One lens for my M2, what is the choices ?

J

Jani_from_Finland

Well-known
Local time
2:09 PM
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
322
I got my recently purchased M2 in the mail yesterday and i am totally out on what lens would be the best for it.
I would like a summicron 35/2, but those prices is waaaaay out of reach for me.
I have used a nokton 40/1.4 some years ago when i had use of an M6, don't generally like the feel and build quality of those cosina/voigtländer lenses. So what choices is there for me, it must be sharp, i hate soft lenses.
On my Olympus OM i have used mainly a 50mm, so how come i feel like i need a small 35mm lens for the Leica?

I have tonight for testing picked up on canon 35/1.8 lens, but i dont like the long focus throw on this one, allthough the lens seemed fairly sharp all ready pn f2.8 and nice on f5.6, but the feel is awkward on this one.

Those Zeiss Biogon looks nice and should be great performers, also for slidefilm. They are a bit out of my budget and i just cant put out more than 300 € on the lens (cant buy from outside EU as this will grow the purchase with around 30% due to taxes and customs), so is there any other lenses i should check out?

I dont want a soft lens or some terrible bokeh like some lenses seems to create.
 
Get a Minolta Rokkor 40/2.0 in M-mount (originally made for the Leitz Minolta CL and the Minolta CLE).

Close enough to 35mm to use that frame and real sharp too. Small, short forcus throw. Takes easily available 40.5mm filters.
 
Well, 300 € does not leave too much room. You may have a look at the color skopar 35/2.5 - which has a very good reputation sharpness wise. Maybe also the Ultron 35/1.7 (larger than the skopar). Check images on flickr to see whether you like the rendering.

Lenses like Zeiss Biogon-C or Leica Summaron 35/2.8 are around €500 - €600.

There is also Minolta Rokkor 40/2.0 - you should be able to find one around €300.
 
I have disassembled 35 Summicron v3, 40/35 Noktons, and 40 Summicron and Rokkors. They are built very similarly, all better than the 35mm ZM lenses (no wobble).

You want something better built than the Nokton, sharp and with nice bokeh for EUR 300 ? If you find it, let me know, we can both make some money :)
 
Leicashop.com has a W-Komura 35/2.8. There's shots from Krosya's lens in the Leica LTM Copies forum, in a thread on Komura and Acall lenses that I started.

It's under EUR300, it's sharp although it has sixties contrast (easily fixed in software or wet print) and I think focus throw is not that long.

It's bigger than the Rokkor 40/2.0 though.

Otherwise, you might have a thorough look around to find a well-documented sharp Jupiter-12 35/2.8, the Zeiss biogon clone. They do exist but beware to just buy any lens, some are bad due to iffy Quality Control at the producing factories. You will definitely succeed under EUR 300 with that one.

Do calculate for an M -> LTM adapter, both these lenses are screw mount.
 
Matus said:
Well, 300 € does not leave too much room. You may have a look at the color skopar 35/2.5 - which has a very good reputation sharpness wise. Maybe also the Ultron 35/1.7 (larger than the skopar). Check images on flickr to see whether you like the rendering.

Lenses like Zeiss Biogon-C or Leica Summaron 35/2.8 are around €500 - €600.
Click to expand...

One of these 35's mentioned.
 
Jani: I think you have posed conditions that are too difficult.

I suggest you look for a used lens, but you have set difficult parameters. Price goes up with build quality and with lens speed. For instance, there is a 35/3.5 Summaron in the classifieds now for US $400. It is a good lens, but not fast and prone to flare.

I think the 35/1.7 C/V offering is perfect -- modern optics, coated, sharp. But you have said you don't like the build quality. Ditto the C/V 35/2.5 -- although I just got one of these used for $250 and I don't think there is anything wrong with the build of the lens.

The Canon 35/1.8 has many fans, but the "focus throw"is too long, you have said.

So: you want a sharp (modern), inexpensive, lens with stellar build quality and a short focus throw? = empty set. Other than the lenses you have excluded and the ones Johann listed, it doesn't exist.

My suggestion: put aside your prejudice against C/V lenses. Get a 35/1.7 and be happy.
 
I own and use the Rokkor-M 40/2, the CV Skopar 35/2.5, and the Canon 35/1.8 on my M2, and there is nothing the matter w/ the build quality or sharpness of any of them (except the Canon wide open). So I agree w/ Johann, Roland (ferider), and Matus in their recommendations and advice.

One further question: What about a 50? There are some sharp and well made 50s out there that could fit in your budget. Examples include the CV Skopar 50/2.5, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 50/1.4 (sometimes called the "Japanese Summilux"), and (w/ a little budget stretching and careful shopping) a collapsible summicron (see the one for sale in Classifieds). The Skopar 50 is an outstanding lens for the money, handles exceptionally well, and is solidly built (brass barrell, for example) -- it's a great lens on the M2.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I think the 35/1.7 C/V offering is perfect -- modern optics, coated, sharp. But you have said you don't like the build quality.
My suggestion: put aside your prejudice against C/V lenses. Get a 35/1.7 and be happy.
Click to expand...
I second the motion. The 35/1.7 is a very nice lens. I had a 35 Summicron (V2 I think) that I used for 30 years. Front aperture always wobbled, even after a CLA by the two Leica repair giants. It was a great lens but I like the VC 35/1.7 just as much. Paint job sort of sucks but otherwise a good solid lens with great optics.

Buy the VC until you can save the money to get 35 ASPH. You probably won't lose any money on the resale.
 
Having read your comments and other posts i think that rather than buying a 30-40-50 year old lens for high price i might just as well buy a newer model lens and as people seems to do like the CV lenses i might be ready to give them a chance. I have not seen or used the Color Skopar II 35/2.5 lens in person, but it seems like an interesting lens. Small, lightweight and looks like it handles well with slide film also.
 
Jani_from_Finland said:
Having read your comments and other posts i think that rather than buying a 30-40-50 year old lens for high price i might just as well buy a newer model lens and as people seems to do like the CV lenses i might be ready to give them a chance. I have not seen or used the Color Skopar II 35/2.5 lens in person, but it seems like an interesting lens. Small, lightweight and looks like it handles well with slide film also.
Click to expand...

I recently purchased one of these. This shot is with that lens, wide open on a Sony NEX5:

6851615461_2b2dcb5f69_b.jpg


As you can see the lens is sharp, with good contrast. Without the LTM-to-M adapter, mine weighs just 121 g.
 
Matus said:
Well, 300 € does not leave too much room. You may have a look at the color skopar 35/2.5 - which has a very good reputation sharpness wise. Maybe also the Ultron 35/1.7 (larger than the skopar).
Click to expand...

I'll second that as a budget friendly suggestion. Both lens are excellent. May I also suggest a 35/2 Hexanon...great lens.

Best regards,

Bob
 
Hi,

I think you should draw up a short list and start looking. Regardless of what people say they do exist and sell to some lucky people. But you have to work on your luck... Search for them on ebay and save the search so you get notified etc.

BTW, I wish you'd been around when I sold my CV 35mm - I didn't get anything like the prices mentioned!

Regards, David
 
I'd get Rokkor 40/2, but the Color-Skopar 35/2.5 is a fine choice too. I've owned both, but sold the latter as I couldn't live with the idea of having a separate "daytime" lens. f2.5 was too slow for most uses indoors/evenings for me.

However, Rokkors are older lenses so it would be nice being able to inspect before buying. Mine had fungus in it, which successfully cleaned away nicely.
 
The best bang for a top quality lens are the 50mm lenses. These are the standard bearers of all lens makers. They are easier to use and generally cheaper than the 35mm brethren. By the time a lens hits f/8 [in use] most all of them pretty good. Wide open is another story. BTW the Canon lenses are inexpensive and pretty good.
 
I would look for a Canon 35f2 LTM. Small and very good - even at f2. You will need a LTM adapter though. Hoods are difficult to find, but I have not had any problem with mine in regards to flare without it.
An other alternative is to pick up a Jupiter 35f2.8, again with LTM adapter and use it until the "right" lens comes along. Better to have a lens than just waiting for the good deal. Your price point is somewhat low in todays market - for some reason prices are spiking right now.
Later you can look for the lens that you really want - and in case of the Canon 35f2 probably resell or trade it for what you paid for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom