50/3.5 collapsible Elmar LTM (featuring a bent infinity lock):
35/3.5 Elmar LTM (left) 35/3.5 Summaron LTM (right):

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

35/3.5 Elmar LTM:


Last edited by a moderator:
Bingley
Veteran
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.
Elmar 35/3.5 (ghost image) overlayed on Elmar 50/3.5 collapsible.

Erik van Straten
Veteran
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.
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.
Quinn Porter
Established
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.
vrgard
Well-known
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
-Randy
MCTuomey
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.
+1 I traded mine to another FM'r. Shouldn't have done that. Great lens.
Bingley
Veteran
Since a number of posters (including me) have mentioned the little Canon 35/2.8, I thought I'd post a picture:
For comparison purposes, here's the same M2 w/ the Rokkor-M 40:
And a size comparison: Rokkor-M, Canon 35/2.8, and VC Ultron 35:
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.

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

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

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.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
The Rollei Sonnar 40/2.8 is also very small and modern.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the CV 28/3.5.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the CV 28/3.5.
benmacphoto
Well-known
The 35mm F2.5 Nikkor is small, and a very sharp lens.
venchka
Veteran
That makes two of us.
That makes two of us.
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?
That makes two of us.
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.
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:
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Is the 35mm f2 UC Hexanon too big?
charjohncarter
Veteran
I bet I beat you all, 35mm f 3.5 (I think) Serenar by Canon (pre-marketing). If you want a photo of it ask. Here is a recent image:

peterm1
Veteran
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.
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:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I decided to show it:
35mm Serenar (not collapsible) and a 50mm Elmar.

35mm Serenar (not collapsible) and a 50mm Elmar.
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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.
kermaier
Well-known
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.
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
Bingley
Veteran
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.
kermaier
Well-known
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.
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
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.