Please advice: Which 35mm on Leica M?

The Summilux 35 Asph. and the Summicron 35 Asph seem to behave and draw differently in a variety of circumstances. Deciding which 'look' suits the most your artistic vision is just one way to choose a lens. It is important to stress here that there is no 'better' and 'worse' look, just one that you prefer for whatever reasons. The other way to choose a lens is based on certain factual differences - speed and flare resistance being perhaps the most important: the Summilux 35 Asph offers one stop more - useful for DOF effects and faster shutter speed. But like Tom A says the Lux is perhaps more prone to flare while the Cron seems impervious to it. My sample has not flared once so far although I have a few shots that show ghosting, perhaps down to the use of filter. So, sometimes the Lux will make the shot when the Cron can't and sometimes, well, vc.vs.

Of the other lenses discussed I have tried the Summilux 35 and the Summicron 35 v4, as well as v.2. I tested the first two (nothing scientific of course) and I thought they were indistinguishable from f2.8 down. People very often say that at f1.4 the old Summilux is unusable but that was not the impression it gave me. It was lower contrast and had some vignetting but I wouldn't hesitate to use it. It is also said that it is a very flary lens, again that was not my experience with it, but then I didn't use it for twenty years like others.

Back to the original question: from the lenses that seem to fall within the specified price bracket the Voigtlander ones seem very tempting. I have not tried them but I think I 'd choose either the Nokton 35 or the Nokton 40, solely for the speed. The Summaron is a wonderful lens but too slow for rangefinder photography in my opinion. The Biogon also emerges as a great alternative to the Summicron 35 Asph, although I suspect the latter will hold better resale value (esp. if you buy it in good condition but used) in case you want to buy the Summiluc 35 Asph. in the future.
 
Who would believe that in the year 2007 we can have a meaningfull debate on RFF about the pros and cons of 4 or 5 brand new 35mm lenses that are readily available in the marketplace. When in the whole history of rangefinderdom might this have been the case.
 
Another consideration is tabs etc. ZM lenses have bumps, some Leica lenses have tabs etc. This handling change from lens to lens might be an issue and affect your choice. I have an LHSA 50 Asph Lux, so dont have any issue when changing between ZMs and this lens as none have tabs. A tabbed Leica lens is pretty well unthinkable for me as I find them unatural, certainly if my others dont have them.

FWIW, although the 35 biogon is longer than some other lenses, it is a blessing for some with larger hands. I find some of the very small lenses too bunched up for easy use, but where you set, fire and forget for quick street grab shots I guess this is not an issue, relying on DOF. The shallower profile of camera plus lens is therefore a bonus. If doing more general work, where you are actively focusing for each shot and changing aperture the flatter lenses can become quite infuriating. Horse for courses; just something to consider.
 
Tom A said:
Over the decades I have used most of the 35's available for M's.
Click to expand...

This is a wonderful post, sir, and I'd like to thank you for taking time to make it. While strictly speaking it is a LTM rather than M mount lens, I was wondering about your impressions of the Canon 35/2.8 as it is on my short list of "once I finally get the bills paid off" :bang: :bang: :bang: :angel: :D

I tend towards the Canon glass these days as the best compromise between cost & value that I've found. No problem with any of the others, I'm just interested in the ones (Canon & CV) that I can actually afford ;)

Thank you,

William
 
I really really want to thank everybody who has taken the time to react on my question!!!!
Great insights about the lenses and I am learning a lot. For the choice I'm going to make now aswell as a possible upgrade later (if neccessary)

Tom A: This is a great overview of the possible lenses. Thank you very much. Can you give me your opinion on the cv 40mm and what in your opinion is the real difference (in output) between the SC and the MC version? The speed, size and price of the lens is very appealing. I just have the feeling that I see some harshness and sometimes double lines in the OOF parts.

Thank you, Roel
 
Last edited:
I really really want to thank everybody who has taken the time to react on my question!!!!
Great insights about the lenses and I am learning a lot. For the choice I'm going to make now aswell as a possible upgrade later (if neccessary)

Tom A: This is a great overview of the possible lenses. Thank you very much. Can you give me your opinion on the cv 40mm and what in your opinion is the real difference (in output) between the SC and the MC version? The speed, size and price of the lens is very appealing. I just have the feeling that I see some harshness and sometimes double lines in the OOF parts.

Thank you, Roel
 
Roel said:
Haven't had time to react earlier. A lot of post with all good points. Thank you all very much for replying.

And how about the look of the VC 35 2.5 (If i am now also looking at slower lenses) Does it perform wide open?
Click to expand...

Like this
Image+Apr060008+bw.jpg

Larger version
http://lh6.google.com/_U-t2tGr6I1A/RcOw1ZXtsQI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/FmAvk_e0X9U/s1600/Image%2BApr060008%2Bbw.jpg
 
Tom A said:
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!
Click to expand...


Tom, This was maybe the best 35 post ever, I like the way you took a very complex and arguable subject matter and just straight talked the glass. You have a new fan and I look forward to reading more of your posts.
 
William and Roel,
The Canon 35/2,8 is close to the 35/2,8 Summaron in performance, but is flare prone. It is an old design and you have to be careful with condition. The build quality is superb - these were the days when they used "real" material in helicoils and lens barrells. If you plan to use the Canon wide-open be prepared for some softening of edges. This is were the Canon 35/2 excelled. If you can find it, the 35/1,8 is a possibility too, but again it will flare. The 35/1,5 is not very good, markedly inferior to to even the first generation 35/1,4 Summilux and as it is a "collectible" way to expensive too.
I have both the 40/1,4 SC and MC. They are rather remarkable optics, particularly when you take price/performance into context. I did adjust the "claw" to show 35 frame on my M's and with a 0.72 finder of a M2 is works very well. With glasses you tend to shoot "within the lines" and what you get is close to what the lens shows. Occasionally you go anally retentive and forget and the lens crops more than you bargained for, but I can live with that.
The differences between the SC and rhe MC are subtle. In black and white I find that shadow details open up a bit better in the SC version. If you shoot primarily color I would most likely advise to get the MC version, but in b/w I would go for the SC version. I took the 40SC to Italy last fall and shooting in extremely contrasty light I was amazed how well it handled it. No flare, no ghosting and more than sharp enough. The SC is marginally softer wide-open, which is not necessarily bad as shooting at 1,4 usually involves deep shadows and bright lights and softer contrast will keep this within printable parameters.
The 40 has become my preferred "walk around" lens. On a M2 with Tri-X you can work it as a 35 (1/2 step back} a 50 ( 1 step closer) and when the lights dim. you can still get it. I now have "force" myself to use the 35's and that also means that I have to take a second body for the 50! I rarely change lenses as most disasters happen when you are standing there with a body and two lenses and juggling them! I prefer two bodies and two lenses, but with the 40 I can actually survive with 1 lens/1body. Only juggling occurs when you change film!
 
Tom: Thanks for your experienced overview of most 35mm options. It is amazing how easy it is to forget that between the 35mm and 40mm and between the 40mm and 50mm focal lengths there really is only a marginal difference in coverage. Hence, a 40mm/2 Summicron or Rokkor would be a bargain while getting a very sharp lens. I agree with you 100% on the built quality of the old Canon 35mm/2.8 lenses. It still is a bargain priced lens that can deliver wonderful images. They also look classy with an older camera. The Canon 35mm/1.8 is one of my favorite lenses as a general purpose lens in traveling. It is compact and sharp at 4.0 and smaller apertures. I will soon try out the Voighlaender Skoparon 35mm/3.5 to see if it is any better or different than what I have used so far in 35mm lenses. My Summaron 35mm/3.5 is an underused lens for the reasons you have stated.

Raid
 
Post deleted by posters request
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Magus: Do you suggest that people here are kissing up when they have similar opinions as anyone here?

Raid
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for the advice, Tom. I'm inclined towards the 35/2.8 because it is one of the chromes & tends to be less expensive. Hadn't heard about the flaring; guess I'll need to find a hood when if I get a 35.

I had the 40/2 Summicron and it's a great lens & made wonderful images, but I just didn't care for the focal length being that I prefer the 50 & have come to like my 28/3.5 when I want to do wide angles.

William
 
Tipping the velvet is the Anglo-Saxon euphemism, I assume Magus is using a second language so should be allowed some diacretion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom