Please recommend: small, low-contrast LTM 35mm lens

hoot

hoot

green behind the ears
Local time
12:36 PM
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
609
Rambling ahead; you can scroll down to skip to the actual subject of this post.

Hope everyone who celebrates Xmas or Hanukkah had a good one, respectively. I was lucky enough to have both. :D

In any case, now that the dreary, long project of updating my website is finally done, I'm ready to haunt the streets of Vienna with my Zorki-1 again. Since the Rollei 40/2 Sonnar I wanted to buy still eludes me, I decided to focus on getting a 35mm instead. While the Jupiter-12 is a lovely lens, it's a bit too contrasty for my needs (especially since I usually use Neopan 1600), and the ergonomics are rather annoying as well (no focusing tab, and the filter eliminates the built-in shade).

So... who can recommend a nice LTM 35mm lens with low contrast? Small size is more important than speed, especially since larger lenses tend to block the rangefinder window on the Zorki-1, and this is going to be a daylight lens anyway. A focusing tab would be nice (though not absolutely necessary) and it should be possible to use a filter without thereby blocking the shade (à la J-12).

Since everything by V/C is probably too contrasty, I'm guessing there might be an old Canon lens that fits those specs - but as always, I'm open to any suggestions.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I tried the 35/3.5 Summaron, but the problem with this lens is that it's not compatible with the focusing cam on Soviet rangefinders.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
At KEH right now, there is a:
35 F2.8 CANON CHROME (34) WITH FINDER, CAPS, CASE, 35MM RANGEFINDER MANUAL FOCUS WIDE ANGLE LENS Excellent Plus $299.00

Don't know if that's a good, bad or indifferent price only that it's more than I can afford. However it is probably in exquisite shape to get that grading from them. From everything I've read, it should be exactly what you're looking for.

William
 
Thanks, guys.

I guess I should have added that $150 is the absolute top I can afford to pay.

Joe, do you have any experience with the 35/3.5 Serenar? I'd appreciate a HU on any good deals on that one.
 
hoot said:
Thanks, guys.

I guess I should have added that $150 is the absolute top I can afford to pay.

Joe, do you have any experience with the 35/3.5 Serenar? I'd appreciate a HU on any good deals on that one.
Click to expand...


i have one on my camera now.
i finished only one roll with it so far and have not developed the film.
my plan is to head out today for some more shooting and then start to process the film.
it is even smaller than the 2.8 which i think is tiny to begin with.

joe
 
I am beginning to sound more like Joe. I like the canon 2.8/35 a lot. I have no comparison with the Summaron, but my 35 is in contrast similar to the '50s Summicrons. Very nice. When using yellow, orange or even red filters on this old glass the overall contrast does not get too heavy like when using the VC35 for example.

But the combination with a Russian cam will always be a problem.
 
Years ago I had a coated 35/2.8 Schneider Xenogon in LTM. It had fairly low contrast. You might have the same problem with the cam though. It looked very much like a Letiz Summaron.
 
The Canon 35mm/1.8 and the Leitz Summaron 35mm/3.5 both are nice lenses at reasonable prices, but your budget of $150 will make it difficult to find either of these lenses at such a price. You also want a low-contrast lens, which will exclude all of the newer designs. Maybe a Jupiter lens is suitable, but I am not knowledgeable about the contrast of the 35mm Soviet lenses. What Al has suggested will also be not suitable since most Schneider lenses I know are not low contrast.
 
The Summaron f/3.5 is not low contrast unless it is in bad condition (haze). The 35mm Elmar would be a good choice, but I don't know what they sell for these days.
 
Thanks again, everyone.

Joe, after you finish testing your Canon 35/3.5 lens, I'd appreciate a comparison to the f/2.8 version. Looks like I'll be getting one of those if the price is right.
 
After some thought I decided to go a bit faster and e-mailed Kevincameras about a Canon 35/1.8 he has listed for $250. It's a lot more than I was planning to pay, but I'll sell my Summitar when it comes back from Oleg to make up for the difference.

Joe, according to your signature line, you have this lens. Could you please let me know what shade is most practical? The lens will go on a Zorki-1 so I'm thinking along the lines of a vented hood which will not obscure the RF window (which is very close to the lens mount on these cameras). Does this lens require that shades be screwed into the filter thread, or is there a special groove on the outer mount à la Leica?
 
There's no groove although the outside diameter is the same 42mm as the Leitz lenses. The screw thread is 40mm, pretty much unique to Canon lenses. The glass is recessed a bit and a shade isn't all that needed. I never used one when I had a 35/1.8 Canon. Back then the companies tried to get you to stick with THEIR line-up of lenses by each using different filter sizes. Nikon's LTM 35/1.8 (and a lot of other Nikkor lenses) used 40.5mm, Canon used 40mm, and Leitz used 39mm. That was a era when color meant SLIDES and you had to do your color corrections in camera with filters. It was expensive enough getting, say, a polarizer, UV, skylight, 80B, 80C, and FLD in just one size! Some photographers carried some 81, 82, 85 series filters as well for a variety of warming and cooling tasks.
 
ronnie,

i use the cameraquest 40mm metal, non vented hood for all the lenses that it fits.
it's small and sturdy. most of the hoods block the finder a bit but i just live with it.

that 35/1.8 is a nice lens. to pick only one 35mm lens, it's a good choice.

joe
 
The Canon Serenar 3.5/35 mm is small and low contrast, at least mine is.
And it can be had for less than €150.
 
If "small" is important, it's going to be difficult to beat the Elmar. With both caps in place, my father used to carry his in a watch pocket. It is likely to come closer to being "low contrast" than any of the Canon lenses.

Walker
 
I was lucky to find here a 7€ 40-43mm adapter, almost forgotten in a store, plastic box yellowed from ages.

That attempt to get user 'fidelity' by using specific filter threads reminds me a bit to the current madness with different memory card specifications :)

I looked at some of Joe's examples with the 35/3.5 and yep, seems to be very very low contrast, could be exactly what you're looking for, or not.

If you plan on using it wide open a lot watch for RF callibration differences between FSU bodies with nonFSU lenses. The DOF of the 35 will cover it, but probably focus will still be slightly off.
 
back alley said:
the 35/3.5 seems to be very low contrast, as in very low...
Click to expand...

Joe, my only Canon 35mm LTM lens was a late f/2 model that I bought new in 1974. It was contrasty in comparison to the Elmar. The 35mm f/3.5 would seem to be a different animal. Live and learn! :)

Walker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom