M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Please advice: Which 35mm on Leica M?
- Thread starter Roel
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 159
- Views: Views 12K
Roel
Well-known
richard_l said:
'heed' as in notice (agree) or in caution (don't agree) Sorry I am from Barcelona..( :0) not really, Holland)
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Roel
Well-known
Didier said:
Didier,
Thank you for your post. To be honest I really want to make a case for the Nokton 40mm because of most things you mentioned. It's just that I'm also really scared for just the examples you posted in the other thread. The worms and lights could be avoided by stopping down but I think I also see double lines + this harshines. Now thats there on a lot of pictures I saw. So if using the lens would mean stopping down to avoid the double lines even in situations with enough light then the fastness of the lens doesnot give me an advantage.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Roel
Well-known
richard_l said:
Thank you Richard for explaining. So considering that, am I correct that you would advice the summaron?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ferider
Veteran
I always find it interesting that there are very few example shots
available for the 35/1.7, wide open. On the other hand, users
swear by the OOF behavior of the Ultron's bigger brothers, the 28/1.9
and 35 Nokton.
IMO, the 35/1.7 OOF behavior is really great, just as good as the 28/1.9.
For sure, better than the Summicron 35/2
, the Canon 35/2,
the Summicron 40/2 and certainly the Nokton 40/1.4. No double
lines, no donuts, even against light sources at night. Also, the 35/1.7
is very sharp and has nice contrast (not too much, which I like).
It's only issue might be ergonomics (it is quite large).
It is relatively cheap, comes with hood, and has good resale value,
so you can always try ...
35 and 42 (the 40 Nokton's effective FL) are not as close together as
it seems. 20% to be exact, 42 is in the middle of 35 and 50.
24/35/50 on the other hand is a great combo (area factor two
between all three lenses).
Roland.
available for the 35/1.7, wide open. On the other hand, users
swear by the OOF behavior of the Ultron's bigger brothers, the 28/1.9
and 35 Nokton.
IMO, the 35/1.7 OOF behavior is really great, just as good as the 28/1.9.
For sure, better than the Summicron 35/2
, the Canon 35/2,the Summicron 40/2 and certainly the Nokton 40/1.4. No double
lines, no donuts, even against light sources at night. Also, the 35/1.7
is very sharp and has nice contrast (not too much, which I like).
It's only issue might be ergonomics (it is quite large).
It is relatively cheap, comes with hood, and has good resale value,
so you can always try ...
35 and 42 (the 40 Nokton's effective FL) are not as close together as
it seems. 20% to be exact, 42 is in the middle of 35 and 50.
24/35/50 on the other hand is a great combo (area factor two
between all three lenses).
Roland.
Last edited:
markinlondon
Elmar user
For me the ergonomic problem with the 35 f1.7 Ultron was the diameter of the aperture ring. I found it a little narrow and hard to grab in a hurry. I was never that impressed with the lens wide open either. Maybe my sample was at the limit of the manufacturing tolerances.
Roel
Well-known
Oh Two said:
Oh two mentioned something nobody reacted upon. I have seen no examples of 'wide' look on pictures by CVs yet. Can any of the CV users comment on this remark? Or perhaps somebody could show some examples.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Roel
Well-known
ferider said:I always find it interesting that there are very few example shots
available for the 35/1.7, wide open. On the other hand, users
swear by the OOF behavior of the Ultron's bigger brothers, the 28/1.9
and 35 Nokton.
IMO, the 35/1.7 OOF behavior is really great, just as good as the 28/1.9.
For sure, better than the Summicron 35/2
the Summicron 40/2 and certainly the Nokton 40/1.4. No double
lines, no donuts, even against light sources at night. Also, the 35/1.7
is very sharp and has nice contrast (not too much, which I like).
It's only issue might be ergonomics (it is quite large).
It is relatively cheap, comes with hood, and has good resale value,
so you can always try ...
35 and 42 (the 40 Nokton's effective FL) are not as close together as
it seems. 20% to be exact, 42 is in the middle of 35 and 50.
24/35/50 on the other hand is a great combo (area factor two
between all three lenses).
Roland.
Roland,
You are right about the combo. 35 would be nice and wide in comparison with the 50. That's the fl where my mean interest is in. I will do some search for pictures of the cv35/1.7. I could live with a fast 40mm though (if this would be the 'better' option) because I then could leave my 50mm at home.
I will compare the Ultron (when I find the pictures) with the feel of the Summaron.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Roel said:
All rectilinear corrected lenses, of the same FL, will map the image onto the film plane in exactly the same way
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
LOOP
maraboutflash
Biogon on M5 ???
Biogon on M5 ???
Does somebody know if the new biogon 35mm 2:0 fit on the leica M5 ???
Biogon on M5 ???
Does somebody know if the new biogon 35mm 2:0 fit on the leica M5 ???
Nachkebia
Well-known
Planing to shoot with 35mm biogon tomorrow on delta 100, will make sure to post result here if they are good
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Over the decades I have used most of the 35's available for M's. The Summaron 35/3,5 is too flare sensitive for me and mostly available in that miserable M3 mount. The 35/2,8 Summaron is a surprisngly good lens, as good as the generation 1/2/3 Summicrons and i have found that the 2,8 is better at close distance than the Summicron. Unfortunately they have become "collectibles" and are over-priced now. Like any 40-50 year old lens, performance is also dependant on condition. If it has scratches, decementing etc the performance suffers. The old "all brass'/steel" 35 Summicron/Summaron mount is very well built. It is rare that you get one that is worn out and then it is usually on a f2 as these were mostly bought buy "pro"s". The 35/2,8 was mainly aimed towards the amateur and they tend to take care of their stuff incuding using UV filters and thus have mint front glass!
The 35/2 Canon is a"sweet" lens. As good as the Summicron from the same era but build quality was not that great. Usually a rather 'crunchy" sounding focus and aperture. Difficult to find a good hood for it too.
The Hexanon 35/2 is good alternative except that it is a bit large and clunky. I am so used to the 35/2 in its pre-Asph form that anything bigger than that tends to linger in the lens drawers.
The ZI 35/2 is extremely good, I find that it surpasses my 35/2 4th gen. but it is a very large lens and thus it requires an effort to haul it out and use it.
The 35/2 Asph is very sharp and probably a great lens, but I dont like the "texture" with black and white film. Rough and ugly "bokeh" as well as being heavy.
The 35/1,4 Asph is most likely great for color but the two that I had suffered from excessive flare, to the point that the first one would opaque the entire center of an image! The 2nd one was better but still too flare sensitive - beware of light sources in the edges of the image!
The pre-Asph 35/1,4 is a much maligned lens. The first version was a text book example of optical faults. Coma, flare, field curvature etc but the second version is quite good and because of its size I use it a lot.
The CV lenses are very close to the Summicron's in performance and are decently priced too.
The 35/2,5 Pancake is fun as it has a very short "throw" and you can focus fast and follow focus easily. The 35/2,5 Compact is comparable to the 35/2 pre-Asph 35/2 with a slight loss of speed, but it is compact and on a M2 it is a great " street" lens.
The 35/1,7 is a stellar performer, but the ergonomics sucks! The aperture ring is difficult to find and slows you down. It is a very good lens and will give the 35/1,4 Asph a run for the money. If you like the handling, it is a great bargain for a high performing 35.
the 35/1,2 is in a class by itself. It is large and heavy, but that 1/2 stop difference between a 1.4 and the 1,2 can make the difference between a hit and a miss. Just like the Noctilux, it is special situation lens. You take it along when you know that the light will be marginal and you really want to get the shot! Just liike the 50/1 or the 75/1,4 it is a lens that forces the shooter to fcous dead on. These lenses need cameras that are in perfect mechanical shape. Any mis-aligned range finder is going to show up as a "fuzzy" shot and then there is all the complaints about "bad perfpormance' from the glass.
I looked at my three loaded M2's right now, one has the 35/2,5 VC on it, one has the 40/1,4 Nokton SC and the third has the 50/1,4 Asph. If any of the shots are bad from a technical point of view it would be my fault, not the lenses.
I have ben trying to "train" myself to see if a 25/40/75 package would work as a travel kit ( with a 12/5,6 as the ultra wide). So far it seems to work fine, but it will take at least another 100-150 rolls before that kit becomes a "natural" . For "home" use it is a M2 with a 35 and just about all of them will work fine. I would let ergonomics and the wallet decide. A 35/2,5 VC and a 35/1,2 will give you at least an additinal 200 rolls of film compared to a 35/2 Asph. Even a PreAsph 35/1,4 will leave a lot of change in your pocket compared to the 35/1,4 Asph. You will be hard pressed to see the difference unless you live north of the Arctic circle and waiting for the sun to show again later this month!
The 35/2 Canon is a"sweet" lens. As good as the Summicron from the same era but build quality was not that great. Usually a rather 'crunchy" sounding focus and aperture. Difficult to find a good hood for it too.
The Hexanon 35/2 is good alternative except that it is a bit large and clunky. I am so used to the 35/2 in its pre-Asph form that anything bigger than that tends to linger in the lens drawers.
The ZI 35/2 is extremely good, I find that it surpasses my 35/2 4th gen. but it is a very large lens and thus it requires an effort to haul it out and use it.
The 35/2 Asph is very sharp and probably a great lens, but I dont like the "texture" with black and white film. Rough and ugly "bokeh" as well as being heavy.
The 35/1,4 Asph is most likely great for color but the two that I had suffered from excessive flare, to the point that the first one would opaque the entire center of an image! The 2nd one was better but still too flare sensitive - beware of light sources in the edges of the image!
The pre-Asph 35/1,4 is a much maligned lens. The first version was a text book example of optical faults. Coma, flare, field curvature etc but the second version is quite good and because of its size I use it a lot.
The CV lenses are very close to the Summicron's in performance and are decently priced too.
The 35/2,5 Pancake is fun as it has a very short "throw" and you can focus fast and follow focus easily. The 35/2,5 Compact is comparable to the 35/2 pre-Asph 35/2 with a slight loss of speed, but it is compact and on a M2 it is a great " street" lens.
The 35/1,7 is a stellar performer, but the ergonomics sucks! The aperture ring is difficult to find and slows you down. It is a very good lens and will give the 35/1,4 Asph a run for the money. If you like the handling, it is a great bargain for a high performing 35.
the 35/1,2 is in a class by itself. It is large and heavy, but that 1/2 stop difference between a 1.4 and the 1,2 can make the difference between a hit and a miss. Just like the Noctilux, it is special situation lens. You take it along when you know that the light will be marginal and you really want to get the shot! Just liike the 50/1 or the 75/1,4 it is a lens that forces the shooter to fcous dead on. These lenses need cameras that are in perfect mechanical shape. Any mis-aligned range finder is going to show up as a "fuzzy" shot and then there is all the complaints about "bad perfpormance' from the glass.
I looked at my three loaded M2's right now, one has the 35/2,5 VC on it, one has the 40/1,4 Nokton SC and the third has the 50/1,4 Asph. If any of the shots are bad from a technical point of view it would be my fault, not the lenses.
I have ben trying to "train" myself to see if a 25/40/75 package would work as a travel kit ( with a 12/5,6 as the ultra wide). So far it seems to work fine, but it will take at least another 100-150 rolls before that kit becomes a "natural" . For "home" use it is a M2 with a 35 and just about all of them will work fine. I would let ergonomics and the wallet decide. A 35/2,5 VC and a 35/1,2 will give you at least an additinal 200 rolls of film compared to a 35/2 Asph. Even a PreAsph 35/1,4 will leave a lot of change in your pocket compared to the 35/1,4 Asph. You will be hard pressed to see the difference unless you live north of the Arctic circle and waiting for the sun to show again later this month!
bafonso
Life is good.
Magus,
I meant to say that the photographer really makes the difference and the lenses although do indeed affect image, they don't play a key role. (Let's assume we're talking about decent lenses...) it is the framing, the time of taking the shot etc that really will characterize the photo and make it (most often not) a great photo. A lot of nuances can even be altered or changed in a darkroom.
to the original OP,
I really believe that you just need to start with a lenses that won't get you in bankrupcy and go from there. Until you actually try some of them, you can read all you want but you really won't make up your mind. One day, you realize you have a lenses that you've been re-using a lot and you realize that you really like it. just start with something and start enjoying yourself and find your lenses, it's really a personal choice. Look at all the pros... they can have whatever they want and they end up choosing something they like, not what has necessarily better specs or they heard was good. Enjoy the ride, you've got your entire life to try different lenses. I must honestly say that the lenses per se will not make your photographs better but that's just my humble opinion. It's how you seamlessly interact with the scene you're capturing that will make the difference. And when you find a body and lenses that really feel good in your hands, you won't care about any of this IQ crap.
Just my opinion, meaningless by many eheh ;-)
BA
I meant to say that the photographer really makes the difference and the lenses although do indeed affect image, they don't play a key role. (Let's assume we're talking about decent lenses...) it is the framing, the time of taking the shot etc that really will characterize the photo and make it (most often not) a great photo. A lot of nuances can even be altered or changed in a darkroom.
to the original OP,
I really believe that you just need to start with a lenses that won't get you in bankrupcy and go from there. Until you actually try some of them, you can read all you want but you really won't make up your mind. One day, you realize you have a lenses that you've been re-using a lot and you realize that you really like it.
just start with something and start enjoying yourself and find your lenses, it's really a personal choice. Look at all the pros... they can have whatever they want and they end up choosing something they like, not what has necessarily better specs or they heard was good. Enjoy the ride, you've got your entire life to try different lenses. I must honestly say that the lenses per se will not make your photographs better but that's just my humble opinion. It's how you seamlessly interact with the scene you're capturing that will make the difference. And when you find a body and lenses that really feel good in your hands, you won't care about any of this IQ crap. Just my opinion, meaningless by many eheh ;-)
BA
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Tom A said:
Tom - good to see you here and posting! Thank you for your comprehensive insight.