gzisis69
Established
Hello to the Forum,
I want to ask something that bothers me in the last time. Im a casual photographer who sold his digital equipment two months ago. I decided to go to film again and im looking to find the perfekt system for me. Im a one camera one lens guy. The camera must be completely manual without automations except the lightmeter that is wanted. The lens is the real "problem". I like 35mm so i want to go with that. The 50 is nice but makes the job difficult sometimes and the 28 is too wide for me to exclude things. The 40 is not of my taste so im not considering anything else than 35mm. I photograph mostly street, still life, candid and portraiture and rarely( really rare) nature. I want a lens that is small, weights not much(500gr is really too much to carry around and make a camera unbalanced) and has the best possible picture quality. I can accept a lens from f2.8 as a compromise to have all the other parameters i want. I have looked at some options like leica r 35 2/2.8, contax 35 2.8 etc but since im going to invest to something new i wanted to ask, which is the best lens for slr shooting at 35mm, with small size and weight but exceptional rendering and image quality ? Price is not a matter as long as it fullfills my needs. Thanx for the time
I want to ask something that bothers me in the last time. Im a casual photographer who sold his digital equipment two months ago. I decided to go to film again and im looking to find the perfekt system for me. Im a one camera one lens guy. The camera must be completely manual without automations except the lightmeter that is wanted. The lens is the real "problem". I like 35mm so i want to go with that. The 50 is nice but makes the job difficult sometimes and the 28 is too wide for me to exclude things. The 40 is not of my taste so im not considering anything else than 35mm. I photograph mostly street, still life, candid and portraiture and rarely( really rare) nature. I want a lens that is small, weights not much(500gr is really too much to carry around and make a camera unbalanced) and has the best possible picture quality. I can accept a lens from f2.8 as a compromise to have all the other parameters i want. I have looked at some options like leica r 35 2/2.8, contax 35 2.8 etc but since im going to invest to something new i wanted to ask, which is the best lens for slr shooting at 35mm, with small size and weight but exceptional rendering and image quality ? Price is not a matter as long as it fullfills my needs. Thanx for the time
From personal experience I can attest that my 35mm Super Takumar f/3.5 is tiny but a great performer. I'd expect a SMC version to be at least as good.
I prefer to use mine on a Yashica TL Electro X SLR because it has all the features I want in a body. If the total form factor of camera/lens is important, pairing one up to a Pentax ME or ME Super with Pentax K—> M42 adapter (or even a native K mount version, if such a thing exists, I don't know, offhand) will give you a very compact SLR body with a teeny, tiny, sharp 35mm. As a bonus the 35mm f/3.5 is still cheap. No—it's not a f/2.8 lens—but only about a half a stop slower. This is a part of the reason the lens is so petite.
I prefer to use mine on a Yashica TL Electro X SLR because it has all the features I want in a body. If the total form factor of camera/lens is important, pairing one up to a Pentax ME or ME Super with Pentax K—> M42 adapter (or even a native K mount version, if such a thing exists, I don't know, offhand) will give you a very compact SLR body with a teeny, tiny, sharp 35mm. As a bonus the 35mm f/3.5 is still cheap. No—it's not a f/2.8 lens—but only about a half a stop slower. This is a part of the reason the lens is so petite.
gzisis69
Established
I have the 35 smc 3.5 on a pentax mx and its a very nice lens if you stop it down at f8 or 5,6. I really like the form factor of the pentaxes but i cant alway photograph with sunlight i nees some fotos with 3.5 too and the lens is very blurry at 3.5. Otherwise id say one of the best combos i have used..
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Just get a Nikon FM/FM2 and Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 AI. Early version of the AI lens has minimal distortion, later version has better sharpness but increased distortion. Pick your poison.
If you want a 35mm SLR lens with truly excellent image quality, you are going to have to get a big lens. Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2 and f/1.4 are examples of great image quality but large size. This is why many of us prefer rangefinders for the 35mm focal length, there are dozens of great compact 35mm lenses to choose from.
Voigtlander made great 40mm and 28mm pancake lenses for SLRs, if you decide to have a more open mind. They are very small and have excellent image quality. Unfortunately I don't know of any 35mm lenses this small.
If you want a 35mm SLR lens with truly excellent image quality, you are going to have to get a big lens. Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2 and f/1.4 are examples of great image quality but large size. This is why many of us prefer rangefinders for the 35mm focal length, there are dozens of great compact 35mm lenses to choose from.
Voigtlander made great 40mm and 28mm pancake lenses for SLRs, if you decide to have a more open mind. They are very small and have excellent image quality. Unfortunately I don't know of any 35mm lenses this small.
gzisis69
Established
I will google the nikon 35 f 2.8 to see som pics too cause i dont know how it renders. If i was to go for rangefinder that would be the zeiss 35 2.8 which is in my opinion a very good lens. The problem is the box to hold it costs 1500 at least( leica m6)
gavinlg
Veteran
If money were of no object, I'd go for a Leica R body and any of the R 35mm summicron f2's. IMO f2.8 is too slow for a 35mm lens and limits potential usage (I've had several f2.8's - zuiko, nikkor, fujinon, canon etc).
I'm fairly sure the summicron is the best quality to size compromise. The zeiss ZF 35mm f2 distagon is probably the best outright image quality (I owned one for a while) but is huge, heavy, and has a stiff and slow focussing ring. The nikkor 35mm f2 in any manual focus variant is probably the next best compromise after the summicron, and is probably one of my favorite lenses.
If you don't mind using a 40mm, the ultron f2 voigtlander is probably better value than all of the above, and smaller.
I'm fairly sure the summicron is the best quality to size compromise. The zeiss ZF 35mm f2 distagon is probably the best outright image quality (I owned one for a while) but is huge, heavy, and has a stiff and slow focussing ring. The nikkor 35mm f2 in any manual focus variant is probably the next best compromise after the summicron, and is probably one of my favorite lenses.
If you don't mind using a 40mm, the ultron f2 voigtlander is probably better value than all of the above, and smaller.
GLL
Member
I always enjoy these threads - great to see what people think and how far they’ll stretch the request of the interlocutor!
A few ideas to consider — the OM system could be a great fit for you. The 35mm f2 zuiko is supposed to be very sharp and compact, the 35mm 2.8 is no sharper but even smaller.
The Zeiss 35mm 2.8 in Contax/Yashica is also an excellent lens, but you may have to compromise on your body preferences, I’m not sure how many are fully manual and the full kit may approach an m mount rangefinder.
Rangefinder 35mm lenses have a significant design advantage over their SLR equivalents and can be made smaller, sharper and with less distortion. A cheaper option might be a Bessa R or Canon rangefinder with a shoe mount light meter — both the voigltander ultron 1.7 and colour skopar 2.5 are as good or better than their SLR competitors and both are much smaller.
M mount bodies are more expensive - you can get an R2 (light meter) for under $1000 or an M2 (no light meter) for a few hundred more. But you can also get a truly excellent lens — 35mm 1.4 nokton classic is tiny, sharp from f2 and with as much speed as you need and plenty of character. The new ultron asph is very sharp, also tiny and with much less distortion. These are much cheaper than Leica lenses and as good or better.
A few ideas to consider — the OM system could be a great fit for you. The 35mm f2 zuiko is supposed to be very sharp and compact, the 35mm 2.8 is no sharper but even smaller.
The Zeiss 35mm 2.8 in Contax/Yashica is also an excellent lens, but you may have to compromise on your body preferences, I’m not sure how many are fully manual and the full kit may approach an m mount rangefinder.
Rangefinder 35mm lenses have a significant design advantage over their SLR equivalents and can be made smaller, sharper and with less distortion. A cheaper option might be a Bessa R or Canon rangefinder with a shoe mount light meter — both the voigltander ultron 1.7 and colour skopar 2.5 are as good or better than their SLR competitors and both are much smaller.
M mount bodies are more expensive - you can get an R2 (light meter) for under $1000 or an M2 (no light meter) for a few hundred more. But you can also get a truly excellent lens — 35mm 1.4 nokton classic is tiny, sharp from f2 and with as much speed as you need and plenty of character. The new ultron asph is very sharp, also tiny and with much less distortion. These are much cheaper than Leica lenses and as good or better.
KenR
Well-known
GLL beat me to recommending the Color Skopar 2.5. This is a tiny lens and even smaller in the P version. The Nocton 1.4 in either 35mm or 40mm focal lengths are not quite as small, but still quite modestly sized by today’s standard. A Bessa R body with an accessory meter, an R2, R3 or R4 with their integral meters will still set you back a lot less than a Leica.
newst
Well-known
One possibility is a Bessa-R rangefinder with a Canon 1.8/35 lens.
I have a few 35/2.8s, the Pentax SMC-M is quite small, perhaps the smallest SLR 35/2.8 available, and a very good performer/renderer at 176 grams.
Nikon 35/2.8 AI and Yashica 35/2.8 (C/Y mount) are bigger/heavier but also quite good, the Nikkors are plentiful and inexpensive and weighs 238 grams; Yashica is 225g.
I used to have the Contax Zeiss 35/2.8 and the Yashica renders very similarly for a lot less $ (there is a Contax for sale in the classifieds at the moment.)
I don't have an Olympus OM 35/2.8 but it's light/tiny (for reference the 28/2.8 OM lens is 169 grams.)
Rangefinder 35s will be smaller/lighter and usually less distortion, although usually a lot more money than manual focus SLR glass. And they won't focus nearly as close; all of the above SLR lenses focus to 0.3m.
Nikon 35/2.8 AI and Yashica 35/2.8 (C/Y mount) are bigger/heavier but also quite good, the Nikkors are plentiful and inexpensive and weighs 238 grams; Yashica is 225g.
I used to have the Contax Zeiss 35/2.8 and the Yashica renders very similarly for a lot less $ (there is a Contax for sale in the classifieds at the moment.)
I don't have an Olympus OM 35/2.8 but it's light/tiny (for reference the 28/2.8 OM lens is 169 grams.)
Rangefinder 35s will be smaller/lighter and usually less distortion, although usually a lot more money than manual focus SLR glass. And they won't focus nearly as close; all of the above SLR lenses focus to 0.3m.
bluesun267
Well-known
I don't have a lot of experience with the 35mm focal length in SLR land but I do have a Version 3 35/2.8 Nikkor en route atm.
Apparently there are 4 versions of the Nikkor 35mm f2.8 optic:
V1: 1959-62, 7 element, rare and supposedly terrible
V2: 1962-74, 7 element, common and quite good
V3: 1974-79, 6 element, supposed to be the best
V4: 1979-89, 5 element, as sharp as v3 but more distortion
Depending what Nikon body you have will inform your decision as much as anything (V1-V2 are Non-AI, unless modified, V3 can be found both ways and V4 is AI/AI-S).
I had V2 35/2.8 early on in my photo journey (on a Nikkormat) and thought it was wonderful in B/W.
Later I had an AI version 35mm F2 and found it sharp but really boring in B/W, though most love this lens (it's quite large though).
For a brief period, when I had a working Rolleiflex SL35, the Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8 beat every 35 lens I've ever had the chance to use--dare I say it was sharper than the Leica-M Summicron 'Bokeh King'. But I wouldn't suggest getting into the Rollei QBM system unless you are a glutton for punishment!
Apparently there are 4 versions of the Nikkor 35mm f2.8 optic:
V1: 1959-62, 7 element, rare and supposedly terrible
V2: 1962-74, 7 element, common and quite good
V3: 1974-79, 6 element, supposed to be the best
V4: 1979-89, 5 element, as sharp as v3 but more distortion
Depending what Nikon body you have will inform your decision as much as anything (V1-V2 are Non-AI, unless modified, V3 can be found both ways and V4 is AI/AI-S).
I had V2 35/2.8 early on in my photo journey (on a Nikkormat) and thought it was wonderful in B/W.
Later I had an AI version 35mm F2 and found it sharp but really boring in B/W, though most love this lens (it's quite large though).
For a brief period, when I had a working Rolleiflex SL35, the Zeiss Distagon 35/2.8 beat every 35 lens I've ever had the chance to use--dare I say it was sharper than the Leica-M Summicron 'Bokeh King'. But I wouldn't suggest getting into the Rollei QBM system unless you are a glutton for punishment!
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
"which is the best lens for SLR shooting at 35mm, with small size and weight but exceptional rendering and image quality "
My immediate answer would have been a Leica M with any one of a number of 35mm lenses, but since you're asking about SLRs......my suggestion would be to find the camera that you like best in terms of size, weight & handling. As with rangefinders there are any number of 35mm that will suit you....depending on specific characteristics you choose. As mentioned the Pentax 35mm 3.5, the Nikkor 35mm 2.8, the Zuiko 35mm. Will you be working in B/W or colour? The large aperture 35mms also have their special image characteristics... With your stated budget...the 2nd hand camera/lens world is your oyster!
& what Erik is about to say
My immediate answer would have been a Leica M with any one of a number of 35mm lenses, but since you're asking about SLRs......my suggestion would be to find the camera that you like best in terms of size, weight & handling. As with rangefinders there are any number of 35mm that will suit you....depending on specific characteristics you choose. As mentioned the Pentax 35mm 3.5, the Nikkor 35mm 2.8, the Zuiko 35mm. Will you be working in B/W or colour? The large aperture 35mms also have their special image characteristics... With your stated budget...the 2nd hand camera/lens world is your oyster!
& what Erik is about to say
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The earliest Leitz Elmar 35mm f/3.5 (uncoated/nickel) is one of the smallest and best 35mm lenses there is.
gelatine silver print (elmar 35mm f3.5) leica m2
Erik.
gelatine silver print (elmar 35mm f3.5) leica m2
Erik.
gzisis69
Established
Thank you all for the answers. Ill be using the lens almost exclusively for b&w. Is the nikon 35 2.8 any better as the smc Pentax 35 3.5 at 5.6-3.5 Apertures ? I like the Elmar 35 3.5 rendering a lot but idk if i can find a good copy and also the 0,7cm close focus ( or more?) bothers me a bit.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
The Pentax 35/3.5 lenses in both Takumar M42 and SMC Pentax K bayonet mounts are excellent.
I have owned several copies of both. All were quite sharp at all apertures.
Any slower wide angle lens will be more difficult to focus on an SLR than a fast fifty.
Chris
I have owned several copies of both. All were quite sharp at all apertures.
Any slower wide angle lens will be more difficult to focus on an SLR than a fast fifty.
Chris
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
GZ, 0.7m is pretty much standard for rangefinder focusing. Will you be printing mural size images?....otherwise you're splitting hairs between the Nikon & Pentax. At current prices, you might like to buy both (along with bodies) and see which you prefer.
AlexBG
Well-known
Be careful about finding 'the' lens and then getting a body to accompany it. I tried to love my old Nikon FA but as a left eye shooter the winder kept poking into my right eye. Everything else about it was perfect but that one flaw made me sell it. Back to OM2n for me, tiny body, big viewfinder, I shoot aperture priority so the position of the shutter speed selector has never bothered me.
Can't go too wrong with a Leica R4 and summicron though!
Can't go too wrong with a Leica R4 and summicron though!
zuiko85
Veteran
First you must decide whether you will use a RF or SLR camera. That choice will then determine what is available in that mount. Depending on your own preferences as many as 30 or 40 reasonably available lenses may fill your needs. Many of those choices will probably be available only as used lenses, some are available as new. If the angle of view is so important to you that only a 35mm will do then SLR viewing will provide a more accurate indication of what will be recorded on film. The frame lines in a RF camera are generally not as precise.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Just get all of the ~35mm lenses available in K mount and see for yourself. I mean, if cost is not a factor. You already have an MX, one of the smallest and lightest SLRs ever made. Test them all for yourself instead of hearing many differing opinions from many different people, all with a different eye, different needs, different strength and stamina, different height, different preferred shooting time, etc.
You can start at the uncommon 30mm f/2.8, then go up and make sure to include the 31mm f/1.8 limited. After that, there are quite a few 35mm lenses you can hang off the K mount. Make sure to include Vivitar and Komura.
One thing not mentioned, if you choose to go down the rangefinder road, is the Jupiter-12. Stick it on almost any M39 or M mount rangefinder and have fun with one of the very best optics ever made at a very low price. The cheapest one I ever got was $12 and passed it on to a colleague hanging off a Nikon S2. The most expensive one I bought is my current J-12 which is early production and a stellar shooter. Then, since cost is not a factor, you can get that M6.
Phil Forrest
You can start at the uncommon 30mm f/2.8, then go up and make sure to include the 31mm f/1.8 limited. After that, there are quite a few 35mm lenses you can hang off the K mount. Make sure to include Vivitar and Komura.
One thing not mentioned, if you choose to go down the rangefinder road, is the Jupiter-12. Stick it on almost any M39 or M mount rangefinder and have fun with one of the very best optics ever made at a very low price. The cheapest one I ever got was $12 and passed it on to a colleague hanging off a Nikon S2. The most expensive one I bought is my current J-12 which is early production and a stellar shooter. Then, since cost is not a factor, you can get that M6.
Phil Forrest
presspass
filmshooter
As Erik said, the 35 uncoated Elmar is superb for black and white. I don’t recall the minimum focus, but it’s one meter for many pre war ltm lenses. The depth of field on a 35 will give you closer than that at a moderate f stop, but none of that matters if you want an SLR. And once you go down the rabbit hole of ltm cameras or lenses, your ‘one camera one lens’ vow will be sorely tested.