rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
First off, I hope I'm posting in the appropriate forum. My apologies if not.
OK. I'm looking for a 35mm lens to use on my LTM bodies. My budget is strongly influenced by spousal limitations. I can spend $300-350 with impunity, and up to $450 with justification, but $500 is the "ceiling" above which I dare not surpass.
So with that. I'm looking for suggestions from the folks who have experience with the candidate lenses out there (i.e., RFF members).
A few lenses in my budget range that I'm aware of are the CV 35/2.5, Jupiter 12 35/2.8, and possibly Summaron 35/3.5 or Canon 35/2.8. Beyond these, I'm just not sure what else I can consider.
The Jupiter 12 is not really an option. Some of my bodies don't like the deep rear element (e.g., Bessa R). Besides, I'm hoping I can achieve better performance (maybe not?!).
I've heard that the Summaron 35/3.5 and the Canon 35/2.8 are low contrast lenses, and the CV is more contrasty (often referred to as "modern"). I don't necessarily need high contrast, but I know that my Summar is lower in contrast than I'd like in my 35.
I'm looking for a lens that optimizes my desire for sharpness and an attractive level of contrast (and budget). Lens speed is not a primary consideration, but I wouldn't mind it. Handling is also a consideration, but I've found that few LTM lenses I've handled are terribly unwieldy, so I'm confident that optimizing my primary needs will yield a lens that handles just fine.
Thank you for your suggestions.
OK. I'm looking for a 35mm lens to use on my LTM bodies. My budget is strongly influenced by spousal limitations. I can spend $300-350 with impunity, and up to $450 with justification, but $500 is the "ceiling" above which I dare not surpass.
So with that. I'm looking for suggestions from the folks who have experience with the candidate lenses out there (i.e., RFF members).
A few lenses in my budget range that I'm aware of are the CV 35/2.5, Jupiter 12 35/2.8, and possibly Summaron 35/3.5 or Canon 35/2.8. Beyond these, I'm just not sure what else I can consider.
The Jupiter 12 is not really an option. Some of my bodies don't like the deep rear element (e.g., Bessa R). Besides, I'm hoping I can achieve better performance (maybe not?!).
I've heard that the Summaron 35/3.5 and the Canon 35/2.8 are low contrast lenses, and the CV is more contrasty (often referred to as "modern"). I don't necessarily need high contrast, but I know that my Summar is lower in contrast than I'd like in my 35.
I'm looking for a lens that optimizes my desire for sharpness and an attractive level of contrast (and budget). Lens speed is not a primary consideration, but I wouldn't mind it. Handling is also a consideration, but I've found that few LTM lenses I've handled are terribly unwieldy, so I'm confident that optimizing my primary needs will yield a lens that handles just fine.
Thank you for your suggestions.
FrankS
Registered User
You should be able to find a Canon 35f2 at your price.
lonemantis
Well-known
I'd second the recommendation for a Canon 35mm F2 if you can find it in your price range. Great little lens, indistinguishable in quality from Summicrons made around the same time.
The CV 35 F2.5 is probably your best choice though. Modern, sharp, contrasty, and you won't need to worry about internal haze and scratches like a lot of the older lenses you listed.
The CV 35 F2.5 is probably your best choice though. Modern, sharp, contrasty, and you won't need to worry about internal haze and scratches like a lot of the older lenses you listed.
ferider
Veteran
Even though ebay sellers love to call the Canon 35/2 "Japanese Summicron", it's far from it - if you care for smooth background, that lens is not for you. Really ugly "fish scales" under the wrong conditions, almost impossible to filter, half built of aluminum, 1m min. focus.
Optically, the best LTM lens in your budget is the Ultron 35/1.7. The CV 35/2.5 is smaller and slower, but just as great, depending on the speed you need.
I suggest to not look further than those two.
Roland.
Optically, the best LTM lens in your budget is the Ultron 35/1.7. The CV 35/2.5 is smaller and slower, but just as great, depending on the speed you need.
I suggest to not look further than those two.
Roland.
JMQ
Well-known
Another vote on the Canon 35/2. See Dante Stella's write -up.
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
Monochrom
Well-known
Try loooking for the color skopar 35mm f2.5 people say it´s super sharp, i´ve seen pics and colours are beautuful.
The canon 35mm f1.8 is very good i had one!
The canon 35mm f1.8 is very good i had one!
Classique
Well-known
Canon 35mm f/2 is a good recommendation. Make sure that the elements are clean and the lens itself has not been tampered with. The one I tried had horrible flare and it turns out it was tampered with (non professionally I would guess)
Other good lenses in your budget would be
- VC Ultron 35mm 1.7
- W-nikkor 35mm 2.5 (I got mine in nikon rangefinder mount and am using it with amadeo adapter but it was still way under your budget) you might have to be on a lookout for a deal here. I saw one in our classifieds for 200 so that plus amadeo 250 would be right at the upper limit of your budget. It looks great on my IIIF.
Nikkor is very sharp even wide open (mine is sharper than the ultron and the 1.4 nokton) and contrast is good for such old lens. Other than swirly bokeh wide open close up, the rendering is almost modern. Only downside is the 0.9m closest focus and somewhat awkward handling. But I did see someone with amadeo adapter focusing down to 0.7m ...maybe that's the new version.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I would get a used Voigtlander Color-Skopar in LTM. They are very nicely made, and the photos that you shoot will be excellent.
I always thought it was a very good all-purpose lens. The Cosina Voigtlander bodies and lenses are good value.
I always thought it was a very good all-purpose lens. The Cosina Voigtlander bodies and lenses are good value.
Thatspec
Established
You really can't go wrong with any of those mentioned above but also consider the Canon 35/1.8. You can still find them under $400 plus it's almost as small as a 40 Summicron-C. This thread initially sold me over the 35/F2;
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129267
I find it almost startlingly sharp in the center wide open and the oof areas look great to me.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129267
I find it almost startlingly sharp in the center wide open and the oof areas look great to me.
PMCC
Late adopter.
+1 for the CV Ultron 35/1.7. Smooth where you want it, sharp where it counts.
kermaier
Well-known
Igorcamera appears to have a Nikkor 35/2.5 in LTM for $445 and a Voigtlander 35/1.7 for $450. A 35/2.5 Skopar should be easier to find in your budget than either of those two. You can't go wrong with any if those 3.
sparrow6224
Well-known
If you want to come in under $400 and use the rest to buy something nice for your lady then definitely the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 . there's a P pancake verion and a slightly (very slightly) larger one -- research this I could be wrong -- I had a "P" and its one drawback was that it was so small that when I reached for the focus tab I half the time ended up moving the aperture ring and sometimes without knowing I'd done so. Nevertheless I often - several times a week -- regret not having one anymore, the images were so good.
Nikkor 35/3.5
Canon 35/1.8 and 35/2 (Not the f/2.8 apparently but I don't know why....)
Voigtlander 35/2.5 Color Skopar
Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ulton
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton -- I have this one, I love it, I got it for $450 but usually it's more so will likely fall out of your range.
These are your choices, essentially. I'd go for one of the Voigtlander's so you don't have to worry about old glass, haze, fungus, etc.
Nikkor 35/3.5
Canon 35/1.8 and 35/2 (Not the f/2.8 apparently but I don't know why....)
Voigtlander 35/2.5 Color Skopar
Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ulton
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton -- I have this one, I love it, I got it for $450 but usually it's more so will likely fall out of your range.
These are your choices, essentially. I'd go for one of the Voigtlander's so you don't have to worry about old glass, haze, fungus, etc.
back alley
IMAGES
the cv 2.5 is a wonderful lens and yes, it's modern in look.
i'd go for the canon 2.8 as a second choice...i know the 2 is a vote getter but the 2.8 is a special lens with a lovely not modern look to its images...
these 2 are also nice and small and most suitable for an older ltm body.
i'd go for the canon 2.8 as a second choice...i know the 2 is a vote getter but the 2.8 is a special lens with a lovely not modern look to its images...
these 2 are also nice and small and most suitable for an older ltm body.
Lachie C
Member
I've got the 35/1.7 Ultron, I'm not a total sharpness freak but I've failed to notice any increase in quality amongst moderate 35's until you hit the 35 FLE Summilux, which is crazy.
Heru Anggono
Member
Apart from budget consideration perhaps you'd want to consider how the picture would "look" like given a particular lens. Pick the one suited to your taste and you should be happy.
Some lens are sharper, or contrastier, but I learnt that more is not always better.
I'm sure many good advice above will help you decide which lens to go for.
Cheers,
Some lens are sharper, or contrastier, but I learnt that more is not always better.
I'm sure many good advice above will help you decide which lens to go for.
Cheers,
Lss
Well-known
The only lens I have that fits this description is the Canon 35/1.8, which I find very capable. I prefer the CV 35/1.4, but that is an M mount lens.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Wow, I very much appreciate all your comments and suggestions. I have much more information now than before and feel I can make an informed choice.
Thank you very much everyone!
I noticed that this thread was moved to the "Cosina Voigtlander" forum, which must speak to the opinion of the moderator(s).
The CV lenses (35/2.5 and 35/1.7) seem to be well regarded. The 35/2.5 seems like a real value. That's good, but I want to avoid the compulsion to purchase another 35 for a while, and the extra speed of the 1.7 is appealing. But as I said in my OP, speed is one of my last considerations in the decision making process.
The Canon offerings seem to include the 2, 2.8, and 1.8 versions. All considered a little lower contrast (or a lot?). An interesting comment regarding oof areas with the 2 not living up to the hubub about this lens. I'm still intriqued by the 2 and 1.8 versions of this lens. I have seen some sample images and, although lower in contrast, I do like their appearance. I looked at some samples from the CV lenses and certainly liked them too. The CV 1.7 had some particularly nice examples.
The Nikkor 35/2.5 is a lens I knew existed, but didn't know if it would fall in my budget range. I heard somewhere else that the Nikkor 50/1.4 was an incredible lens and that the other Nikkors of same era were also "undervalued". Hmm. I haven't seen one lately, but haven't been looking in earnest either. If I see one at the right price...
I didn't hear too much about the Summaron 35/3.5. I searched out some sample images and they weren't as low in contrast as I expected. Especially the color images. I understand it is the slowest of the lenses I consider, and I do appreciate the ability to produce oof areas in my shots. Easier done with my 50/1.8 than a 35/3.5.
I've accumulated a few LTM bodies. Time to get some decent lenses for them. I take heed the advice to get the lens that produces images that appeal to me. My problem is: so many of my choices do that. I've really only narrowed the field by a couple. Hopefully fate will step in and make the decision a little easier...great lens, great price, great timing, done.
Thanks again!
Thank you very much everyone!
I noticed that this thread was moved to the "Cosina Voigtlander" forum, which must speak to the opinion of the moderator(s).
The CV lenses (35/2.5 and 35/1.7) seem to be well regarded. The 35/2.5 seems like a real value. That's good, but I want to avoid the compulsion to purchase another 35 for a while, and the extra speed of the 1.7 is appealing. But as I said in my OP, speed is one of my last considerations in the decision making process.
The Canon offerings seem to include the 2, 2.8, and 1.8 versions. All considered a little lower contrast (or a lot?). An interesting comment regarding oof areas with the 2 not living up to the hubub about this lens. I'm still intriqued by the 2 and 1.8 versions of this lens. I have seen some sample images and, although lower in contrast, I do like their appearance. I looked at some samples from the CV lenses and certainly liked them too. The CV 1.7 had some particularly nice examples.
The Nikkor 35/2.5 is a lens I knew existed, but didn't know if it would fall in my budget range. I heard somewhere else that the Nikkor 50/1.4 was an incredible lens and that the other Nikkors of same era were also "undervalued". Hmm. I haven't seen one lately, but haven't been looking in earnest either. If I see one at the right price...
I didn't hear too much about the Summaron 35/3.5. I searched out some sample images and they weren't as low in contrast as I expected. Especially the color images. I understand it is the slowest of the lenses I consider, and I do appreciate the ability to produce oof areas in my shots. Easier done with my 50/1.8 than a 35/3.5.
I've accumulated a few LTM bodies. Time to get some decent lenses for them. I take heed the advice to get the lens that produces images that appeal to me. My problem is: so many of my choices do that. I've really only narrowed the field by a couple. Hopefully fate will step in and make the decision a little easier...great lens, great price, great timing, done.
Thanks again!
seakayaker1
Well-known
I do have a Summaron 3.5cm f3.5 and enjoy using the tiny lens and the quality of the images when I use it. It usually can be found under $300.00. I believe mine has a serial number that places it being produced in 1953.
Good luck with your decision.
Good luck with your decision.
goamules
Well-known
If you want a little bit of an older look, less contrast, go for the older lenses of course. No one has mentioned the Canon 35/1.5, but it's supposed to be a great lens.
Check out the pictures shot with the various Canon's here. Other than the one detractor, most photographers seem to love the 35/2.0. And I like the 1.8 a lot.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-rf-lenses/pool/tags/Canon35mmf2.0LTM/
Check out the pictures shot with the various Canon's here. Other than the one detractor, most photographers seem to love the 35/2.0. And I like the 1.8 a lot.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-rf-lenses/pool/tags/Canon35mmf2.0LTM/
ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
ha ha ha.. Spousal limitations. That's funny because I'm on the same boat looking for the same lens for the same body. I have 50mm J8 now, but I was mulling the 35mm. Then I saw the 35mm vs 28mm thread and now I'm tempted to go with a 28mm.
There are two examples of the canon 35mm f/2 in the classifieds. There is now only one CV 35mm in there too. I've been looking for the ultron 1.7 but I can't find one that's close.
Good luck!
There are two examples of the canon 35mm f/2 in the classifieds. There is now only one CV 35mm in there too. I've been looking for the ultron 1.7 but I can't find one that's close.
Good luck!