not too big and not all that heavy since it is all brass I believe.
...and can vouch for it being one of my favorite lenses on my Sony cameras. Very sharp panoramic views, not too big and not all that heavy since it is all brass I believe.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I have this lens and it is optically very good. I've done some test with and I'm happy with it. The Bokeh isn't great but you really only see it with close up wide open shots. The build quality is excellent. But as Peter says 'haze.' I do clean mine before every use, I'm down to less than ten minutes to clean all lens surfaces. The re-appearance of the haze takes about one years so I probably clean it too often.
Kodak Gold 100 by John Carter, on FlickrFabrizio Arena
Newbie
The look I'm going for (in terms of image-taking) is contrasty yet classic, and with character yet resistant to flares. In terms of the design of the lens, one that fits nicely with the iiif's body, preferably silver (or chrome).
And in terms of affordability, I'm looking for one under 200$ which leaves me pretty much only the Jupiter-12, which I'm not totally convinced for.
Regards, Fabrizio.
02Pilot
Malcontent
You should be able to find a Canon 35/3.5, 3.2, or maybe even 2.8 at or under $200. The 2.8 I had was a moderate contrast lens, and I don't recall any serious flare issues. The early all chrome designs work well with the Barnack body.
Another option is the Komura/W.Acall/a few other names 35/3.5. I really, really like mine, so much so that I sold my Canon 35/2.8. It's larger and black, so it doesn't look quite as appropriate on a Barnack, however.
Another option is the Komura/W.Acall/a few other names 35/3.5. I really, really like mine, so much so that I sold my Canon 35/2.8. It's larger and black, so it doesn't look quite as appropriate on a Barnack, however.
Fabrizio Arena
Newbie
And what about the Jupiter-12? It is a copy of a Zeiss design which is good, but one of the things that worry me about it is the quality control these Russian fellas back then. I'm not too sure about the coatings either, they say the ones with the red P are better built and have better coatings (and I found a few on eBay within my budget), but I can't find much information around; some say it's a good lens, others say it's junk. That's the doubt that's been rolling in my mind.
One of the things that I want to know about it is the contrast that it has. I shoot almost all of my photos with Tri-X (sometimes pushed at 1600 and other times at box speed) and I would like a lens that gave me the rendering that my early uncoated Summitar gives me (I know, that thing flares like nothing, but if you're careful with the sun, you can get stunning results) which is contrasty and it gives a classic look.
That was a good digression, huh? Anyway, many of the samples I've seen of it look kinda flat and too "normal" (if you know what I mean). I know a lens that would definitely give me that look, and that is the Summaron 3.5. The problem is, that lens is outside my budget.
I've also considered trying some color film on it (Portra 400) and I would like to know how it would perform with it.
Regards, Fabrizio.
One of the things that I want to know about it is the contrast that it has. I shoot almost all of my photos with Tri-X (sometimes pushed at 1600 and other times at box speed) and I would like a lens that gave me the rendering that my early uncoated Summitar gives me (I know, that thing flares like nothing, but if you're careful with the sun, you can get stunning results) which is contrasty and it gives a classic look.
That was a good digression, huh? Anyway, many of the samples I've seen of it look kinda flat and too "normal" (if you know what I mean). I know a lens that would definitely give me that look, and that is the Summaron 3.5. The problem is, that lens is outside my budget.
I've also considered trying some color film on it (Portra 400) and I would like to know how it would perform with it.
Regards, Fabrizio.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I had a J-12. It was a fine lens, but the ergonomics are less than optimal. Mine also has a weird flare that, on color film, would show up purple. I serviced the lens and touched up the interior black paint, but the flare was still there. If I shot into the light less often it wouldn't have been an issue, and on B&W it wasn't nearly as bad.
Build quality is a crap shoot. Some are good, some aren't - buy from a reputable source and you improve yours odds.
I have a coated Summitar, and I wouldn't consider it a particularly contrasty lens, so I'm not sure we have the same idea of contrast. In any case, much of the appeal of the Komura lens I mentioned above is that the rendering reminded me a lot of the Summitar, so if that's your benchmark, I'd look there first.
Portra 400 gives a fairly muted look. If you want more contrast, Ektar is probably a better choice.
Build quality is a crap shoot. Some are good, some aren't - buy from a reputable source and you improve yours odds.
I have a coated Summitar, and I wouldn't consider it a particularly contrasty lens, so I'm not sure we have the same idea of contrast. In any case, much of the appeal of the Komura lens I mentioned above is that the rendering reminded me a lot of the Summitar, so if that's your benchmark, I'd look there first.
Portra 400 gives a fairly muted look. If you want more contrast, Ektar is probably a better choice.