keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Hi, I have been interested in photography for a few years now. I am young enough that the first camera I got when I was 8 years old was digital 
but I've been shooting a lot of film on Pentax and Nikon SLR's. I also owned a Nikon S2 rangefinder for about a year but had to sell it to pay for college.
I now have a steady income from taking photos with my DSLR and saved up enough for a leica. I bought a user M2 from these boards yesterday, and I should get it next week. I'm really thrilled, but I also have to pick out a lens. So my question is, where to start?
The main reason I got an M2 over the M3 was the 35mm finder. I'm not a huge fan of 28mm (yet) but I really like 35mm so I was wondering if someone could recommend me a decent 35mm lens for under $600. I know that's asking a lot...right now I'm looking at the Voigtlander 35/1.4 MC, it seems perfect for me. I'm also thinking about the Voigtlander 35/2.5 though, and getting a meter and a case and everything. Or I could get that over the next month when I have a bit more money to spend. Are there any other lenses to be considering? I know that I'd get the best pictures with a Leica lens, but I don't think spending $4k is the best idea right now. Oh and I also want to buy a 50mm eventually, maybe in two or three months. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask about a cheaper 50mm. I've heard mixed reviews about Voigtlander's 50/1.5 and unfortunately I doubt I'll be able to justify the 50/1.1. What should I be looking at?
Edit: I ended up getting the 35/1.4 nokton. very happy! thanks everyone.
but I've been shooting a lot of film on Pentax and Nikon SLR's. I also owned a Nikon S2 rangefinder for about a year but had to sell it to pay for college.I now have a steady income from taking photos with my DSLR and saved up enough for a leica. I bought a user M2 from these boards yesterday, and I should get it next week. I'm really thrilled, but I also have to pick out a lens. So my question is, where to start?
The main reason I got an M2 over the M3 was the 35mm finder. I'm not a huge fan of 28mm (yet) but I really like 35mm so I was wondering if someone could recommend me a decent 35mm lens for under $600. I know that's asking a lot...right now I'm looking at the Voigtlander 35/1.4 MC, it seems perfect for me. I'm also thinking about the Voigtlander 35/2.5 though, and getting a meter and a case and everything. Or I could get that over the next month when I have a bit more money to spend. Are there any other lenses to be considering? I know that I'd get the best pictures with a Leica lens, but I don't think spending $4k is the best idea right now. Oh and I also want to buy a 50mm eventually, maybe in two or three months. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask about a cheaper 50mm. I've heard mixed reviews about Voigtlander's 50/1.5 and unfortunately I doubt I'll be able to justify the 50/1.1. What should I be looking at?
Edit: I ended up getting the 35/1.4 nokton. very happy! thanks everyone.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Think about it like this: IQ of the CV lenses is at least as good as Leica lenses from the 70s. Most Leica lenses from the 70s almost have collector status now.
The 35/2.5 is excellent, in many ways very similar to a Summicron, just half stop slower. The 35/1.4 has a little more distortion, is a little bigger, but much faster. Great lens, too. The CV 50/1.5, CV 50/2.5 are very good as well. These lenses are all so good that they (in my case at least) usually outperform the photographer
The best 35/2 for your budget is a good used Zeiss 35/2 Biogon. And later you could add a 50/2 Planar ? Another good modern 50 for the price is the M-Hexanon 50/2.
Have a look at the flickr M-mount forum, see if any lens pops out at you in terms of signature.
BTW, if you liked your S2, you can buy LTM Nikkor lenses and use on your M2.
Welcome !
Roland.
The 35/2.5 is excellent, in many ways very similar to a Summicron, just half stop slower. The 35/1.4 has a little more distortion, is a little bigger, but much faster. Great lens, too. The CV 50/1.5, CV 50/2.5 are very good as well. These lenses are all so good that they (in my case at least) usually outperform the photographer
The best 35/2 for your budget is a good used Zeiss 35/2 Biogon. And later you could add a 50/2 Planar ? Another good modern 50 for the price is the M-Hexanon 50/2.
Have a look at the flickr M-mount forum, see if any lens pops out at you in terms of signature.
BTW, if you liked your S2, you can buy LTM Nikkor lenses and use on your M2.
Welcome !
Roland.
Last edited:
robklurfield
eclipse
why not some FSU glass? you can play for very little $$$. J-12 for well under a $100 (35/2.8). You need to be a little careful about where you buy.
I am a big fan of the Canon 35/2. I paid about $325 from a fellow RFF member. couldn't be happier. Summicron-like rendering and bokeh for a lot less dough.
Also, you should certainly have the CV's on your list of options. Lots of very happy users on RFF. Plenty of price, speed, size options.
I am a big fan of the Canon 35/2. I paid about $325 from a fellow RFF member. couldn't be happier. Summicron-like rendering and bokeh for a lot less dough.
Also, you should certainly have the CV's on your list of options. Lots of very happy users on RFF. Plenty of price, speed, size options.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Great suggestions, thanks guys! I can't believe I forgot about Zeiss. And I'll look into the Russian stuff.
kermaier
Well-known
Both of the CV 35s you mentioned are excellent lenses. (And the 50/1.5 Nokton is a stellar lens. Unless you're looking for the relatively distinctive signature of a Sonnar or Tessar type lens, or compactness is a priority, you cannot go wrong with the CV 50/1.5.)
But probably the best sub-$600 35mm lens out there is actually a 40mm - the Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2. But you'll need to have the frameline actuator prong on the mount filed down to bring up the 35mm lines on an M2.
Ari
But probably the best sub-$600 35mm lens out there is actually a 40mm - the Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2. But you'll need to have the frameline actuator prong on the mount filed down to bring up the 35mm lines on an M2.
Ari
Bill58
Native Texan
Buying cheap glass for a Leica is like trying to run your Ferrari on low octane gasoline--poor performance will result.
Save your money and get good piece of glass. Maybe buy a vintage Canon 35/ 2 or 35/2.8 and be much happier.
Save your money and get good piece of glass. Maybe buy a vintage Canon 35/ 2 or 35/2.8 and be much happier.
aizan
Veteran
sometimes popflash will have used 35mm biogons for a little more than $600. i'd get one of those, hands down.
f16sunshine
Moderator
The CV 2.5/35 is really sweet. It's so compact and handles nicely as well. I speak of my experience with the original LTM version. The Nokton 1.5/50 is also a fine performer and fast of course. It is a bit on the large side. For $600 you could have them both. Ari has it spot on though. The Rokkor is really the best choice IMHO for sub $600. At 40MM it can sort of cover both bases as well. Filing the mount to bring up the 35mm lines is a 5 min. job. Many you will find have already been filed. You can find that lens for as little as $250.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Hi there keytarjunkie, welcome to the forum.
I don't mind you forgetting about the Zeisses, but you left the Hexanons out as well
Guess what, I'm selling some lenses, you like?
I don't mind you forgetting about the Zeisses, but you left the Hexanons out as well
Guess what, I'm selling some lenses, you like?
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
----------
oldoc
oldoc
My first combo was M2 and CV35/1.4
Nice set up.
Nice set up.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I have a CV 35/1.7 which performs well. Another member, lilserenity, swears by this lens. In my experience the Jupiter-12 is also good, though it is slower.
I agree with Roland (ferider) that you will not necessarily "get the best pictures with a Leica lens".
I agree with Roland (ferider) that you will not necessarily "get the best pictures with a Leica lens".
enenrf
Asianenen
I don't have first hand experience of cv 35mm f1.4 or CZ 35mm lens. IMHO, you should buy cv/cz lens and keep it till you graduate. one day you will totally afford couple of Leica lens. (base on your post, I see you value your collage education, you save up money and research before spend.....)
Frank Petronio
Well-known
The best value and the one I'd buy even if I had gobs of extra money is the 40mm f/2 Minolta Rokkor for about $3-400. Stellar lens and probably even better than the Summicron version since it is multicoated vs. the Leica's single coating. The tab filing trip was easy and 40mm on an M2 is a nice length and framing.
The VC 35/2.5 in M mount for $319 new is also great, it matched the 1970s-era Summicron I had and it was in better shape in terms of tightness/quality than a worn out beater Leica lens.
The VC 35/2.5 in M mount for $319 new is also great, it matched the 1970s-era Summicron I had and it was in better shape in terms of tightness/quality than a worn out beater Leica lens.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I knew at least one person would say this
I'll check out Hexanons too! But you're not selling any 35's
I like young people who think
There will be a lot of opportunity to try out Leitz lenses later on in your life. One of the strength of the M-system is the rangefinder itself. And you can take advantage of it without expensive lenses.
I am also a CV 35/1.7 user. I like it a lot. Just be aware that you need a 35-135 LTM to M adapter to use this lens on your M2. The adapter itself is not expensive and if you buy the CV 35/1.7 used, chances are the owner had one also.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Another vote for CV Ultron 35/1.7. It's better in some ways (a lot less coma, for a start) than my pre-aspheric Summilux. Half the time I can't remember which I used, and I can very rarely see from the images. The CV Color-Skopar 35/2.5 is also excellent; again, I can rarely tell the results apart from the other two.
Either of them is an infinitely better bet than a Canon lens from the 1950s or early 60s.
Cheers,
R.
Either of them is an infinitely better bet than a Canon lens from the 1950s or early 60s.
Cheers,
R.
Tim Gray
Well-known
The CV glass is great, in my experience, though I've not tried the 35's. The Zeiss 35/2 I did own and it was awesome. If you can afford it, you won't be unhappy.
I get just as good photos from my CV 28/3.5 as I do from my much more expensive Leica 28/2. Just not in the dark
I get just as good photos from my CV 28/3.5 as I do from my much more expensive Leica 28/2. Just not in the dark
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
First rule off photography : It is not the lens and camera that takes the picture - it is the photographer!
Today we have more and better alternatives for lenses than ever before! Leica was the only major manufacturer for M- mounts for decades - and we had to take whatever they made. The truth is that in many ways they have been left behind by companies like Cosina, Zeiss and Konica.
Lenses like the Nokton 35f1.4, the 40f1.4 have a performance that you would have to spend $1000's more to get with a Leica lens - and the improvement if any, would be incremental, rather than substantial!
The Zeiss 35f2 is one of the best 35mm lenses in "medium speed" made by anyone. A bit bulkier than some of the others (Konica/Leica/CV).
In the f2.5/f2.8 you have lenses like the 35f2.5 CV the Zeiss 35f2.8 Biogon and you could probably find a Summaron 35f2.8 in this range.
The Canon's are good, particularly the 35f2 - small and compact. Borders on being too small for accessing controls - but it certainly will hold its own.
With some of the older lenses you have to look at things like internal fog, scratches, wear on aperture blades and aperture controls. Some, if not most of these lenses are approaching 50 years in age - and it can show.
For a first lens for a M2 - I would go for the 40f1,4 Nokton or the Rokkor 40f2. Both of these lenses are very good. You can get a 40f1.4 new and still be well within your budget. The Rokkor could be had for even less, but then again, it will be 20-30 years old and might need service.
The 40 focal length works well with the M2's. File down the "claw" so that it engages the 35 frame and use the inside of the 35 frame lines for composing. Coming from a SLR you will find that "exact" cropping is not a rangefinder feature - you allow a bit more in to the picture and crop on screen or in the darkroom instead.
The 40 will also substitute for a 50 and will allow you to look at either longer or wider lens as supplementary lenses later on - like 28-75's.
Leica does do some amazing lenses, the 21'24 f1.4, the 50f1.4 Asph, the 75f2 Apo Asph, the 24f3.8 Asph etc - but some of these are speciality optics and carry a hefty pricetag and often are rather bulky! Unless you are doing that kind of photography - you dont need them. The M2 is a "wanderers camera" and small and compact is more important than the name on the lens!
The M2, a 40 and a handheld meter and the proverbial bag of film is truly all you need - as the rest is up to your brain and eyes.
Today we have more and better alternatives for lenses than ever before! Leica was the only major manufacturer for M- mounts for decades - and we had to take whatever they made. The truth is that in many ways they have been left behind by companies like Cosina, Zeiss and Konica.
Lenses like the Nokton 35f1.4, the 40f1.4 have a performance that you would have to spend $1000's more to get with a Leica lens - and the improvement if any, would be incremental, rather than substantial!
The Zeiss 35f2 is one of the best 35mm lenses in "medium speed" made by anyone. A bit bulkier than some of the others (Konica/Leica/CV).
In the f2.5/f2.8 you have lenses like the 35f2.5 CV the Zeiss 35f2.8 Biogon and you could probably find a Summaron 35f2.8 in this range.
The Canon's are good, particularly the 35f2 - small and compact. Borders on being too small for accessing controls - but it certainly will hold its own.
With some of the older lenses you have to look at things like internal fog, scratches, wear on aperture blades and aperture controls. Some, if not most of these lenses are approaching 50 years in age - and it can show.
For a first lens for a M2 - I would go for the 40f1,4 Nokton or the Rokkor 40f2. Both of these lenses are very good. You can get a 40f1.4 new and still be well within your budget. The Rokkor could be had for even less, but then again, it will be 20-30 years old and might need service.
The 40 focal length works well with the M2's. File down the "claw" so that it engages the 35 frame and use the inside of the 35 frame lines for composing. Coming from a SLR you will find that "exact" cropping is not a rangefinder feature - you allow a bit more in to the picture and crop on screen or in the darkroom instead.
The 40 will also substitute for a 50 and will allow you to look at either longer or wider lens as supplementary lenses later on - like 28-75's.
Leica does do some amazing lenses, the 21'24 f1.4, the 50f1.4 Asph, the 75f2 Apo Asph, the 24f3.8 Asph etc - but some of these are speciality optics and carry a hefty pricetag and often are rather bulky! Unless you are doing that kind of photography - you dont need them. The M2 is a "wanderers camera" and small and compact is more important than the name on the lens!
The M2, a 40 and a handheld meter and the proverbial bag of film is truly all you need - as the rest is up to your brain and eyes.
ferider
Veteran
I didn't mention M-Hexanon 35/2 lenses (two types) because they are usually way beyond your budget. The 50/2 is usually cheaper.
And yes on the 35/1.7, if you can find one, they flare a little easier than the Color Skopar, are lower contrast, but overall excellent. Check for min. focus, too, I find 0.7m quite important for a wide angle (Biogon, Color Skopar, and Nokton 1.4 have 0.7m, Ultron has 0.9m).
Roland.
And yes on the 35/1.7, if you can find one, they flare a little easier than the Color Skopar, are lower contrast, but overall excellent. Check for min. focus, too, I find 0.7m quite important for a wide angle (Biogon, Color Skopar, and Nokton 1.4 have 0.7m, Ultron has 0.9m).
Roland.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I wouldn't hesitate for a second to buy CV, Zeiss or Hexanon lenses.
I think I've used, at one point or another, most of the lenses mentioned in this thread. In my opinion, you've been given some great advice.
If I were picking a low-cost 35, I'd probably go with the 35/2.5. I love its compact size.
If I were spending a bit more, it would probably be the Zeiss 35/2. I've been using a Zeiss 50 Planar for portraits recently and I just love the image quality of the Zeiss glass.
I think I've used, at one point or another, most of the lenses mentioned in this thread. In my opinion, you've been given some great advice.
If I were picking a low-cost 35, I'd probably go with the 35/2.5. I love its compact size.
If I were spending a bit more, it would probably be the Zeiss 35/2. I've been using a Zeiss 50 Planar for portraits recently and I just love the image quality of the Zeiss glass.