New to Leica, an affordable 35?

Juan Valdenebro said:
Jon, I hope my dreams tonight (today) don't look as through a 35 1.4... :)

Good night,

Juan
Click to expand...

Juan, past 10am and you still haven't gone to sleep yet???? OMG your dreams will be beyond a Nokton 35/1.4 ... more like looking through an SLR Nikkor 35/1.4 (sample below) I'd say :eek::eek::eek:

Good night :angel:

3363903565_bb513d7349_z.jpg
 
Hi guys...

I see again mention of a lens' character. Can someone please tell me what this concept means as far as lenses are concerned?

Also, jonmanjiro, what do you think of Shimizu camera and Lemonsha in Ginza? Any good?

Tnx.
 
RFluhver said:
Also, jonmanjiro, what do you think of Shimizu camera and Lemonsha in Ginza? Any good?
Click to expand...

Lemonsha - some good stuff but buyer beware! Most of their stuff is sold on consignment so has no warranty, and no right of return if you find a defect.

Shimizu - overpriced for the most part. I've only ever bought a hard to find lens hood there.
 
semilog said:
Older lenses tend to have lower contrast and to be somewhat soft wide open. As the aperture is closed resolution increases, in the better cases to beyond the limits of what even a very good film can record. The low contrast is mainly for two reasons. First, coatings have improved, reducing veiling flare. Second, the lenses are not as well corrected as modern lenses, especially for spherical aberration. Older lenses often (though not always) render out-of focus information quite beautifully, and the low contrast can be helpful in getting good shadow detail. Wide open, they can have a "dreamy" look that many like.

Modern lenses are usually better corrected. They generally have higher contrast, especially at wide apertures, and higher resolution at wide apertures (f/4 and wider).

The modern Leica lenses are, generally, hyper-modern. They approach their optimal performance by f/2.8 or even by f/2, with extraordinary clarity and resolution even wide open. In technical terms, they are phenomenal. For taking pictures, many prefer the look of the modern lenses, and others prefer older lenses.

Probably the pinnacle of old-school lens design is the 50mm Leica Summicron, in the collapsible version or the rigid or dual-range versions. I have a 50 mm Summicron with the current optical formula (a modern lens -- yet the oldest design in the current Leica lineup, I think). In color, I prefer it to the older versions, but the older versions do look better for black and white work, in my opinion. The differences are not so large that I see a reason to trade, but some here have more than one 50. Some have several more than one...

Arguably the pinnacle of the modern school is the current 50mm Summilux ASPH. This is probably the highest-performing standard lens ever manufactured for 35mm format, at all apertures and over a range of subject distances.

If you search for these lenses there are whole threads, with example photos. There's a very long thread that compares the various versions of the 50mm Summicron (and some others), with many many examples, here.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is indeed very helpful. I will scout around for pictures of new and old lens to see which one fit my liking.

I have seen multiple recommendations on the L-208 and the luna pro. I see a lot of luna pros floating around ebay at around 50 or less used, while L-208 is mostly new at more than double the price.

Will something like this suffice to get a accurate exposure:
http://cgi.ebay.com/A-GOSSEN-LUNA-P...tem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3caec9e085

I don't really mind having a bigger meter as long as it works.

Anybody with experience with the VC meter sold at cameraquest? It looks very sexy but it's relatively expensive and I am doubting it's functionality.
 
exe163 said:
Anybody with experience with the VC meter sold at cameraquest? It looks very sexy but it's relatively expensive and I am doubting it's functionality.
Click to expand...

The VC II is a really, really good meter. It's a perfect match for an unmetered Leica M and it's small, simple to use and accurate.
 
Neither the 35mm nokton or the 35mm color-skopar will do you wrong. I loved my color skopar, I personally think it's one of the nicest all round 35mm lenses I've used.
 
40mm summicron or m-rokkor also an option. I also have both the 35/1.7 and 35/1.2. Personally I never liked the Nokton 1.4 offerings and would then either go for the 1.2 (a bit above budget) or the 1.7. However 35/2.5 is very sound advice you have received from many people. Nice starter lens that you can sell on when you upgrade without losing much money on it.
 
Rogrund said:
The VC II is a really, really good meter. It's a perfect match for an unmetered Leica M and it's small, simple to use and accurate.
Click to expand...

For street shooting you can take your reading with the VC meter without raising the camera to your eye: stealthy!
 
This is how I am using my 35/1.4 Nokton, in a kit with 75 Summilux:

556008733_Ba6yK-L.jpg


The two lenses fit perfectly together, IMO.

If you look at my pictures, you'll see that I have used the 1.4 Nokton for people, architecture and landscapes. And I am very happy with it's performance. From the picture above, you might also notice that I am not trying to save money with my lenses ....

Here is an example photo taken with the 35/1.4:

766514202_2r9j2-L.jpg


You will rarely find a disappointed actual 35/1.4 Nokton user. You will also find few used copies on ebay, because people usually keep the lens once they have bought it. Its distortion is not more than many other "cult lenses", including the 35/1.2, the 50/1.4 pre-asph Summilux, the 35/2 UC Hexanon, the 35/1.8 Nikkor, etc., etc. Have no fear, it's a great lens for your budget.

The VCII meter is nice, but I normally prefer a hand-held meter for incident measurements.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Wow, a lot of arguing about barrel distortion... I would point out that the 35mm C-Biogon has virtually no detectable barrel distortion, if that matters to anyone here looking for a 35mm. There's an excellent comparison of half a dozen 35mm lenses on an M9 at reidreviews.com.
 
"Many people buy fast lenses and never shoot at full aperture. Whats the point?"

Well shooting indoor portraits without a flash for a start which is one of the sweetest things you can do with a Leica.

I suggest an Ultron 35 1.7 although I am not familiar with the alternative newer 1.4 model so maybe that is better. If you go with an Ultron I would rec the chrome model which looks nicer for far longer. It is a very nice lens irrespective of the cost and the cost is nice too :)

I also use a 40mm lens but framing is never relaxing as you need to use 50mm when close and 35mm at a distance. I get a bit fed up with all that but they are sharp lenses in either Leica or Minolta version so I understand. Mine is the later Minolta version and it is good.
 
RFluhver said:
Hi guys...

I see again mention of a lens' character. Can someone please tell me what this concept means as far as lenses are concerned?
Click to expand...

My take is that "character" is usually "caused" by uncorrected optical flaws in the lens design that are most apparent at wider apertures. Uncorrected optical flaws in the lens design are often, but not always, left there deliberately by the lens designers to achieve a certain "look".

For example here's the Noctilux 50/1.0 at f/1.0. As you can see, it shows significant vignetting.
4757094448_6d6d17a69e_d.jpg


Here's the same shot with a Hexanon 60/1.2 at f/1.2. The Hexanon is optically better corrected so has a lot less vignetting than the Noctilux. But which shot has more "character"?
4756458289_1a40d82cd8_d.jpg


Like the Noctilux, the Nokton 35/1.4 also has significant vignetting at f/1.4 - sample below.
3381700563_d2708fa5e2.jpg


The optical formula of the Nokton 35/1.4 was designed so that spherical aberrations are undercorrected at f/1.4 (similar to the Summilux 35mm pre-asph). This results in distinctive bokeh when the circumstances are right.
4685012388_687a04e203.jpg


And smooth bokeh at other times.
4684378621_41a1244455.jpg


But of course, when you stop the Nokton 35/1.4 down a few stops, the optical flaws are reduced, and the resulting images are like those from most other lenses.
3021319966_715805e418.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'd get a Voigtlander lens. I'd skip the gamble on a dodgy Soviet lens or some old Canon thing that might be great or might not.
 
In fact, here's the other "old Canon thing" I had - a Canon Serenar 35/2.8 (kinda sorry I let it go)





3054027839_6447d88a79.jpg
 
maggieo said:
You know, IMO, the CV Ultron 35/1.7 is one of the best values in a lens out there.
Click to expand...

I agree with that statement - have one of those and like it a lot. And if your offer is in good shape and if you take care of it, you will always be able to sell it again without loosing money!
 
Rogrund said:
I love old Canon things!
Click to expand...

Me too! But they frequently seem to develop issues requiring service:
  • 50/1.2 -- Started off with fungus on 1 surface behind the diaphragm. Essex Camera couldn't clean it so I sent it to FocalPoint, where John Van S. stripped off the damaged coating. Worked fine, for a while, then it developed haze, so I sent it to Eddy Smolov for cleaning. Worked fine again, till I took it out of the cabinet yesterday to find that it's all hazy behind the diaphragm again!
  • 50/3.5 collapsible -- Bought on eBay, focus was way off. Essex fixed that for me.
  • 35/2.8 (chrome) -- Served me very well for a couple of years now, but the focus is getting stiff and there's a bit of oil appearing on the diaphragm blades.
  • 28/3.5 (black) -- Haze, oily diapragm. Cleaned up nicely by Essex more than a couple years ago, perfect since.
  • 28/2.8 -- Rough focus and aperture from 40 years' hard usage; DAG overhauled it very nicely for me.
  • 25/3.5 -- Started with stiff focus, which DAG fixed for me. Then it developed haze, and I sent it to Eddy Smolov for cleaning. Still looked a big cloudy when I got it back, and the aperture was getting stiff, so I sent it to DAG for an overhaul a few months ago. Don G told me there are a lot of fine scratches on the front element (he's right, don't know how/when that happened). Took it out this morning and discovered that the aperture isn't actually changing when going from f/3.5 to f/4. Thinking about sending it to FocalPoint for polishing/recoating and adjustment, but it's getting to be a pretty expensive lens a this point.

This also happens with Nikkor lenses:
  • 50/2 H.C -- Bought it from a fellow RFFer with sticky oil on the blades and wiggly aperture ring. Essex fixed it up beautifully, and it's served me well for a couple of years now. Just took it out and noticed oil on the blades again.
  • 50/1.4 S.C -- Also bought on RFF, came with dented filter ring and rough near focus. DAG fixed it up nicely for me, all's well since.
  • 85/2 P.C -- Bought it recently on eBay, arrived in fabulous condition, except for (you guessed it) oil on the diaphragm blades.

And Leica lenses:
  • 21/3.4 SA -- Bought on RFF, arrived with detached diaphragm blades, haze in the front lens group, separation in the rear lens group, rough focus, dented filter ring. DAG and FocalPoint teamed up to put this one right for me, and it's a really nice user now.
  • 35/2.8 Summaron LTM -- Fantastic lens, but developed oil on the diaphragm blades a few months ago.
  • 35/2.8 Summaron M -- Also great, bought on eBay, came with focus so stiff as to be unusable. Sherry Krauter fixed that up nicely.
  • 50/2 Summicron Rigid -- Gorgeous lens, developed condensation haze in transit from an RFFer in Australia. Sherry K cleaned that up too.

Which lenses have given me no problems, ever?
  • 25/4 Skopar P
  • 28/3.5 Skopar
  • 35/2.5 Skopar C
  • 50/2.5 Skopar
  • 50/1.5 Nokton
  • 35/1.2 Nokton
  • 35/2 UC-Hexanon
  • 40/2 M-Rokkor
  • 50/1.5 Canon LTM
  • 50/1.8 Canon LTM
  • 50/2.8 Elmar (1960s vintage M-mount dual scal)
  • 105/2.5 Nikkor LTM (so far -- just got it)

The moral of the story? Vintage lenses are beautiful, great performers and generally a pleasure to use -- and I love them to the point of obsession. BUT you should expect that if you buy one it will probably arrive needing some sort of service, and will almost certainly need service repeatedly over its second life with you. Of course, newer lenses also need maintenance, but far less frequently than ones produced more than half a century ago.

::Ari
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom