Smallest M Mount Lenses

jsrockit

jsrockit

Moderator
Staff member
Local time
8:51 AM
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
22,662
I'm aware of a few very small M mount lenses (or LTM lenses) ...

MS Optical Perar 35mm f/3.5
Canon 25mm f/3.5
Canon 28mm f/3.5 (and Seranar)
CV 28mm f/3.5
CV 21 25mm f/4
Leica 35mm Elmar 3.5
Leica 35mm Summaron 3.5
CV 35mm f/2.5
CV 50mm f/2.5
Avenon / Kobalux 28mm f/3.5
Leica 40mm Summicron (Minolta)

Some of these are super tiny (35mm Elmar / Perar)... what other lenses are out there that are smaller than the aforementioned CV lenses?

Let's keep the Leica 50mm Collapsables out of this thread since they are too big extended and if it is bigger than the CV lenses, let's keep them out of the thread too (and no pinhole lenses either). I want to see truly tiny lenses only. I know I'm missing some, so let me know what they are. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Well, if Rokkor/Summicron 40 is considered to be small - than CV 40/1.4, 35/1.4, Summicron IV 35/2, Canon 35/2, Komura 35/2.8, UC Hexanon 35/2 will all be same small size
 
Krosya said:
Well, if Rokkor/Summicron 40 is considered to be small - than CV 40/1.4, 35/1.4, Summicron IV 35/2, Canon 35/2, Komura 35/2.8, UC Hexanon 35/2 will all be same small size
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps the UC, but not the CV, Canon f/2 or Leica 35mm Summicron / Summilux.
 
I was going to mention the chrome Canon 35/2.8, but Darren beat me to it. It's smaller than the CV lenses on the list.
 
The UC-Hex has a wider front rim than the Canon 35/2 (43mm vs 40mm) but I bet it's shorter. BTW, the Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM is approximately the same size as the UC-Hex.

The Canon 28/2.8 has to be the smallest in its class, with the M-Rokkor 28/2.8 following it.

Ari
 
I would put the VC 35f2.5 II there, as well as the Canon 35f2. The problem with really tiny lenses is one of ergonomics. When they get too small - handling aperture rings and focus rings becomes difficult. I haven't tried the Perar 35f3.5 -but from the shots I have seen of it - it does look a bit fiddly to use.
On something like a M2, the Summicron 35f2 v1, the VC 35f2.5 II and the Canon 35f2 (all without hood) are probably as small as I would want them. The UC Hexanon 35f2 is also very compact - but not much different from the Summicron/VC/Canon.
The Hologon 15f8 was indeed small - though most of the lens was inside the camera body. However, the finder was huge - and you needed it.
 
How can this thread gone so long without the 50 f/3.5 elmar ? :confused:

[edit] oh, ok...missed that one...

"Let's keep the Leica 50mm Collapsables out of this thread"

still, the elmar doesn't seem much larger than the Perar...
 
Last edited:
Tom A said:
I would put the VC 35f2.5 II there, as well as the Canon 35f2. The problem with really tiny lenses is one of ergonomics. When they get too small - handling aperture rings and focus rings becomes difficult. I haven't tried the Perar 35f3.5 -but from the shots I have seen of it - it does look a bit fiddly to use.
On something like a M2, the Summicron 35f2 v1, the VC 35f2.5 II and the Canon 35f2 (all without hood) are probably as small as I would want them. The UC Hexanon 35f2 is also very compact - but not much different from the Summicron/VC/Canon.
The Hologon 15f8 was indeed small - though most of the lens was inside the camera body. However, the finder was huge - and you needed it.
Click to expand...

True about ergonomics. But I like the little focusing lever that some of these lenses have (eg the CV 28/3.5), I find it very quick and easy to operate.
 
The Canon 28mm F2.8 and the Komura 28/3.5 at least deserve honorable mention. The Canon 28/2.8 is a lot smaller than modern equivalents, although its optical performance leaves something to be desired IMO (it's nicely made none-the-less).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom