Recommend a cheap 35mm & 90mm in M or LTM mount

[Beemermark]

I also recommend the 90mm 4.0 Elmar if you can find a clean, post-war specimen. They are very small, light, and are rather sharp, albeit not real contrasty. I don't see too many Canon and Nikon LTM lenses under 135mm for sale in the price range you are seeking.

I wish when someone starts a thread asking for a "cheap" lens would define cheap, it's a very relative term.

Thats said the 90 elmar is a great, small lens that goes for not much. An even better lens, even smaller that goes for around $200 is the Minolta CLE 90/4. I have one (and the latest style 90 /2.8 Leica) and usually carry the Minolta lens. Just as good and a heck of a lot smaller.

 

[januaryman]

With only $100 for each, I'd think a Canon 100/3.5 might go for $140, or so, and is a bit longer and more expensoive than you'd like, but a jewel of a lens. So the J 9 might be the one for you. Mine was $50 from a friend and works great.

The 35mm: well, as someone else has said, the Canon 35/2.8 is pretty sweet. Mine was a Serenar and cost me $150, also more than your limits. The J12 I'd stay away from as it has too many issues. Getting a 35 for $100 is pie in the sky, I'd have to say. So if you can nab a good $60-$70 Jupiter 9, then a nice Canon might show up for $140ish. It could happen.

Good luck.

PS - check out jiri_e's ebay listings. He's in Japan and has great Canon gear that you might get lucky with. He does answer requests, if you tell him what you're looking for. But in the $100 range, I doubt he can help. You need luck.

 

[mac_wt]

The Canon 35/1.8 used to be available cheap. I got mine for less than 100 Euro (back when 1 Euro = 1 USD), because the seller was very honest about a spot of rust near the focusing tab. Wide open it's very soft, except for the center of the frame. Think of it as a funky in-camera Photoshop effect...
My Leica 90/2.8 was also less than 100 Euro.

You might need some patience for finding these at a low enough price point.

Regards, Wim

 

[raid]

I bought my Canon 100/3.5 for $69 at KEH. It needed some cleaning. Now it is crystal clear.

The J-9 is just so heavy! The chrome 85/1.9 is also heavy, but it is very sharp and is beautifully made.

I would find a Canon Adapter B and then get a Canon 24mm/2.8 or a 28mm/2.8 SLR lens and then use that lens on a Leica mount camera. No RF focusing is needed.

 

[Bill Harrison]

lenses

lenses

Ditto on SPIDER67

 

[jbannow]

Lots of great suggestions. Looks like I'm going to have to adjust my budget a bit ...

 

[jmkelly]

The J-9 is just so heavy! The chrome 85/1.9 is also heavy, but it is very sharp and is beautifully made.

Raid - wha...??? The J-9 I owned and the three or four I have handled have all been aluminum, and stupid-light for such a big lens.

In contrast my early Nikkor P.C must be all brass with a tungsten ballast - just kidding but it may be my heaviest lens: heavier than the brass Canon 55/1.2 FL or the 75mm Summilux.

 

[raid]

Hi John,

My J-9 weighs as much as a [small] rock. It is black and in Contax mount. I have no clue why your J-9 lenses have been so light.

The J-9 is lighter than the Nikkor 105mm 2.5, but most lenses are.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The J-9 is light compared with a chrome Nikkor 8.5cm F2 and Canon 85/2. Mostly aluminum instead of brass. I've used the 1975 J-9 and Nikkor 8.5cm f2 'C'ontax version with my Contax IIIa and Contax II on the same roll of film- quite a difference.