Skopar 35 2.5II is the trap!

[Ko.Fe.]

I've had LTM pancake on R and moved to 35 2.5 PII after getting M4-2.
The Skopar pancake and M4-2 are perfect match in terms of exterior. No issues with focusing either. I CLA'ed it and no wobble, lose focus tab issues so far.
Nothing wrong with the lens on prints. It is my main interest in film photography - darkroom prints.
Sharp everywhere I need it right from wide open. Smooth bokeh. Neutral rendering...

The last one keeps me wondering around other 35mm lenses.
I went with Summaron 35 3.5 M for a while. It was giving me more in the image. Something to do with less contrast, I guess. But with goggles it makes the "package" bulky. After I put Skopar back it was kind of liberating 🙂

I'm looking at V1-V4 Crons images and for quick look they are seems to be less sharp, contrasty and what's all.

I'm looking at Biogon C rendering and it is seems to better, but "technically".

Is here any 35mm lens with "character" on the wet prints without huge price tag, 50+ age and enormous size?

Maybe it is just lack of examples of prints this day, scans and digitals are not in my circle of interest...

 

[FrankS]

Summaron 35f3.5, M2 version with no goggles.

 

[Highway 61]

Is here any 35mm lens with "character" on the wet prints without huge price tag, 50+ age and enormous size?

Lens having "character" is a strange concept which didn't exist back in the late 1970s when most of the optical aberrations the lenses were suffering from until then could go away eventually, thanks to the numerous technical improvements the optical engineers had been developing.

Now people look for lenses having spherical aberrations, coma, flare, vignetting, distorsion, which deliver sharp images in the center but weak edges and corners even once stopped down a bit, and speak about those lenses as if they were the world's 7th marvel.

More, some of those lenses now fetch quite high resale values.

This is quite strange.

If you're happy with the Skopar 35/2.5, why would you want another 35 ?

The C-Biogon 35/2.8 will be noticeably sharper all along the frame diagonal, at all apertures ; the Summicrons 35/2 V2 to V4 (not including the ASPH) and the Biogon 35/2 will offer an extra f-stop but will be less sharp at f/2 and f/2.8 than the C-Biogon. And - no surprise - they'll cost you way more than the C-Biogon.

The Summicron V1 will cost you more than the Summicron ASPH, while providing less sharp images than the C-Biogon even at f/2.8 and f/4.

The Summaron 35/3.5 has an f-stop less than the Skopar, and after you'll think that it's less contrasty, you'll also find it less sharp, especially in the corners, and especially at the widest apertures. And - it will vignette a little bit at f/3.5, while the Skopar won't.

It will also cost you more than your Skopar. No surprise either.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Nope, it isn't the character I'm after.

I'm more into 3D and microcontrast on prints. I was getting it from modern Cosina made 50mm lens on FF DSLR (amazing lens with the character) and I'm getting it from modern Leica 50mm RF lens on wet prints with unique looking rendering.

Just looking for it in 35mm RF range now.

Cheers...

 

[Highway 61]

Try the C-Biogon 35/2.8 then, Kostya. You won't be disappointed.

 

[taemo]

had a Skopar 35mm 2.5II and loved it as well, made me hold off buying a Summicron IV until I snagged one at a decent price last year.

i second the 35mm Biogon-C, it should fit your need and budget.

another 35mm that I really like and wouldn't mind owning is the 35mm UC-Hexanon, very similar to the Summicron but rare to find now and expensive.
But you could always get a Hexar AF (same lens) and be happy with it.

 

[ferider]

A good Skopar will be hard to tell apart on prints of, say, 8x10 size, from "better" modern lenses like the 2 Biogons.

Try the 35/1.4 SC Nokton maybe ? A nice complement to the Skopar, also for speed if you need it.

My v3 Summicron is sharp, and has really nice dark tone rendering and focus->non focus transitions (what I call Mandler effect: not smooth bokeh, but the DOF appears thinner than it should be technically). It's the cheapest Summicron, but I love it.

Roland.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The Color Skopars are excellent lenses, in my experience. I personally don't think there's any reason to look further. I tried the Zeiss and found it to be, as you say, too 'technical'. The one other 35mm lens I liked a lot was the Canon 35mm f/2 'Japanese summicron'. Excellent lens with a bit less modern look than the Color Skopar. I'm thinking of buying the Canon again, for use on my Fuji X body.

 

[ferider]

^^^ that's a good suggestion, too.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not into old Japanese on prints and Cosina 35 1.4 turns me off by its focus issues.

I'm more into Cron V3 or Biogon C.

Leica because it is sentimental "made in here" value, very needed focusing tab and using same 39mm filters I already have and need them to use.
I'm not so sure if it will be sharp enough even for me on 8x10 prints.

Biogon C seems to be sharp across the frame and some are saying has this 3D look and it is less expensive to Cron even with adding of three wrong size filters.

Both will require departure from PII pancake to have enough... dough...

 

[mfogiel]

One of the modern 35's that look very well balanced is the 2.5 Summarit.

 

[Highway 61]

Leica because it is sentimental "made in here" value, very needed focusing tab and using same 39mm filters I already have and need them to use.
I'm not so sure if it will be sharp enough even for me on 8x10 prints.

This is fully understandable. I once came by the former Leitz Canada plant in Midland, and was happy to be there. I suppose you visited the place already, as you live in Ontario.

There are some V2 Summicrons 35 which were made in Canada too.

The V3 is often said to be sharper than the V4 (during test labs) and it begins to sell for more than what the V4 costed ten years ago...

All the good 35mm lenses will be plenty sharp enough (and more than this) for 8x10 prints if every part of the imaging chain is done as it should be (accurate focus, no camera shake, proper film properly developed, enlarger with proper parallelism, excellent enlarger lens, accurate focus under the enlarger).

 

[Bingley]

Summaron 35f3.5, M2 version with no goggles.

+1. I'd also add the Canon 35/2.8 (earlier chrome version) which can also give a more "rounded" image w/ a 3D effect (I saw this in the sample of this lens that I had several years ago).

The CV Skopar 35/2.5 is a very, very good lens. Very, very sharp, with outstanding flare resistance. I recall seeing a thread here a few years back by a member here who compared the Skopar 35 to other "modern" 35s in tough photographic conditions and concluded that the only lens that beat it was the C Biogon 35/2.8, and then not by much.

That said, I'm very happy with the Canon 35/2.0 and the Summaron 35/3.5 LTM for the 35 focal length.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I dont think "microcontrast" and "voigtlander" belong in the same sentence do they? If you want micro contrast on a budget, zeiss is the way to go.

 

[teddy]

Now people look for lenses having spherical aberrations, coma, flare, vignetting, distorsion, which deliver sharp images in the center but weak edges and corners even once stopped down a bit, and speak about those lenses as if they were the world's 7th marvel...

This is quite strange...

The Summicron V1 will cost you more than the Summicron ASPH, while providing less sharp images than the C-Biogon even at f/2.8 and f/4...

Interesting comment, my opinion is that the colour, rendering style and tonal character has something more to offer than the focus on image sharpness. There's the phrase; "sharpness is a bourgeoisie concept"...

... When it comes to the Summicron 35/2 V1, that lens is lower contrast at f2 yet sharp, but after it does not offer the seemingly ultra high contrast of the APSH and ZM lenses. High contrast can make an image look sharper, but the trade off is resolution. I find this lens superlative from 2.8 onwards with high resolution.

Some people may realize afterwards that greater tonal detail add's something more to their images.

Also, image characteristics run along with trends of fashion. These days, people like the off-key, ultra high contrast imagery and then reduce image contrast to give it a "slight "vintage look" with new "clinical" lens characteristics. You see this sort of image on TV adverts a lot here in Australia.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

🙄 I'm agree with above about details and contrast!

I dont think "microcontrast" and "voigtlander" belong in the same sentence do they? If you want micro contrast on a budget, zeiss is the way to go.

I was printing from another Skopar and from Elmar-M 50 this night.
I'm afraid to admit, but you seems to be correct. Same film, camera, developer and paper. But prints from Voigtlander... I look at them and it is same feel I have often - sharp, contrasty, but missing just little bit of something...

I just realised I never printed from Summaron 35 3.5, should try it next time just for curiosity, not going to buy another one. It was great on scans.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

...and from Elmar-M 50 this night.

Ko.Fe,

What's your take on the 50mm Elmar-M? I'm toying with getting one but don't know if it has enough 'difference' from my 50mm V4 to make economic sense.

Thanks,
s-a

I know, it's O.T. Mea culpa

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I can't tell you how different it is going to be from such advanced lens.
It is better comparing to V1, which I sold to get black Elmar-M.
I don't need any 50 Cron, while having this one, for sure.

On bw prints and scans it has just enough contrast and the way it renders small details is special.
The only thing which bugs me comes from the absence of the focusing tab. But for 50mm it isn't as critical as for 35 and wider for me.

 

[teddy]

I can't tell you how different it is going to be from such advanced lens.
It is better comparing to V1, which I sold to get black Elmar-M.
I don't need any 50 Cron, while having this one, for sure.

On bw prints and scans it has just enough contrast and the way it renders small details is special.
The only thing which bugs me comes from the absence of the focusing tab. But for 50mm it isn't as critical as for 35 and wider for me.

I've never used an 50/2.8 Elmar-M, but from what I have seen, yes - this lens has something special. It's punchy!

 

[Pioneer]

I am very happy with my Color Skopar 35s. I own and use 3 of them, an LTM, an M and a Contax mount. I am sure that given adequate money you can buy better lenses, but it is very hard to balance cost and quality the way CV has with this lens.

I tried the two Zeiss lenses but sold them after a short while. I like them, they are very nice and provide great images, but not enough better to justify keeping them. Besides, my Color Skopar 35 doesn't interfere with the viewfinder. That probably doesn't mean much to some but it is nice to see the entire field of view.