Please advice: Which 35mm on Leica M?

[Matthew Runkel]

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!

I think Tom's bad experiences with the 35 ASPH lux are not typical. In particular, it sounds like something was wrong with the first sample. If these kinds of experiences were at all common, there would be much more to read about them here and elsewhere.

In my own experience of frequently using this lens wide open at night and in dim indoor settings with light sources present, I have seen flare in only two or three frames. The most notable example was when shooting a long exposure from a tripod in unmeterably dark conditions with a bazillion-candlepower lighthouse beacon just outside the frame. Then I got the characteristic "flying ice cream cone" ghost image. I always use the hood and never use a "protective" filter.

 

[back alley]

clean it up folks!

there are plenty of sites that would welcome that kind of chatter but rff is NOT one of them.

joe

 

[rover]

Sorry, that was much too ridiculous. I cleaned it up, get back on track.

 

[raid]

Thanks Joe and Rover. Let's keep the RFF a family oriented site. Disgruntled members should chill out for a while before returning here.

Raid

 

[Doug]

The VC 40s are M mounts, right? Are there any good options for 40 mm in LTM?

Hi -- I can't think of any LTM 40mm lenses other than the close-to-40 Pentax-L 43mm made in limited numbers in this mount. (here seen using an LTM-M adapter) It is a very excellent modern lens...

 

[Bingley]

Thanks, Doug. I will investigate the Pentax further. Since my earlier post I now see that the Rollei Sonnar 40/2.8 is also LTM. Scatological chatter notwithstanding, this has been a very informative (not to mention lively) thread.

 

[ferider]

Hi -- I can't think of any LTM 40mm lenses other than the close-to-40 Pentax-L 43mm made in limited numbers in this mount. (here seen using an LTM-M adapter) It is a very excellent modern lens...

Beautiful setup, Doug.

Their is a Zuiko LTM mount 40mm. And I am not sure about the 40/2.8 Rollei Sonnar. The Rollei RF is M mount but I don't remember if the Sonnar is used with adapter or not.

Roland.

 

[Doug]

Right, I'd forgotten the Rollei Sonnar; I believe it was furnished with an M-bayonet adapter, but is natively LTM. Didn't know about the Zuiko; what was the max aperture on that? Delving back into ancient history there might have been some early Japanese 40 or 45mm screw-mount lenses after the war...

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[raid]

Hi -- I can't think of any LTM 40mm lenses other than the close-to-40 Pentax-L 43mm made in limited numbers in this mount. (here seen using an LTM-M adapter) It is a very excellent modern lens...

Doug: I think that this lens is hard to find and so is the Rollei Sonnar. Either one would be great to use. Is the Pentax your lens or did you borrow an image of it? If it is yours, how does it perform?

Raid

 

[raid]

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

William,

I recommend the Canon 35mm/2.8. It does not need a lens hood in my opinion since the lens front is recessed. I do not get exessive flare with it.

Raid

 

[ferider]

Right, I'd forgotten the Rollei Sonnar; I believe it was furnished with an M-bayonet adapter, but is natively LTM. Didn't know about the Zuiko; what was the max aperture on that? Delving back into ancient history there might have been some early Japanese 40 or 45mm screw-mount lenses after the war...

Hi Doug,

here is one: 7582474085 (from Kevin). Was an f2.8 lens.
Apparently there exists also a 40/1.8 Helios screw mount.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[raid]

There is currently a Pentax 43mm lens on bee-bay, but it is in K mount and it has reached over $300 already with questions for shipping to four countries. I wonder what the cost of the LTM version would be.

Raid

Q: Hi there, will you ship to China? If so, how much for shipping? Regards, Yishi Jan-31-07

Q: Will it be sent to HK? How much does it cost? Any buy it now price? Thanks for your reply. Jan-29-07

Q: Hi Xuri_ds, Will you send the lens to Germany? If yes, how much does it cost with full cost insurance? Regards and Thanks, Alex Jan-29-07

Q: how much for italy? Jan-29-07

 

[Doug]

Hi Roland -- Wow on the $900 BIN for the 40 Zuiko from Kevin! Looks to be one from the 1950's supplied on a non-Olympus Leica-like body.

Doug: I think that this lens is hard to find and so is the Rollei Sonnar. Either one would be great to use. Is the Pentax your lens or did you borrow an image of it? If it is yours, how does it perform?

Mine, Raid, shown on my ancient M2, purchased 3 years ago from an RFF member in Calgary, as new in box. I paid $500 and thought I stole it. SMC PENTAX-L 43mm F1.9 Special for Leica Screw mount; only 2000 of these were made, 800 silver, 1200 black. I understand these were intended for the Japanese domestic market and were not exported. The retail price in Japan was 150,000 yen, around $1385. The kit included a finder with frames for 43 & 50mm.

Lens has 7 elements in 6 groups; half-stops to f/16 with 9 diaphragm blades. Surprisingly longer than the 40mm M-Rokkor, but the glass was designed to be far enough from the film to clear an SLR mirror, so in the Leica mount there’s quite some space behind the rear element. Features a focus tab, built-in collapsing lens hood and screw-in metal lens cap.

The 43/1.9 Special provides decently high resolution at f/2.8 and is fantastic from f/4 to f/11. Amateur Photographer made this lens their reference normal lens, and magazines like Outdoor Photography and FotoMagazin agree that it is a very sharp and contrasty lens, practically free of flare, with some barrel distortion. What makes this lens special is its bokeh — exceptionally smooth and pleasing at all apertures, rendering light sources at night especially beautiful, and making pictures seem very natural and "3-dimensional."

Pentax claims that the Limited lenses in general are designed to offer the very best optical and mechanical quality possible at the widest possible maximum aperture combined with a small size. Production was to be limited not by the number of units built but by the high demands of production process and quality control.

 

[Tom A]

Doug, I had the 43mm Pentax for several years. it is indeed a very good lens. It did suffer from a collapsible lens hood that would do that at the most inopportune times. The finder is worth the price of admisson alone. Diopter correction etc, but too big. I swapped it for something else some years back.
There was a time when I was trying out weird Japanese optics on my cameras. 50/2,6 Konica in collapsible mount, Leotax 50/3,5 etc. The japanese made mostly 50's in screwmount form while the Germans and the French experimented with 35's and 75/90's. Most of these lenses are OK but technology marches on and computers allowed for far more sophisticated designs and the "chemistry" of glass has improved too. In the end I decided to unload most of these lenses and stay with modern glass.
One exception is my 50/3,5 Elmar in M-mount. This is a sweet little lens. Better than the 50/2,8 that followed and close to the latest 50/2,8 Elmar. It will flare but it is quite sharp wide-open with a nice smooth texture in the mid range f-stops.
Another good lens of that vintage is the 35/2,8 Xenogon. I found it better than the 35/3,5 Elmar and built like a brick outhouse! Unfortunately I lent to someone and it was stolen from his car shrtly after. Easy come, easy go!
One lens that I always wanted to have was the Meyer Macro Plasmat but when they were cheap I never got around to buy one and now they are $5000 collectibles. Oh well.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Tom A]

Magus, the 35/2 Asph is indeed sharp, but as I tend to shoot with Tri-X and soup the film in high accutance developers (Rodinal/Beutler/PCK) I find it unattractive. The older versions of the Summicron respond better here. True, if you are printing massive 3x5 ft images you will see a difference, but for anything up to and including 11x14" it does not matter.

The Summilux that I kept is a mid-90's 35/1,4 and it is not as sharp in the center as the 35/1,4 Asph, but it has far less problem with flare than the Asph. The first version of the Summilux was modified, not only did they change the coating but also glass and in particular element spacing (that information comes from Midland/Elcan).

If you want to duplicate 60's vintage photography, the version 1 is the one to get! The later one is as good as the 35/2 from the same era with a usable 1.4 setting. I did find the 35/1,4 Asph heavy and a bit difficult to use from an ergonomic standpoint. Once I started having the flare problems I simply did not trust it anymore.

Optics, like wine, pipe-tobacco, food and cars are personal preferences. It also depends on your shooting style and I have found that these days I am more concerned about ergonomics and comfort than absolute lp/mm performance. I shoot Tri-X at 400, handheld so resolution and sharpness is most likely dependant on the coffee intake and physical tiredness.

There is something to the old adage that the best camera and lens combo is the one that is in your hand when the opportunity for a shot arises!
All the Best

 

[LeicaM3]

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.

Tom,

would you be so kind to expand a bit on your experience with the Biogon?
Since I am a TX user (Rodinal + Diafine) I am very interested in your experience.

Found your comments regarding asph vs. v4 very interesting.

Thank you,
Andreas

 

[raid]

Doug: You got a good deal indeed with your Pentax lens. I am always interested in learning about 40mm-50mm lenses that I don't know much about. My latest acquisition is a Prominent Nokton 50/1.5 by Voighlaender and a Skoparon 35mm/3.5. I am dying to try both out once the Prominent gets back to me after being adjusted.

Raid

 

[Tom A]

Tom,

would you be so kind to expand a bit on your experience with the Biogon?
Since I am a TX user (Rodinal + Diafine) I am very interested in your experience.

Found your comments regarding asph vs. v4 very interesting.

Thank you,
Andreas

I like the Biogon 35/2 ZI. Its performance rivals or maybe even surpasses 35/2 IV or 35/2 Asph. It has a smoother rendition and very even across the negative. My only beef with the lens is its size. I am so used to small, compact 35's that the Biogon feels like a 50 Summilux. It is most likely a matter of getting used to it which might take another 15/20 rolls. The 35's are my prime lenses and they have to be almost "instinctive" in my hands and the Biogon still have some ways to go.
I am a devotee to Rodinal too, although lately I have been using Beutler ( homebrew) for Tri-X too. Very distinct grain (and lots of it) but sharp edges and better shadow detail than Rodinal. The Beutler formula was developed for Leica by Willy Beutler in the mid-50's to promote the sharpness of the Leica lenses. Most people use it for slow films like Pan-F/Acros/Tmax 100. It is not a fine grain developer (even with the 50/100 ASA films) but very sharp. Efke KB-25 in Beutler will tax your shooting skills and your lenses!