smallest smallest smallest 35mm lens for Leica-M (or M39)

50/3.5 collapsible Elmar LTM (featuring a bent infinity lock):

3714462020_23c4d5064f_o.jpg


35/3.5 Elmar LTM (left) 35/3.5 Summaron LTM (right):

3714462168_e881139524_o.jpg
 
Another vote for the Canon 35/2.8, if compactness is important. The front element is recessed enough that you don't need a hood for it.
 
Tom A said:
The Summaron 35f3.5 is OK. A bit flare-prone and with the hood, not exactly petit.
Another alternative is the VC 35f2.5 II - about as good as it gets in this size! Also the Canon 35f2 LTM mount. Less flare than the Summaron and a credible performer.
The miniscule Nikkor 35 LTM's are good, but they are getting so small that operating aperture rings, focus etc is more difficult - particularly on a M body.
Click to expand...

The Summaron 35mm f/3.5 in it's first M-version, made for the M3 but without goggles, is very small. Add the tiny 12549 Leica shade of the Elmar-M 50mm f/2.8 (fits perfectly) and you are as small as you can get. Watch out for haze in those early lenses. Haze is however usually easily removed by a competent repairman.

Erik.
 
When I want to go small, I also want to go hoodless. The CV 35 PII is small and handles flare well without its hood. It has been my choice.
 
I agree with both Steve and Erik above. I have both lenses and like them both. The Leica did have haze but Sherry Krauter removed it for me.

-Randy
 
Since a number of posters (including me) have mentioned the little Canon 35/2.8, I thought I'd post a picture:

3714890822_9ac9ccc46d.jpg


For comparison purposes, here's the same M2 w/ the Rokkor-M 40:

3714891942_c4efa6054e.jpg


And a size comparison: Rokkor-M, Canon 35/2.8, and VC Ultron 35:

3714082087_e20ca0daa6.jpg


I know that Simon (OP) said that speed does not matter, but it is worth noting that of all the lenses mentioned in this thread only the Rokkor-M and Summicron-C 40s are f2.0.
 
That makes two of us.

That makes two of us.

raid said:
I have the Canon 35/2, 35/2.8,and the small Summaron 35/3.5. The Canon lenses seem to be better performers than the Summaron has been doing for me.

The Canon 35/2.8 is tiny, sharp, solidly built,and affordable.
Click to expand...

Thanks Raid. We totally agree. I seem to be the only person who backed up his choice with numbers. By the way, for the Metric crowd, the Canon 35/2.8 extends 24mm from the body. 34mm filter ring is probably the smallest around. $150-$200 makes it most affordable.

With so many supporters, why is this lens so undervalued?
 
Last edited:
I have both the version 4 Summicron 35 and the Summaron 35mm f3.5 in the non-goggled form originally built for early M3s. I like them both in their own ways, although the Summaron definitely has more of an "antique" look to its photos. The latter is also a tad smaller but I am not sure about weight - being a chrome on brass lens its more heavy than you might think.

Be aware that when I attempt to use this Summaron (and also an earlier model in screw mount - with adapter) on my M4P body the infinity lock lever on the lens binds slightly on the manual frame selector lever on the camera when the lens is rotated past a certain point, so I mainly reserve this for my M3. (I think from memory it kinda rotates past the point but scrapes on the frame selector lever at the point where it rotates / joins the camera body so I avoid doing this for fear of scratching the camera.) I am not sure if this is prevalent across all models of M camera.
 
Last edited:
I have the Serenar 35f3.5. It hasen't impressed me as it tends to flare wildly!! The 35f2 is a much better lens compared to it. The 35f3.5 is also a bit low in contrast for my taste. Resolution is not bad at all. I have tried it with Tech Pan and against my Summaron 35f3.5 and apart from the lower contras and flaret of the Serenar, they seem pretty well equal.
 
Bingley said:
Another vote for the Canon 35/2.8, if compactness is important. The front element is recessed enough that you don't need a hood for it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I find that's only true for the later black/chrome (40mm filter) version; the earlier all-chrome (34mm filter) version's front element is hardly recessed at all (unlike the early all-chrome 28/3.5).

EDIT: Both versions are great, though -- as others have said, small, sharp, medium contrast, reasonable price and availability.

::Ari
 
Ari -- You may be right. My Canon 35/2.8 (the earlier chrome one, as pictured above) wears a thin Walz filter all the time, and the filter ring makes the front element of the lens appear more recessed than it is. If I feel I need more flare protection, I've got a make-shift hood assembled out of step-up rings that works just fine for this lens (I also use it for my Canon 100/3.5). When all is said and done, though, this lens is very small, and very good.
 
Bingley said:
Ari -- You may be right. My Canon 35/2.8 (the earlier chrome one, as pictured above) wears a thin Walz filter all the time, and the filter ring makes the front element of the lens appear more recessed than it is. If I feel I need more flare protection, I've got a make-shift hood assembled out of step-up rings that works just fine for this lens (I also use it for my Canon 100/3.5). When all is said and done, though, this lens is very small, and very good.
Click to expand...

I have the original Canon chrome hood (marked for the 50/1.8, 35/2.8 and 35/3.2), which works very well, but it's actually larger than the lens! Though it doesn't block any of the 35mm frame lines on my R-D1, I think it looks a bit odd -- but what's better, to look good or cut flare? ;)

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