Summaron or Canon 35mm lens

[davethesnapper]

Hi All

I was looking for some advice as which 35mm lens to buy for my 111F.

The Canon 35mm f2 or the Leica Summaron f3.5 sell for roughly the same amount of money does anyone have any opinions on which would be the better buy. If anyone has both I'd love to hear from you. The max aperture is not a deal breaker for me although its always better to have the faster aperture so long as its usable.

Thanks Dave

 

[xayraa33]

I own and use both...you cannot go wrong with either lens...but for the same price I would go for the Canon 35mm f2 lens....still a nice compact design on the IIIf and that f2 at full bore is very good quality and modern rendering and very useful for available light shooting.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I agree with Xayraa33. I also have both lenses. They're equally sharp at small apertures (f8 and below), but the Canon is better away from the center at f35, 4, and 5.6 and it also has f2 and 2.8 that the Leica does not have at all. The Canon is more ergonomic, too. The aperture is a pain to change on the Summaron because the whole lens rotates when you focus and changing aperture changes the focus.

 

[newst]

Both lenses will capture excellent, sharp images. The Summaron will render a more classical, lower contrast image while the Cannon will produce a more modern, higher contrast image.

I personally prefer the Summaron over the Canon, simply because I can get modern performance from modern, less expensive, lenses.

I am currently using, primarily, two 35mm lenses, an Elmar 3.5/35 and a Canon 1.8/35.

Choose based on your personal preferences.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If size is not important, fog free Ultron 35 1.7 is better lens. IMO. Sharp wide open on film.
If you are after color film, Color Skopar 35 2.5 LTM is totally awesome lens.
Even on BW by now it is better lens than overpriced, old lenses you are asking about.
IMO.

 

[agentlossing]

I second the Color Skopar. It's well worth it.

 

[brusby]

Lenses that are sharp from wide open can be very nice. I have and regularly use a bunch of them. But you are limited to a certain look.

OTOH, lenses that are a bit soft wide open and which sharpen up when stopped down have the advantage of giving a wider range of looks and feel, particularly for portraits. In the right hands aberrations that can be adjusted on the fly can be a feature and not necessarily a bug.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I had the Canon 35/2: very sharp, mine needed haze cleaned out of the surface behind the aperture. Swirly Bokeh. Some cannot be cleaned- so look for a clean one, have an inspection period. I had the Summaron 35/2.8, was very good.

In the end- I preferred the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5, more contrast than the Summaron.

 

[davethesnapper]

Thanks for the info guys it give plenty to think about. I have looked at the Voigtlanders the 35mmf2.5 in particular. I think I wouldn't mind something with a slightly vintage look as I have plenty of modern lenses if I want sharp and clinical. I suspect like a lot of folks I'll end up with a few different ones before I settle on a favourite. I did think one of the advantages of the screw system was the ability for one camera to have a split personality as far as the way you could render scenes just by changing from old to new glass. D