SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I have the VC 1.5/50, 1.2/35, 4/21 and 4.5/15, the 35 being my favourite focal length and lens, but all of them being superb lenses, worth every single cent I paid for each (and more!). but now I'm on the hunt for an "as-small-as-possible" 35 (or 40, maybe) for daylight shooting with minimum gear (on an M4 and/or M2 that is).
I had the chance to try old screw mount w-nikkors (3.5/35 and 3.5/28, Elmar copies afaik) while in Barcelona and those were incredibly tiny and performed extremely well, but they're so hard to find these days... I have also been thinking of the VC 2.5/35 PII, 40mm M-Rokkor and the M39 Summaron... is there any comparable or even smaller/better alternative and if yes, where? widest aperture does not really matter as long as it's not smaller than, say, f/6.
thank you,
Simon
I had the chance to try old screw mount w-nikkors (3.5/35 and 3.5/28, Elmar copies afaik) while in Barcelona and those were incredibly tiny and performed extremely well, but they're so hard to find these days... I have also been thinking of the VC 2.5/35 PII, 40mm M-Rokkor and the M39 Summaron... is there any comparable or even smaller/better alternative and if yes, where? widest aperture does not really matter as long as it's not smaller than, say, f/6.
thank you,
Simon
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
Canon 35/2.8, all chrome, first version. 34mm filter ring. 15/16" extension from body. Tiny. Solid. Sharp. I have owned mine since the 70s.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Depends on the look you want. The VC 35 2.5 is tiny (especially the original screw mount version), but has a modern look. I also have the 35 3.5 Summaron and it is tiny, but more of the old look to the images.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I adore lenses giving a 'classic' look, but I also love and use the modern VC lenses. I have the screw mount 4/21 which is about the same size as the 2.5/35 SM version no? I'm using this one without the hood mostly, and I'd still try to go with something even smaller (*insane*)
ferider
Veteran
The PII is lower profile than the LTM 35/2.5 Classic. Not sure about the P I, though:
The smallest I have come across, with good performance, is the Nikkor 35/2.5:
You said you tried the 35/3.5, though, which is even smaller (not as good a performer, though).
Best performance/size compromise IMO, is the Summicron-C 40/2:
Roland.
The smallest I have come across, with good performance, is the Nikkor 35/2.5:
You said you tried the 35/3.5, though, which is even smaller (not as good a performer, though).
Best performance/size compromise IMO, is the Summicron-C 40/2:
Roland.
Last edited:
The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 is the same formula as the Summaron. The Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5 is the same formula as the Elmar 3.5cm F3.5.
hans voralberg
Veteran
You cant really get much smaller than the already tiny 35/2.5 VC, get it and be happy!
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
My vote is for the 35 Summaron 3.5
Small & Sweet
Lovely Crisp & Beautiful gradation of Tones....
Small & Sweet
Lovely Crisp & Beautiful gradation of Tones....
D.O'K.
Darren O'Keeffe.
I suspect the smallest is the LTM summaron 3.5. I would endorse its good performance--although it isn't as contrasty as many other (more modern?) 35's.
Regards,
D.
Regards,
D.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
A quick and not very good snap of the 35 3.5 summaron on my M2.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Surely most of the lenses that have already been mentioned are small enough?
If you want really small though, and can live with moving up to a 50 instead of a 35 then you could consider the slower (f/3.5) collapsible Elmar which is basically flat.
On the other hand, the 40mm Summicron mentioned by Roland is probably the best compromise if you want a more modern lens, though I would probably go with the VC PII especially if you're content with the build and optical quality.
Also, I suppose that you would quite often need a hood for the older LTM lenses which sort of brings you back to square one.. The older lenses also don't focus all that close (1m), with 40mm Summicron at .8m and the Color Skopar at .7m.
There's not much point in having a super small lens if it doesn't play it's part at the other end. Good luck with whatever you decide upon anyway.
If you want really small though, and can live with moving up to a 50 instead of a 35 then you could consider the slower (f/3.5) collapsible Elmar which is basically flat.
On the other hand, the 40mm Summicron mentioned by Roland is probably the best compromise if you want a more modern lens, though I would probably go with the VC PII especially if you're content with the build and optical quality.
Also, I suppose that you would quite often need a hood for the older LTM lenses which sort of brings you back to square one.. The older lenses also don't focus all that close (1m), with 40mm Summicron at .8m and the Color Skopar at .7m.
There's not much point in having a super small lens if it doesn't play it's part at the other end. Good luck with whatever you decide upon anyway.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
The 35mm Summaron LTM is very tiny:
uhligfd
Well-known
How about a body cap with pin hole? What is the registry on Leicas? around 30mm, right?
Least weight that can't be beat!
Least weight that can't be beat!
ferider
Veteran
If you want really small with Leica look and feel, forget Leica M. This is what you need to get:
Cheaper, too.
Roland.
Cheaper, too.
Roland.
Paul T.
Veteran
The beauty of the 40mm Summicron-C is that the hood works well (until it eventually cracks) but being collapsible takes up less space. In practical terms I find it way more compact than, for example, the collapsible Summicron.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The 40mm f/2 Rokkor for the CL is the same as the Summicron but usually a lot less expensive.
If you want body-cap-with-a-pinhole size lens (and can get a good price for your wife) get an M mount 15mm f/8 Zeiss Hologon. Make sure that you get the center filter with it.
If you want body-cap-with-a-pinhole size lens (and can get a good price for your wife) get an M mount 15mm f/8 Zeiss Hologon. Make sure that you get the center filter with it.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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.
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.
cjm
Well-known
The VC Skopar 35mm PII is about as small as it gets for a "modern" looking lens.
If you want a "vintage" look, go for a Canon 35mm f2.8. Tiny, sharp, low contrast.
If you want a "vintage" look, go for a Canon 35mm f2.8. Tiny, sharp, low contrast.
raid
Dad Photographer
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.
The Canon 35/2.8 is tiny, sharp, solidly built,and affordable.