-doomed-
film is exciting
The 40/1.4 is a great lens and I should have kept mine. I traded it for a 50/1.5 nokton since I have a 35/2.5 which is also fantastic. I also agree on the fast lense comment, its nice if you really need it but if you shoot from f4-11 mostly its just a luxury.
FPjohn
Well-known
I can strongly recommend the compact Canon 35mm f2.8 as an affordable 35mm lens. Perhaps better than the excellent Summaron for less.
CV lenses are excellent modern lenses.
yours
FPJ
CV lenses are excellent modern lenses.
yours
FPJ
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The Voigtländer 35 2.5 lens is great as an all around, small, sharp lens... With an aperture of 2.5 and fast film pushed, you have enough speed even for low light shooting.
I'd get the LTM version (used) with adapter (both for around $300) so I could use it on LTM bodies too in the future for a pocketable set...
Cheers,
Juan
I'd get the LTM version (used) with adapter (both for around $300) so I could use it on LTM bodies too in the future for a pocketable set...
Cheers,
Juan
MCTuomey
Veteran
+1 and superb on digi RFs too. in fact, a canon ltm 50/1.4 and 35/2.8 or 35/2 is one of the best 2-lens values i can think of.
joe is selling a 35/2.8 on the B&S board, btw. correction: it just sold, setting a lens speed record, i think.
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
For $500 you're better served with the CV offerings, either the f2.5 or the f1.4. Meters? I'd go for the Sekonic Twin L208 mentioned above. It's small, handy and the battery lasts forever.
BTW, what Leica body did you purchase?
BTW, what Leica body did you purchase?
exe163
Established
I got a M4, should work with 35mm just fine I think.
There was a $450 1.4 nokton at BH yesterday and sadly not anymore,. It was used but rated at 9+.
Is this the lens everyone was raving about?
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtpma2004.htm
What is so special about it that make it better than the nokton, which was almost 2 stops faster at only $100 more? Both are pretty small lens. Would it be better than even the Ultron 1.7 if I can find them at a similar price mint?
Just wondering is the VC meter (RF retro style) worth the premium over a regular, a lot cheaper hand held meter or is it just for look.
There was a $450 1.4 nokton at BH yesterday and sadly not anymore,. It was used but rated at 9+.
Is this the lens everyone was raving about?
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtpma2004.htm
What is so special about it that make it better than the nokton, which was almost 2 stops faster at only $100 more? Both are pretty small lens. Would it be better than even the Ultron 1.7 if I can find them at a similar price mint?
Just wondering is the VC meter (RF retro style) worth the premium over a regular, a lot cheaper hand held meter or is it just for look.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Apart from being a very good lens, the 35 2.5 is one of the smallest 35's ever by any brand. A small lens is an advantage because of its weight and size both for carrying and using it, but mostly because your camera looks like a toy, and that allows you to shoot easily in public.
If you want a fast 35, get the 35 1.2, not only because of its speed, but because of its incredible rendering. Sharp, and beautiful out of focus background wide open.
Having both isn't unusual: one for everyday, and the other one for narrow focus, interiors and low light scenes where a bigger lens is not a personal and public burden... If you get the 35 1.4, you might still want the 1.2 and the 2.5 because the 1.4 is the loser in both fields against those two... Sometimes it's better to pick a strength instead of a compromise...
Cheers,
Juan
If you want a fast 35, get the 35 1.2, not only because of its speed, but because of its incredible rendering. Sharp, and beautiful out of focus background wide open.
Having both isn't unusual: one for everyday, and the other one for narrow focus, interiors and low light scenes where a bigger lens is not a personal and public burden... If you get the 35 1.4, you might still want the 1.2 and the 2.5 because the 1.4 is the loser in both fields against those two... Sometimes it's better to pick a strength instead of a compromise...
Cheers,
Juan
mathomas
Well-known
Everyone has named good lenses. So now you know the entire field .
I'd say out of everything, a good first lens is the 35/1.4 Nokton. Fast enough for low light. Sharp enough, when stopped down, for general shooting. Relatively light and compact. Cheap enough to buy new (if you care). It's what I first shot on my M2, and my first roll was phenomenal (at least to me).
Best of luck...
.I'd say out of everything, a good first lens is the 35/1.4 Nokton. Fast enough for low light. Sharp enough, when stopped down, for general shooting. Relatively light and compact. Cheap enough to buy new (if you care). It's what I first shot on my M2, and my first roll was phenomenal (at least to me).
Best of luck...
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
i absolutely love my Voigtlander 35/1.4 so far. Missed out on two here due to them moving VERY quick on the classifieds, then grabbed mine off KEH for a decent price.
It's a wonderful lens for a very reasonable price.
It's a wonderful lens for a very reasonable price.
Yep, the CV Nokton 35/1.4 is great! Very happy with mine.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The 35 1.4 has more barrel distortion than the 40 1.4: not visible in every shot, but ugly in shots with straight lines parallel and close to negative borders... Some of those ugly shots have been posted before, here on other threads... Apart from its barrel distortion, the lens is nice... It's not true that you'll see that distortion only if you photograph walls or book shelves: real life is full of verticals.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
stupid leica
i don't shoot rf
juan, i don't think that the Nokton's minor distortion characteristics really effect that many shots taken with it in real use. I am quite picky with my lenses, and the only thing that bothers me about the Nokton is the ugly silver ring up front haha.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I did a search a moment ago to post those distorted images, but I couldn't find them in the 5 pages available from the CV forum... They were badly distorted... I particularly dislike barrel distortion... I also remember Roland posted an image with diagonals which of course didn't show that kind of distortion... But parallel lines to border were horrible... Several forum members agreed on that... Maybe the members who posted those images could show them again... I don't want to look unfair to the lens... For those of us who wet print, noticeable barrel distortion is a problem...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Old school: Summaron or Canon. The 2.8 Summaron is generally viewed as a significantly better lens than the older 3.5 version.
New School: C-V 35/2.5.
I'd go old school if you plan to shoot mainly black and white and want an old school look. I'd go new school if you plan to shoot color and/or want a more modern black and white look. Personally, I'd go new school. But that's me.
My current 35 is the Zeiss Biogon-C ZM 35/2.8, and it's one of my favorite-ever lenses. An absolute scorcher. At $800 new, it's a bit over the budget that you've set, though, and probably not that much better than the 35/2.5.
Juan's comments above, suggesting not getting the f/1.4 as a compromise, ring very true to me. But if a great deal on the C-V 1.4 came along, I might do it anyway.
Bottom line: there are a lot of great 35's in M mount, across a huge price range. You probably won't regret any of 'em, so long as the specific lens you get isn't trashed for some reason.
New School: C-V 35/2.5.
I'd go old school if you plan to shoot mainly black and white and want an old school look. I'd go new school if you plan to shoot color and/or want a more modern black and white look. Personally, I'd go new school. But that's me.
My current 35 is the Zeiss Biogon-C ZM 35/2.8, and it's one of my favorite-ever lenses. An absolute scorcher. At $800 new, it's a bit over the budget that you've set, though, and probably not that much better than the 35/2.5.
Juan's comments above, suggesting not getting the f/1.4 as a compromise, ring very true to me. But if a great deal on the C-V 1.4 came along, I might do it anyway.
Bottom line: there are a lot of great 35's in M mount, across a huge price range. You probably won't regret any of 'em, so long as the specific lens you get isn't trashed for some reason.
Last edited:
The barrel distortion bothers some people, but not others. It doesn't bother me. The Nokton's barrel distortion is nowhere near as bad as the Nikkor Ai-S 35mm f1.4 I used to own.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
The L-208 with AA batteries? Hmmmm... you must be thinking of something else. This meter uses a large battery, but not as large as even one AA type. See below this image linked from Amazon.com...
In any event, this meter would do very well for you with your M4.
Last edited:
kermaier
Well-known
In the under-$500 department, I have a Canon 35/2.8 and a CV 35/2.5 LTM. They're both excellent, though different. The Canon is pretty sharp and low contrast, but there's a lot more sample variation in 50-year-old lenses than you might want to deal with in a first/only lens. The CV 35/2.5 is extremely sharp, and the contrast isn't crazy high. I think you should get the current M-mount version, which is better built and has a nicer focus tab than the LTM model I have. If speed is a primary consideration for your shooting (lots of low-light situations) then by all means get a faster lens like the CV 35/1.4, but you'll likely give up significant sharpness and definitely give up some compactness.
For a meter, I like the Sekonic L-208. It's small, easy to use, and simple.
I also have a Gossen Digisix, which has so many stupid bells and whistles that it drove me crazy - temperature? time? alarm? why on a light meter, for crying out loud? But if you really want one, I'll sell you mine.
Ari
For a meter, I like the Sekonic L-208. It's small, easy to use, and simple.
I also have a Gossen Digisix, which has so many stupid bells and whistles that it drove me crazy - temperature? time? alarm? why on a light meter, for crying out loud? But if you really want one, I'll sell you mine.
Ari
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
One of those previous images would show the real lens behavior in regard to barrel distortion... Words can seem too harsh or too kind... Images are more precise and fair... Maybe someone could post them... By the way the 35 2.5 is also sharper... I feel that's enough speed... I even use the wonderful 28 3.5 in low light... That's what fast film's for... Not much sense in shooting in low light with ISO100 film... In overcast days I shoot Tri-X (not the fastest film) at 1/250 f/8... With fast film and 2.5 you can handhold even inside a church... I mean there's no real need for an ultrafast lens always: most shots are more interesting with more depth of field than 1.4!
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
I had ISO 100 film loaded, so couldn't have gotten this shot with a slower 35 than the Nokton.
More Nokton shots from me here (including a few that show the barrel distortion).
Last edited:
kermaier
Well-known
As mentioned, the Leica Summaron 35/2.8 is a great lens, an I love it for b&w - but those run a fair bit north of $500 these days.