Suggestions on 35mm LTM or M mount??

S

sfaust

Guest
Ok, so now that I have a R2, with an R3a on pre-order, I've got a CV 21mm/f4, 35mm/f2.5, and a 75mm/2.5 to get me started. Now I'd like to play with some lesnes for comparison an see what I like best.

What I'd like to do is get another top notch 35mm lens, and shoot them side by side for a while. After a month or two, I'd pick the one I like best, and sell the other. Then, I'll start working on the 21 and 75 lenses.

So, whats a very good 35mm lens to pick up. I'd like to keep it somewhat reasonable, so anything rare or highly collectable is probably out of the question. However, a high quality lens up to say $900, in LTM or M mount, is worth a look

Options??
 
Stephen, with the 40mm framelines on the R3A, why not inlude that focal length as well? Pretty close to 35mm. Both the Leica 40 Summicron on the used market & the Rollei 40 Sonnar @ $650 new are well within your price range. They can also be used with 35mm framelines on your R2.

Regarding a 35mm, I'd wait for the new Zeiss M-mount lenses, the first group of which are supposed to be out soon - including the 35/2, which may be the jerwel of the group. Zeiss claims that the new Biogon design is better than the 35/2 Planar from the G series. The Zeiss-G 35/2 Planar is considered the equal of the Leica 35/2 Aspherical, which is the latest version, so an improved new Zeiss 35 could be better than both. Projected prices suggest that it will be close to your $900 target. We need to see what it finally comes in at. Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Yea, I'd consider a 40mm also. I could wait for the Zeiss offering, but it will be some time after that until the results are sorted through, and we start getting some decent reliable feedback. Not sure I could wait that long :)
 
Stephen,
can you stretch to a 35 Summicron? dunno what they go for over there, here they are just too bloody expensive, but i managed to borrow one and put a roll thru with it recently. Just lovely.
But......that was the latest aspherical version. Older versions of the 35 'cron are not quite as good (mind you we're comparing superlatives here).
Nearly as good is the CV Ultron 35/1.7. It's reckoned to be as good as the earlier 35 'crons, looking at some results I think I'd agree. I have the 35 Ultron. Used to have the 35/2.5, was looking for a bit more speed, got a bit better shots as well. Only prob is that it's quite a bit heavier and bulkier than the 35/2.5 or even the 'cron.
And the Summicron does have a beautiful feel to it.

Any others I confess to having no experience with, although the Canon lenses are supposed to be lovely things......

cheers....

tim
 
BTW, Stephen, ACC sells the Leica 35/2 for $1050 + shipping - way less than what it sells for anywhere else. That's above your limit, but not a lot. At that price, if you tried it out for a month & didn't like it, I suspect you could sell it on ebay & recover your investment or even make money. Cheers.
 
don't forget the canon 35/2 in ltm.
i have not used one but i like what i read about them.

and then if you don't like it you can sell it to me.
i will have to get one eventually as it seems i'm going for every focal length in the canon ltm inventory.

joe
 
among the 40mm choices, the Summicron does have a great reputation, and the newer CLE Rokkor is said to be even better. These are both surprisingly economical choices.

Then there's the coming-soon Voigtlander 1.4/40mm Ultron which appears to be very compact for its speed, smaller than the 1.7/35 Ultron I think.

Pre-asph 35mm Summicrons have a reputation for character that should be considered...
 
Unless you are unhappy with the 35 f2.5, I would go for that 40mm F1.4 to have a fast lens in the line-up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom