taemo
eat sleep shoot
another good inexpensive lens that hasnt been mentioned yet is the Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM, if you want a 35mm there's the Voigtlander 35mm 1.4, it's flawed but has a unique look.
Help me find a lens for my M6
- Thread starter darkrami
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 4K
Huss
Veteran
Maybe he meant these two?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129516046@N04/29551422342/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129516046@N04/29551420882/in/photostream/
If that is the case, this one is the Leica shot:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129516046@N04/29551422342/in/photostream/
But personally I do not think there is an issue with either lens. The scene is extremely contrasty - which may also be a result of exposure and the way it was developed - and when u have very high contrast you are not going to get detail in shadows or highlights.
Livesteamer
Well-known
KEH has a Canon 35mm f1.5 for $999. I've had one for years now and find it to be a fine lens. Canon 50mm f1.4 or a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 would be very nice also. Good Luck. Joe
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Split the difference and get a 40. Any of them will work.
darkrami
Member
I looked at the 40mm C but decided against it due to the lack of native frame lines on my M6.
darkrami
Member
Sorry I didn't realize that. Either way it's hard to see a difference I think they were shot at f11.
Huss
Veteran
Doood. You'll never see a difference at f11. Unless you are testing for lens flare.
The reason u pay the big bux for Leica glass is because they are so good wide open.
michaelwj
----------------
The voigtlander is a very good lens - very very sharp with high contrast (which amplifies the apparent sharpness). The only reason the summicron is better in real use is that it opens to f/2 (and is made by Leica...)
If you're after a lens to get you to open up more in the dark then a summicron, summilux, zm planar (or c-sonnar), or any of the voigtlander noktons will be your best bet. They are all sharp enough and all (except the summilux) can be had within your price range on the new or second hand market.
In real world conditions, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference (in sharpness) between any decent lens, Leica, Canon, Nikon ... none of them are that bad. Especially at f/11!
I'm also going to say that if you're shooting a rangefinder for the ultimate sharpness then you're doing it wrong. Any SLR can be just as sharp, they're just bigger (and historically louder), with a very different viewing experience. If you want ultimate sharpness you'll get better value from an SLR.
If you're after a lens to get you to open up more in the dark then a summicron, summilux, zm planar (or c-sonnar), or any of the voigtlander noktons will be your best bet. They are all sharp enough and all (except the summilux) can be had within your price range on the new or second hand market.
In real world conditions, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference (in sharpness) between any decent lens, Leica, Canon, Nikon ... none of them are that bad. Especially at f/11!
I'm also going to say that if you're shooting a rangefinder for the ultimate sharpness then you're doing it wrong. Any SLR can be just as sharp, they're just bigger (and historically louder), with a very different viewing experience. If you want ultimate sharpness you'll get better value from an SLR.
leicapixie
Well-known
The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is a very sharp lens with typical high Nikon contrast.
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is amazingly sharp, lower contrast(than Nikon).
Seeing differences in scans and on monitors an "iffy" test.
I own both.
High speed lenses allow more light, Summilux 50mm f1.4.
Depth of field shrinks dramatically.
Slight movement from position by you or subject,
while focussing could give varying results.
I owned the 35mmV1 Summilux and 50mm v1 Summilux and sold them off. I prefer my 50mm Summicron f2.0 and 35mm Summaron f2.8.
Perhaps you are more used to the SLR and that could account for equal results, perhaps even better than Leica with Voigtlander.
Available light is tricky.
Pushing film one way, slower speeds another.
Zone focus at wide apertures a myth.
Read a "Depth of Field" chart.
your focus scales give an idea.
Basically for a 5x7" print!
Shoot more. Practice focus.
Learn to use slower speeds and ways to brace your camera.
Result wise, for me, if I am tired, long day, RF is easier.
Not tired, fresh, reasonable light, SLR equal to RF anytime.
30th/60th at f2.8. At 1/8th and 15th at least I out of 5 pix reasonably sharp.
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is amazingly sharp, lower contrast(than Nikon).
Seeing differences in scans and on monitors an "iffy" test.
I own both.
High speed lenses allow more light, Summilux 50mm f1.4.
Depth of field shrinks dramatically.
Slight movement from position by you or subject,
while focussing could give varying results.
I owned the 35mmV1 Summilux and 50mm v1 Summilux and sold them off. I prefer my 50mm Summicron f2.0 and 35mm Summaron f2.8.
Perhaps you are more used to the SLR and that could account for equal results, perhaps even better than Leica with Voigtlander.
Available light is tricky.
Pushing film one way, slower speeds another.
Zone focus at wide apertures a myth.
Read a "Depth of Field" chart.
your focus scales give an idea.
Basically for a 5x7" print!
Shoot more. Practice focus.
Learn to use slower speeds and ways to brace your camera.
Result wise, for me, if I am tired, long day, RF is easier.
Not tired, fresh, reasonable light, SLR equal to RF anytime.
30th/60th at f2.8. At 1/8th and 15th at least I out of 5 pix reasonably sharp.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Where are some difference, but the content, pushing at three stops and editing levels it to something digitized...
But I liked one with less distorted pole.
Was Nikkor also compared to similar content, same pushing? They must be all very close at f11.
I also noticed how at f5.6-f8, 400@1200 my second Color Skopar 35 2.5 was good on 5x7 prints. At box speed and 8x10 both of my CV 35 2.5 were too often flat. Both Summarons 35 3.5 were even less special. And if I print from shots taken by Summarit 35 2.5 at f11 with contrat filter #5 for paper, I'm often saying "where is my Leica lens?".
Personally, I compare lenses wide open and at f5.6-f8 and box speed for good light.
But I liked one with less distorted pole.
Was Nikkor also compared to similar content, same pushing? They must be all very close at f11.
I also noticed how at f5.6-f8, 400@1200 my second Color Skopar 35 2.5 was good on 5x7 prints. At box speed and 8x10 both of my CV 35 2.5 were too often flat. Both Summarons 35 3.5 were even less special. And if I print from shots taken by Summarit 35 2.5 at f11 with contrat filter #5 for paper, I'm often saying "where is my Leica lens?".
Personally, I compare lenses wide open and at f5.6-f8 and box speed for good light.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Op never mentioned how he's scanning. I found that flatbed scanners can't resolve all details out of a 35mm negative without proper calibration and experience scanning.
rscheffler
Well-known
If you want 35mm and sharp wide open, look at the Voigtlander 35/1.7. The current (new) M-mount version (not the older LTM version). It's somewhat on the long side, but not huge in diameter... The only thing I don't like about it is its ergonomics vs. the tabbed Leica style (which is a lot easier to quickly zone focus for 'street' type shooting). But performance for the price is excellent by modern standards.
On the 'vintage' side I like the Canon 35/2 LTM. It's tiny and sharp enough wide open in the center of the frame with a nice smooth (sharpness) falloff to the edges. Stopped down a bit (4-5.6) and it's very sharp (I'd pick it over the 35/2.5 Voigtlander). Contrast/saturation is slightly lower than modern lenses, but if you're primarily shooting B&W, this might be a good thing. Background rendering can be a bit on the busy/harsh side at or near wide open and certain camera-subject-background distances.
On the 'vintage' side I like the Canon 35/2 LTM. It's tiny and sharp enough wide open in the center of the frame with a nice smooth (sharpness) falloff to the edges. Stopped down a bit (4-5.6) and it's very sharp (I'd pick it over the 35/2.5 Voigtlander). Contrast/saturation is slightly lower than modern lenses, but if you're primarily shooting B&W, this might be a good thing. Background rendering can be a bit on the busy/harsh side at or near wide open and certain camera-subject-background distances.
darkrami
Member
Very informational post! I think my problem is that I obsess with ultimate sharpness. I'm just learning about other stuff that goes into IQ, like microcontrast and "lens character".
darkrami
Member
Good point. Up until last Friday I was using an Epson v550, with mixed results. Then I learned about this little guy called the Pakon 135 Plus. I got me one of this and got it up and running this past weekend . From what I can see so far, huge difference! I feel like I need to rescan all my negatives again!
By the way tomorrow I'm getting a bunch of different BW film rolls and my Leica doesn't have a lens...
Here's a comparison, shot with the M6 and Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 on expired Acros 100
https://flic.kr/p/M9xYpE
darkrami
Member
Here's an example of the Canon FD 50mm 1.8 on Acros 100.
https://flic.kr/p/M5v84Z
https://flic.kr/p/M5v84Z
Huss
Veteran
The Pakon scanner is producing much sharper, and more contrasty images. It will be easy to dial that down in LR. That example with the Canon lens is nice but you cannot compare that against the CV/Leica shots. To do a comparison, you need to shoot the same subject at the same time with the same settings. And not at f11!
Brad Husick wrote up a great comparison of a bunch of 35mm lenses, including the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 2.5 and the Summicron. It'll give you an idea of the differences.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...part-2-close-up-and-wide-open-by-brad-husick/
Brad Husick wrote up a great comparison of a bunch of 35mm lenses, including the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35 2.5 and the Summicron. It'll give you an idea of the differences.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...part-2-close-up-and-wide-open-by-brad-husick/
aizan
Veteran
your best bets:
zeiss: 35/2, 50/1.5
voigtlander: 35/1.4, 35/1.7, 50/1.5
konica: 35/2
or if you can save up for one, the zeiss 35/1.4.
zeiss: 35/2, 50/1.5
voigtlander: 35/1.4, 35/1.7, 50/1.5
konica: 35/2
or if you can save up for one, the zeiss 35/1.4.
richard_l
Well-known
You want sharp?
Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar ZM
Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon ZM
Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar ZM
Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon ZM
leicapixie
Well-known
If sharpness is your main goal, my advice is not for you.
I care not for sharpness but content.
A medium format camera will leave 35mm far behind,
in quality. Tonal range, creaminess and appearance of resolution.
4x5" will outdistance one and all. except 8x10".
The "craze" for sharpness is all apparent, esp. since digital.
I mainly work in streets, candid and portraiture.
My needs diametrically opposed to sharpness only.😀
I care not for sharpness but content.
A medium format camera will leave 35mm far behind,
in quality. Tonal range, creaminess and appearance of resolution.
4x5" will outdistance one and all. except 8x10".
The "craze" for sharpness is all apparent, esp. since digital.
I mainly work in streets, candid and portraiture.
My needs diametrically opposed to sharpness only.😀
BLKRCAT
75% Film
IMO digital sharpness is much different than film sharpness.
Also certain films can make a sharp lens look softer depending on exposure and development.
I use a voigtlander 50 1.5 and don't see much of a bump over my rigid summicron. Now with digital there may be a noticeable difference but with film it's negligible.
I'm also scanning nikon coolscan so I know my results are almost the best they can be.
Also certain films can make a sharp lens look softer depending on exposure and development.
I use a voigtlander 50 1.5 and don't see much of a bump over my rigid summicron. Now with digital there may be a noticeable difference but with film it's negligible.
I'm also scanning nikon coolscan so I know my results are almost the best they can be.
