Recommendation for 35mm lens

L

loneranger

Well-known
Local time
8:06 AM
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
427
Hi, I would like some help choosing a 35mm lens for my leica M6. Here is what I need, I do mostly color work so I want it to be on the contrasty side, I dont necessarily need a fast lens , as I shoot mostly at f5.6 or f8, and price wise, my budget is up to $600 but I could increase it if some lens is really special. I was kind of debating between zeiss 35mm zm (f2 or f2.8), the f2 can be found used for around 600, I am not sure if the 2.8 version is any different in terms of sharpness or contrast.. any advise would be apreciated
thanks
 
Yes that was a sweet lens, however I sold it when I needed some money, also I would say that the hexar 35 is really special wide open, with beautiful OOF, but stopped down, it was nothing special.. anyways, I cannot afford to get that now and dont really need a fast lens
 
Ahh. OK.

If speed is not too important, I recommend the 35/2.5 PII. Fits you description on requirements perfectly, except it's cheaper. :)

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Just wondering, how is the Zeiss 35/2,8 ZM compared to the VC 35/2.5, besides the obvious price difference.

ferider said:
Ahh. OK.

If speed is not too important, I recommend the 35/2.5 PII. Fits you description on requirements perfectly, except it's cheaper. :)

Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
The Zeiss 35f2 is one of the best 35's around. Contrast is similar to the entire ZM line - not excessive but good.
The 35f2.8 has a bit higher contrast and is quite compact to boot. I find myself using it more often than the 35f2. Fits fine on the M6.
The VC 35f2.5 II is quite similar in performance - a bit "snappier" contrast than the ZM 35f2 - on par with the ZM 35f2.8. In "absolutes" - resolution, field curvature etc - they are all fine. Amazingly compact too - and well priced!
It depends to some extent what your "output" is, prints, scan's etc. With scan's you have the advantage that you can moderate contrast quite a bit in PS/LR so that is not critical there. For prints or slides - whatever contrast the lens gives you is what you are going to have to live with.
 
Both the Zeiss and the VC 35 will be resolving outstandingly by f5.6. Don't be dismayed by the cheap price for the VC, the truth is, a quality 35mm is really easy to make especially when a large aperture is not a requirement, the zeiss, although it's a fine lens warrants a premium for the brand name, which is quite normal actually.
 
For under 600 bucks, you can obtain the CV 35/1,4. Similar to the lens it is somewhat like -- the pre-asph summilux 35 -- it has its 'flaws', but it is also has a dedicated following. In my view, you will not get a better all-round 35 until you spend a lot more dough. For image samples of this lens and any other M lens, check the M-mount group on flickr.
 
All the pictures I have seen which were taken with the CV 35/2.5 were technically up to the mark. I understand that the lens is small as well. I would have bought it if not for needing the extra stop that the Ultron f/1.7 gives.
 
Add another for the VC 35/2.5

Add another for the VC 35/2.5

I use this alongside the 50mm Elmar-M and it's great... perhaps not as great as the Elmar-M, but what is? :D
 
I hope you don't mind that I am no user of these, but I am also looking for a 35mm to go with my 90mm. From what I have seen, the ZM 2.0 should be about on par with the 35 ASPH Summicron. It is a bit faster and has no distortion - that might be a big plus, depending on what you shoot.
 
The Zeiss lenses do have a slightly higher performance that the 35 PII, most notably in the corners wider open. At wider apertures you will see better corners on the ZM 35 f2 and reduce vignetting; however, by f5.6 they are darned close, though the Zeiss retains the better corners at all apertures (mind you it is the best lens available in this regard I believe). So, the Pancake II is a super performer and I thoroughly recommend it. In side by side tests with my Biogon F2 I found the CV had marginally less contrast, but close. Both are very flare resistant, though the biogon is pretty well peerless in this regard (as with disstortion control) but is double the size. I use the PII as my walkabout lens, but just used (about an hour ago!) the Biogon F2 for some indoor stuff where I wanted the speed (opium rehabilitation centre). If you shoot at f5.6-8 I would honestly save your money and get the PII.
 
Last edited:
Leica M2, Summicron 35mm f/2 first type (8 elements), Tmax400 printed on Ilford MGIV fb.

Erik.

4029639034_3820075097_b.jpg
 
I would not recc an older cron like the one above as they are lower in contrast than modern lenses and the OP asked for something for colour and higher contrast
 
The Hexanon 35mm f2 KM would be a fair choice IMO ... you should be able to find one for under $600.00 and they are very good. Not a huge amount of character but sharp and near impossible to flare with superior build quality to a Voigtlander.


p347626489.jpg
 
Last edited:
I agree with Keith. The main features you need are part, not all, of the M-hex portfolio. I disagree with you about stopped down UC hexanon, but that's beside the point. Although I would shop and try to catch a cron version 3, you can get the M hex near mint within your budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom