Help me choose a 35mm lens

[wlewisiii]

Thinking thoughts about busting my budget again.

Both options are excellent but different.

I have a Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron but I've never really gelled with it and would like to get a 35 I feel as comfortable with as I do with my 50mm lenses.

I mostly shoot landscapes, urban and rural, lots of abandoned barns and other abandoned buildings.

My top 50's are:
Canon 50/1.4
Chiyoko (Minolta) Super Rokkor 50/2
Nikkor HC 50/2
Voigtlander 50/1.5 Aspherical Nokton.

I have many others but those are the ones I use.

I have boiled it down to these two choices. Which of these should I get for my Leica M 240?

 

[Bill Blackwell]

It might help to know what you do gel with. What are your 50mm lenses (the ones you like)? And what don't you like about the Ultron?

 

[wlewisiii]

Valid questions. Answers in edited first post.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The lens closest to the 50/1.4 1-2-2-1 formula would be the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 or Summaron 3.5cm F2.8.

The Nikkor had higher contrast.



You are supposed to ask me before putting up a poll....

I still like the Ultron, maybe too modern of a look?

The Canon 35/2: had it, "Swirlies", but sharp. Beware of internal haze that might etch the glass. I got one cheap, cleaned up perfectly.

 

[wlewisiii]

Either would be wonderful, especially the Nikkor, if I could find one that's good, inexpensive & LTM. The ones I keep seeing are S mount 😎

 

[Bill Blackwell]

based on your eclectic group of favorite 50s, you have me stumped. The Color Skopar has a more modern look and it'll be sharp, but it's very tiny. I'd expect the Canon, OTOH, to have a classic look.

Personally, out of your two choices, I'd pick the Color Skopar, but I have a feeling you'd have a use for both.

 

[wlewisiii]

The lens closest to the 50/1.4 1-2-2-1 formula would be the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 or Summaron 3.5cm F2.8.

The Nikkor had higher contrast.

View attachment 4818915View attachment 4818916View attachment 4818917

You are supposed to ask me before putting up a poll....

I still like the Ultron, maybe too modern of a look?

The Canon 35/2: had it, "Swirlies", but sharp. Beware of internal haze that might etch the glass. I got one cheap, cleaned up perfectly.

Just trying not to be a pain all the time 😃

I do think you're right about the modern look, though. I don't mind it as much in the Nokton but not in the Ultron. Had the skopar in SC mount during my Kiev days and liked it and also liked the Canon 35/1.8 too.

Pondering 🤔

 

[Bingley]

I have both of these 35mm lenses. They’re both excellent. Never had a problem w/ haze on my Canon 35mm f2.0. IMO, it’s the most “modern” of the Canon 35s, which makes sense bc it was made into the 1970s. It’s very lightweight w/ an aluminum body. I’ve used mine extensively, including occasionally on my M240.

The Skopar 35mm f2.5 (mine is the first version of the pancake, in LTM) has got to be the best value in a 35mm lens. It’s highly flare resistant, very small and light.

If it helps, here’s a sample shot taken w/ the Skopar 35mm f2.5 PI on an M240:

Bryce Canyon by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

And, for what it’s worth, here’s a sample shot taken w/ the Canon 35mm f2.0 on an M240:

A quiet place. by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

My experience has been that the Canon gives a more rounded, “3-D” look, but that is based entirely on shooting this lens on film. The Skopar is sharp and crisp on the M240, but also renders beautiful tones. I think it’s a toss up, or at least depends on the “look” you want from a lens. You can’t go wrong w/ either one.

 

[Out to Lunch]

So many choices. My favorites are all over the place -I own and use all three of these in m-mount:

- Voigtlander Nokton 1.2/35 V.1 -lots of character but hard to find and expensive;
- Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 -optically 'superb' Ken Rockwell says but not cheap;
- TTArtisan 1.4/35 - excellent built quality with old-school rendering, and cheap.

 

[james.liam]

So many choices. My favorites are all over the place -I own and use all three of these in m-mount:

- Voigtlander Nokton 1.2/35 V.1 -lots of character but hard to find and expensive;
- Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 -optically 'superb' Ken Rockwell says but not cheap;
- TTArtisan 1.4/35 - excellent built quality with old-school rendering, and cheap.

The OP is looking for compact glass (read what's already owned and is being considered). 400 gm behemoths isn't what they're after.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The most compact 35mm lens for 35mm photography I know of is the Leitz Elmar 35mm f3.5 from about 1930. It is really small. However, it is very good too! It is a small miracle.

gelatin silver print (elmar 35mm f3.5) leica mp

Utrecht, 2018

Erik.

 

[f.hayek]

The most compact 35mm lens for 35mm photography I know of is the Leitz Elmar 35mm f3.5 from about 1930. It is really small. However, it is very good too! It is a small miracle.

gelatin silver print (elmar 35mm f3.5) leica mp

Utrecht, 2018

Erik.

View attachment 4818939

Surprising level of contrast for an ?uncoated 90 year-old lens. Looks to be an overcast day too.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Here is another one with the same lens. Indeed uncoated; of course there are coated examples of the lens too. Don't forget that all my pictures are split grade printed.

gelatin silver print (elmar 35mm f3.5) leica ll

Utrecht, 2017

Erik.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

LTM Ultron 35 1.7 is one of the best 35mm I have tried on film. It was on pair with Summarit-M 35 2.5 which is the best lens I have tried on film. Just not same build, but for landscape and not moving stuff it is not relevant.
IMO.
CV CS 35 2.5 would be a downgrade for lack of micro-contrast. It was most boring 35 lens I have tired on bw film. OK for color.
And Canon 35/2 is kind of retro thing. Which is not necessary for landscapes.

 

[f.hayek]

LTM Ultron 35 1.7 is one of the best 35mm I have tried on film. It was on pair with Summarit-M 35 2.5 which is the best lens I have tried on film. Just not same build, but for landscape and not moving stuff it is not relevant.
IMO.
CV CS 35 2.5 would be a downgrade for lack of micro-contrast. It was most boring 35 lens I have tired on bw film. OK for color.
And Canon 35/2 is kind of retro thing. Which is not necessary for landscapes.

The 35 Summarit is one of the most under-appreciated and overlooked optics of the past decade.

 

[wlewisiii]

I took the Ultron out today and revisited several subjects I recently took images of using the Nikkor 50/2. I was as underwhelmed as usual.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Skopar unless I find a deal on a classic lens.

 

[agentlossing]

The Color Skopar is really nice, with B&W and with color...

2341449-R1-18-18A by Andrew Lossing, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

The 35mm f1.7 Ultron is not bad at all. The first version had optical problems if I remember well, but the renewed one is excellent. I love the black paint finish too. Great for using on LTM cameras.

gelatin silver print (ultron 35mm f1.7) leica m2

Peter H., 2008

Erik.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

These are with the 35/1.7 Ultron LTM on the M9.

 

[Out to Lunch]

To be honest, If I'd be looking for a sharp, smallish, and reasonably fast 35 lens in m-mount, I'd buy the 2/35 Zeiss Biogon which comes in at 240 g. BH sells it for $1,241. I'd certainly not buy an LTM mount lens. Cheers, OtL