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

Well, duh! to look good! :rolleyes:

I have the same hood, and indeed it SAYS it's for the 35/2.8, but the clamp-on ring is way too big. So how do you attach yours?

(Sorry, OP, for this brief hijack). :eek:
 
27.jpg

35mm Summilux pre asph prone to flare but tiny, fast light, and a focusing tab! Pretty much the same body and the voigtlander 40mm 1.4 nokton
 
Tom A said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, Tom A, you might be right, but ones man's poison etc. It is small, light, cheap (not that I want cheap but on a trip it is nice to know if it is lost I'm out 35 dollars US), and it give me a more diffierent look than all the other program designed lenses that are 35's. So as I like low contrast, I guess I'll keep it, even with its weird preformance.
 
So -- I know OP talked M, but if we're talking 35 Summaron 3.5 and smaller, doesn't that call out for a IIIC or F and an Epson 28/35 minifinder.
 
So far, I have not seen a regular production lens smaller than the Leitz Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5 LTM. Robert's picture is great for depicting it's size relative to the M camera. The Summaron is almost twice as thick.

Cheers,
 
Bingley said:
Well, duh! to look good! :rolleyes:

I have the same hood, and indeed it SAYS it's for the 35/2.8, but the clamp-on ring is way too big. So how do you attach yours?

(Sorry, OP, for this brief hijack). :eek:
Click to expand...

Steve,

The hood you have is for the later black type lens with 40mm filter ring. To use it on the earlier lens, you need to swap out the adapter to a 34mm screw in or 36mm clamp on type.

The correct hood for the earlier lens is the rectangular type, but very often, they don't come with the push in/screw in adapter either. Quite a pain to find.

Cheers,
 
It's about time

It's about time

jmkelly said:
Is the 35mm f2 UC Hexanon too big?
Click to expand...

I was wondering when someone would mention the little jewel. It is bigger than the Canon 35/2.8. 43mm filters and slightly longer projection. No comparison in build, finish and image quality. If Leica had made this lens it would be selling for more than the first, second or third Noctilux.
 
I have the round hood in both black and chrome. The chrome version is marked Serenar, so I'd have to assume it's intended for the earlier version lens. I also have an assortment of Series VI adapter rings (acquired with various other hoods), including 34mm and 40mm screw-in, and 36mm and 42mm clamp-on. I use the 36mm clamp-on with the chrome 35/2.8, though the 34mm screw-in would work too.

::Ari

bennyng said:
Steve,

The hood you have is for the later black type lens with 40mm filter ring. To use it on the earlier lens, you need to swap out the adapter to a 34mm screw in or 36mm clamp on type.

The correct hood for the earlier lens is the rectangular type, but very often, they don't come with the push in/screw in adapter either. Quite a pain to find.

Cheers,
Click to expand...
 
bennyng said:
Steve,

The hood you have is for the later black type lens with 40mm filter ring. To use it on the earlier lens, you need to swap out the adapter to a 34mm screw in or 36mm clamp on type.

The correct hood for the earlier lens is the rectangular type, but very often, they don't come with the push in/screw in adapter either. Quite a pain to find.

Cheers,
Click to expand...


Thanks, Benny, for the explanation. That clears it up! I wonder if there's a step-up ring that I could use instead of the clamp (which is for the 50/1.8 lens).
 
kermaier said:
I have the round hood in both black and chrome. The chrome version is marked Serenar, so I'd have to assume it's intended for the earlier version lens. I also have an assortment of Series VI adapter rings (acquired with various other hoods), including 34mm and 40mm screw-in, and 36mm and 42mm clamp-on. I use the 36mm clamp-on with the chrome 35/2.8, though the 34mm screw-in would work too.

::Ari
Click to expand...

And I will look for one of these clamp-on rings, too. Thanks, Ari.
 
Bingley said:
Thanks, Benny, for the explanation. That clears it up! I wonder if there's a step-up ring that I could use instead of the clamp (which is for the 50/1.8 lens).
Click to expand...

You don't need a step-up ring -- the clamp ring unscrews from the hood, and you can replace it with a different Series VI adpater ring (34mm screw or 36mm clamp).

::Ari
 
You can't get any smaller than this:

Miyazaki Tessar T * 35mm/f3.5

From what I could gather the glass seems to be the original Zeiss Tessar put in a custom-made pancake enclosure fitted with a German-made diaphragm with circular adjustment ring. This design also features a very neat focusing tab. Price seems to be quite reasonable, around $500 USD.

The following links refer to Japanese pages but I'm sure that with a little help from Google Translator this minor inconvenience can be sorted out.

Info & pictures:

http://rlfc.world.coocan.jp/Information/Miyazaki-shiki/Tessar.html

Product page:

http://www.hayatacamera.co.jp/services/miyazaki/index.html#012
 
Greg_Shanta said:
You can't get any smaller than this:

Miyazaki Tessar T * 35mm/f3.5

From what I could gather the glass seems to be the original Zeiss Tessar put in a custom-made pancake enclosure fitted with a German-made diaphragm with circular adjustment ring. This design also features a very neat focusing tab. Price seems to be quite reasonable, around $500 USD.

The following links refer to Japanese pages but I'm sure that with a little help from Google Translator this minor inconvenience can be sorted out.

Info & pictures:

http://rlfc.world.coocan.jp/Information/Miyazaki-shiki/Tessar.html

Product page:

http://www.hayatacamera.co.jp/services/miyazaki/index.html#012
Click to expand...

This looks awesome. I can't find sample images taken with it though... if it's a good performer, I just might purchase one for myself :)
 
Greg_Shanta said:
You can't get any smaller than this:

Miyazaki Tessar T * 35mm/f3.5

From what I could gather the glass seems to be the original Zeiss Tessar put in a custom-made pancake enclosure fitted with a German-made diaphragm with circular adjustment ring. This design also features a very neat focusing tab. Price seems to be quite reasonable, around $500 USD.
Click to expand...

Those look cool as hell. Thank you for the links, I had been curious about them! thinkfloyd the Nikon one is from a Nikon L35AF (5 elements) if you're going to look for pics.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/l35af.htm
 
Last edited:
Not as small as the above, but smaller than all others before the Myazaki Tessar T came to this thread:

3533491646_ebe0363d81_o.jpg



Kyoei W.Acall 35/3.5. Solid brass and steel lens, small but hefty little fellow.



3533491390_f940fcfc2d_o.jpg



Considering selling this one, I got a Komura 35/2.8 on the way :)
 
Miyazaki Tessar Sample pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blctar/128694717/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blctar/3081571056/sizes/l/

That's what I could find on Flickr. They look very Tessar, I think. I like the Tessar characteristic look very much and I am thinking about buying this lens myself.

In my pre-rangefinder life I used to have a Nikkor Tessar 45/2.8 Pancake which I had virtually glued to my D700 most of the time. I would take 90% of my pictures with it. These samples remind me of my favourite lens, regardless of their apparent imperfections. Still I can see that the typical Tessar's optical drawing is of the same nature.

As for this Miyazaki lens being a good performer, I don't know since I didn't have any personal experience with it yet. I am sure, optically it should be as great as any other Zeiss Tessar lens, because it is a Zeiss Tessar lens made by C.Z. Mechanically, I hope it will hold up to the quality of the glass, too. Looks like serious stuff, at least on the pictures.
 
I emailed them about the miyazaki lens, awaiting their reply :) I'm thinking of getting either this or the Nikkor 35/2.5

@ranchu: what do you mean the Nikkor one? They also have a Nikkor version? I guess I missed that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom