Nebie M2, lens reccomendations?

[benchrat]

Howdy.

Recently bought an M2 off e-bay, CLA 1 year ago, good condition, decent deal.

I'm new to film, photography in general. I've an older 90mm/ F4 lens, but I know from my minimal research, I'm going to want something in the 28-50mm range. Budget is tight. Voightlander and Zeiss are probably my options.

Other things to keep in mind:
Limited to commercial proccesing, and I'm an idiot.

Could stretch for the 35/f2 Biogon.

Any other good advice?

Thanks,
Mark

 

[colyn]

A CV 35 or 50 would be good first lens. Most of my work is done with those focal lengths. I'm also partial to the 21mm CV lens.

 

[Keith]

If you can deal with the bulk and weight the 35mm Nokton is a gem and you'll pick one up for $600.00 ... messes with the carry around capability of the camera a little though. 😛

Maybe the new 1.4 35mm Nokton is worth considering ... I'm not a fan of it's OOF areas wide open but that's a personal thing!

 

[thomasw_]

the m2 and the 35mm focal length is a match made in heaven. the 35 you choose depends on a few factors: what you shoot; what sort of lens signature you are after; what sort of lighting you like to shoot in; your budget.

for checking different lens signatures out, search the m-mount group on flickr; loads of ex's there.

 

[photo4ls]

I have been convinced that the VC 50f1.5 nokton is the
way to go. Almost have enough save for mine.

 

[Nokton48]

I do like the Nokton 50mm f1.5, but I also have the CV 35mm f1.7 Ultron, the CV 35mm f2.5 Skopar, and a Russian Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 I just got from Fedka. Actually I like all three of those lenses on my M2. The 35mm focal length is ideal on the M2, although I also enjoy using the 50mm on mine.

 

[Athos6]

Second

Second

I do like the Nokton 50mm f1.5, but I also have the CV 35mm f1.7 Ultron, the CV 35mm f2.5 Skopar, and a Russian Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8 I just got from Fedka. Actually I like all three of those lenses on my M2. The 35mm focal length is ideal on the M2, although I also enjoy using the 50mm on mine.

I went the same route, Nokton 50mm, 35mm Ultron, but I also added a 50mm Summitar for the retro look.

 

[maggieo]

A CV 50/2 Heliar Classic would rock the house on an M2.

 

[Tom A]

For a small package and reasonable cost, I would recommend the VC 35f2.5 II. Great lens, equal to a non Asph Summicron and very comfortable on the M2. The new Nokton 35f1.4 is another choice, great low-light lens, SC for bl/w and MC for color.
The cream of the crop is the Biogon 35mm f2.0. As good as you probably will ever need. It is not small, compared to the other recommendations, but it is a spectacular performer.
I have been using the Nokton 35f1.4 SC extensively over the last month and it still makes a good all-round lens, Sharp, even wide open and medium contrast. The "fuzzy stuff", i.e the bokeh is fine in my judgement.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Mark,
if your budget is really, really tight, go for the Russian Jupiter 12 35/2.8 and Jupiter 8 50/2.0 from a reputable source.
Actually, I would suggest them even if you were not on a tight budget.

Best regards,
Uwe

 

[payasam]

Agree with those who say that the M2 and a 35 mm lens make a fine combination. If I were in your position, the choice would be between the Biogon and the VC 35/1.4. I'm in my position, so I use a Jupiter 12.

 

[Ronald_H]

Bought an M2 yesterday! Originally wanted a 50mm Nokton to go with it but it had been sold. I now went home with an Ultron 35mm f1.7.

 

[rover]

Lots of good choices. If you want to go traditional find lenses that are contemporaries to your camera. The Canon 35/2.8 can be found for less than $200. A Rigid 50 Summicron, Canon 50/1.8 or Nikkor 50/2 would be right at home on an M2.

 

[briandaly]

If you can deal with the bulk and weight the 35mm Nokton is a gem and you'll pick one up for $600.00 ...

Keith,

Are you referring to the 1.2 35mm Nokton?

I'm in a similar position to Mark. I have an M2 and a 5cm collapsible Elmar on the way. Looking for a 35mm also. I'd like a fast lens, as shallow depth of field is important to me (more so than the low-light capabilities, although the extra half stop of 1.2 vs 1.4 would be handy sometimes).
Does anyone have two or more 35's that they can compare (e.g. Ultron 1.7 vs Nokton 1.4 vs Nokton 1.2 vs Biogon 2.0) ?

Tom, can you point me to some examples where you have gone for shallow depth of field using some of the lens choices you mentioned above? I can find a few in your flickr portfolio, but generally you seem to favour greater depth of field (the photojournalist in you, perhaps?).

Is the weight and bulk penalty of the 1.2 Nokton worth the half stop gain over the Nokton 1.4 ?

Anyone know of dealers in the UK or Ireland where one could try out the whole range of CV and Zeiss lenses?

Apologies for the rambling questions - just looking to avoid buyer's remorse.

Brian

 

[ernstk]

Adding to what Rover said above, the 35mm Summaron/2.8 is a lovely lens, both aesthetically on the camera and in terms of optical performance.

They are also very reasonably priced and would keep the outfit within the Leitz family, 'tho this may not be important to you.

Regards
Ernst

 

[funkaoshi]

I have the VC 35 f/2.5; it's quite nice. It's also wicked cheap compared to other lenses out there. It's probably a good lens to start off with.

 

[benchrat]

Thanks for all the responses.

Apologize for the title misspelling.

I have been looking at lenses under 1,000.00. Certainly 500.00 would be much easier to swallow. 850.00 and up is a stretch on the budget. I kind of limited myself to lenses that could be purchased new, in this price range.

I'm not experienced enough to properly value or assess used equipment. Nor do I have a mentor with that facility.

I've hammered e-bay and used equipment dealers the last few days, trying to understand the market, what's available, what it's worth, etc.

I end up more confused, than informed. For example, the 90mm/f4 I have is either worth 200.00 on e-bay, or 900.00 from a retailor. The classifieds here on rangefinderforum.com do seem more realistic, even handed.

Given my lack of informed judgement, I gravitate towards lenses available for purchase in new condition. Not that I give a rats ass about how it looks, but there is an inherent assumption that with a new lens, decent camera, the mistakes are mine.

One goal is to limit defects.
The more variables that can be controlled in any situation, the better.

Being the hypercritical, anal retentive idiot that I am, the less I can blame on equipment, the better off I'll be. In the words of Clint Eastwood in "Dirty Harry"

"A man's got to know his limitations"

If there is someone out there in the Twin Cities area, Mpls./StPaul that wants to suffer through teaching a newb the ins and outs, I'll buy the beer.

Given the broader audience engaged to this point, I would ask you what your top 3 lens picks would be?

Logic being that a consistent pick would be the best place to start.
Even if not number one, there's a fair chance that if a number of folks consider it, it's viable.

Getting reviews is still a little hinky. The Zeiss 35/f2 has a total of 2 pro reviews.
Not exactly a quarum, but more than seems available for most lenses. I understand there is a historical perspective: "Everyone Knows" Unfortunately, I'm not that guy.

My 3 at this point:

Zeiss 35mm/f2 Biogon 850.00
Voightlander 35/1.2 Nokton 850.00
Voightlander 35/1.4 Nokton 560.00

Given that limited choice, I'd probably go for the new Voightlander 35/1.4 Nokton. I could stretch for the Zeiss, which by several reviews equals the Leica offering, at a fraction of the Leica's price.

Give your 3 picks. Don't neccessarily have to agree with mine.

Thanks,

Mark

 

[rover]

Given that you are looking for only one lens and you have focused in on the 35mm focal length, first I will say the good news is that all of your choices are between very good lenses. In fact, since you want new, I think you will find that what ever you buy you will be happy with.

That said..... I would pick the CV 35/1.7 Ultron. It is a little less $$ than that Nokton 1.4, just a fraction slower, and I like the qualities it brings. It also looks pretty good on an M2. The CV 35/2.5 would also be a good choice but slower than all the others. Keep in mind too, if you save a few $$ here you may be able to pick up another lens sooner.

 

[Tom A]

Mark, in the "good old days" with a Leica M2, you had a choice of a 35f2.8 Summaron, the 35f2 Summicron and if you had a lot of money (or workd for a paper with lots of money) you got the 35f1.4 Summilux!
Today we have a huge amount of alternatives, all them good and some of them better than Leica's offerings!
I have the three lenses you are mentioning as your potential picks (as well as a lot of the other ones -don't ask why, but they seem to gravitate to me).

A/ the 35f2 ZM Biogon: This is the Summicron killer! It is probably the best of the f2 lenses around. Sharp and with an extremely smooth tonal range. It is not a small lens, but fits the M2 quite well. You need to add the hood for it though. Not so much for flare control, as it is very flare resistant, but it does "stick out there" and cardoors and crowded situation seems to target the front element! It would be my pick as lens for all around use.

B/ The VC 35f1.2: This is cutting edge design. Very sophisticated optical set-up and when the lights dim, it is the only way to go. With a M2 you can usually handhold a 35 at 1/8 sec and that coupled with the 1.2 speed - the limit is actually your focussing skills! At f1.2 it is very good, better than the $5000+ Noctilux 50f1 in my estimation. It is a BIG lens and it is overkill if you are going to be shooting in moderate low light and daylight and with 400 asa film. It is more of a "special case" lens, than a regular lens.

C/ The Nokton 35mm f1.4 SC/MC. I have had mine for a couple of month now and it is permanently on one of my M2's. Wide-open performance is better than the pre-Asph Summilux 35 and not far of the Asph Summilux, though far less flare prone. More than sharp enough, you can confidently pull 11x14 or 16x20 prints from it. It is also small and compact, compared to the ZM 35 and the CV 35/1.2. It might not matter to you, but I find that I tend to gravitate towards smaller and more compact lenses with the M2, unless I need the extra speed (35/1,2) or I know that I am going to print something really large (35f2 ZM). Again, with the M2 and some training, you can handhold it at 1/8 sec and there are few times you would need a faster lens than f1.4.

Summer is coming and you have one the "brightest" lights that I know of in the Twin Cities, so unless you spend all your time in bars and clubs, you can probably get away with the 35/1,4 and later, if you feel the need for more speed, get the 35/1,2 for wintry, dark and cold!
The choice of MC or SC with the Nokton 35f1.4 somewhat depends on wether you will be shooting color or black/white. The MC has a bit more contrast, particularly wide open - this can give you blocked up shadows with the MC in bl/w. For color, particularly color neg, te higher contrast of the MC helps saturate the colors (if the processor is calibrated right!). It is not a huge difference though and either lens will do you well.
Tom A
2008 -The Year Of The M2!"

 

[Ronald_H]

With a M2 you can usually handhold a 35 at 1/8 sec

Really? I do a lot of indoor low light shooting (Tri-X at 1250) with my trusted old Nikon SLRs, and anything below 1/60th is hoping for the best, unless I can brace myself against a wall. My fastest SLR lens is the 50mm f1.4, but wide open, well you can see that you are wide open!

After the first roll through my 20 euro Canonet I was a bit surprised that all my slow handheld shots were fine, and of course that little cam has a fast lens too.

As I now have given in to my Leica desires, and indeed bought an M2, it will be a lot of fun to see how well it will do with the CV 35mm f1.7 Ultronon it. My next lens will likely be a 50mm, either a used 50mm f2 Summicron or a new CV 50mm f1.5 Nokton. I would appreciate the speed, but I'm also drawn by the legend... choices, choices. Hey, maybe I have to shoot a bit more first!