Sharpest 35mm at f5.6

L

loneranger

Well-known
Local time
2:36 PM
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
427
Just curious, if price is not an object, then what would you guys think is the sharpest M or LTM mount 35mm lens, at f5.6-f8. Again I am not interested in sharpness wide open or in Bokeh. I know there are a lot of options, but if we are looking at such a limited thing, there must be one or two that stand out.
 
To`stand out' at middle of the road settings? Sounds oxymoron like as a question.

Lenses excel in different ways from positive to negative only at their extremes. At the middle of the road, all modern cars perform somewhat similarly, but off-road, up or down steep, curvy hills, etc the suspension, engine, transmission, steering, tires, ... show their strengths and weaknesses the best.

NOT AT f/5.6. This question is useless to ask, in my book. Sorry.

Unless you want to know the difference between uncoated historical lenses, single coated, half vanished coat lenses, modern multicoated ones
... But in a given year all lenses at 5.6 will perform only negligeably differently, unless you made one in your own garage, of course.
 
Last edited:
My 35/3.5 Summaron was sharp, as was my Jupiter 12, as is my Ultron f/1.7. Which was the sharpest? I shall never know, as no print has been made larger than 16" by 12".
 
Yeah, I know 'middle of the road' is boring to most, because frankly everyone is addicted to the extreme settings. Well, some of us apreciate the boring side of life (lenses), and so my question arose because that is the aperture range that I use the most. If you think it is useless to ask, I have no problem with the label 'useless'. In fact, I love taking pictures of 'useless' stuff that the more learned among us have tossed away. thanks for your thoughtful answer.

uhligfd said:
To`stand out' at middle of the road settings? Sounds oxymoron like as a question.

Lenses excel in different ways from positive to negative only at their extremes. At the middle of the road, all modern cars perform somewhat similarly, but off-road, up or down steep, curvy hills, etc the suspension, engine, transmission, steering, tires, ... show their strengths and weaknesses the best.

NOT AT f/5.6. This question is useless to ask, in my book. Sorry.

Unless you want to know the difference between uncoated historical lenses, single coated, half vanished coat lenses, modern multicoated ones
... But in a given year all lenses at 5.6 will perform only negligeably differently, unless you made one in your own garage, of course.
Click to expand...
 
As stated, just about every 35 available today (talking current production lenses) are going to be very sharp at 5.6. The difference is mainly going to be contrast. Any of the Summicron 35's would do very well, as would the ZM Biogon's (the 35f2.8 would be a strong contender as it is small and comfortable on the camera). Any of the Color Skopar 35's would work well too and they are priced right.
 
i would think the Summicrons would be an excellent option, as they are tiny, have a great look, and are KNOWN to be great lenses.
 
If somebody gave you a list of various Leica mount 35mm lenses and handed you a stack of 8x10 prints all of pictures shot at f/5.6, it's doubtful that you or anybody else could match up the lenses with the prints.
 
if all you need is f5.6, Ultron 35/1.7 is very sharp at that aperture for a much cheaper price. Even the Contax T3 lens is amazing at f5.6. There are many 35mm's that will more than suffice.
 
loneranger said:
So are you saying that some soviet lens from the 50s has the same sharpness as modern 35mm, at 5.6.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but all lenses should be near their ideal performance at 5.6 which would mean the difference between them should be much smaller than at other apertures.
 
rover said:
Not necessarily, but all lenses should be near their ideal performance at 5.6 which would mean the difference between them should be much smaller than at other apertures.
Click to expand...

Smaller, but not negligible if you actually compared a current Leica aspheric with a Soviet copy of a 1930s Zeiss lens in even an 8x12 inch print. I cheerfully accept that (say) a 35/1.7 Ultron might be harder to distinguish from the Summicron or Summarit.

Cheers,

R.
 
I am another one who thinks that 35mm lenses of the same era would show very little difference in sharpness at middle apertures.

Bob
 
So, if it so easy to make a really sharp 35mm lens at f5.6, why dont we get some lenses that start at 5.6 and that are really cheap. (by really cheap I mean really cheap, like $50). I cannot be the only person on earth that does not need fast lens...a lot of landscape photographers only use their lenses stopped down..
 
Nikon Bob said:
I am another one who thinks that 35mm lenses of the same era would show very little difference in sharpness at middle apertures.

Bob
Click to expand...
Dear Bob,

of the same era is the catch. It would be strange if there were no improvements between the 1930s and modern lenses, even if the 1930s designs had subsequently been coated.

Cheers,

R.
 
loneranger said:
So, if it so easy to make a really sharp 35mm lens at f5.6, why dont we get some lenses that start at 5.6 and that are really cheap. (by really cheap I mean really cheap, like $50). I cannot be the only person on earth that does not need fast lens...a lot of landscape photographers only use their lenses stopped down..
Click to expand...

Because the price doesn't drop that much under, say, f/3.5 -- you still have to make the mount and the coupling cam, and centre the glass -- and the market for even 35/3.5 M-mount lenses is probably negligible. For 35/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4 and 35/1.2 it's pretty small.

Cheers,

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