Bingley
Veteran
It sounds like you’re looking at both SLR and rangefinder lenses. For a rangefinder camera, the Leitz Summaron 35mm f3.5 is very, very small (not quite as small as the Elmar 35, but still tiny), is optically excellent, and the LTM version is not outrageously expensive.
Another strong recommendation is the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5, in either the original, LTM pancake, or M mount pancake versions. I currently use the LTM pancake, and it is very small, pretty lightweight, yet very well constructed. It also focuses down to .9 meters, and is very flare resistant. There’s a thread devoted to this lens in the Voigtlander Lenses forum here on RFF; a number of contributors to that thread compared the Skopar 35 favorably to the Summicron 35. It doesn’t get a lot of attention these days, so you might be able to find a copy for a reasonable price.
Another strong recommendation is the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5, in either the original, LTM pancake, or M mount pancake versions. I currently use the LTM pancake, and it is very small, pretty lightweight, yet very well constructed. It also focuses down to .9 meters, and is very flare resistant. There’s a thread devoted to this lens in the Voigtlander Lenses forum here on RFF; a number of contributors to that thread compared the Skopar 35 favorably to the Summicron 35. It doesn’t get a lot of attention these days, so you might be able to find a copy for a reasonable price.
As Phil stated, you've got the camera already, so try the various 35mm-ish options in K mount. When you say the 3.5 is 'blurry' I'm assuming you mean 'soft wide open.'
There are many options in K mount for faster lenses that have good resolution at max aperture.
agentlossing
Well-known
I don't think you can get a whole lot smaller and lighter than my LTM 35/2.5 Color Skopar.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'd say buy a Minox 35GT-E ... the whole camera with 35mm f/2.8 lens is smaller than and weighs less than most any 35mm SLR lens and it is a superb performer ... except that it is an aperture priority AE only camera. Manual focus and manual wind, however. A great little camera/lens.
For any M-mount camera, the very best, fast, small, light 35mm lens I've ever used (and finally found to buy about 8 years ago) is my 1972 Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4. At f/1.4 and f/2, it nets a rendering that has a very pretty "glow", like you're using a weak Zeiss Softar filter, and at f/4 and smaller apertures it goes razor sharp. It's an original Walter Mandler design. I use it on both a Leica M4-2 for FF film capture as a wide, and on my Leica CL digital (APS-C format) as a normal lens. My most used lens on both those cameras.
SLR lenses tend to be a lot bulkier. My Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S was a fine performer, my Summicron-R 35mm f/2 was another fine performer. Both had lovely character and superb sharpness depending upon f/stop, not as extreme as the Mandler lens but similar.
A slightly longer focal length, and a little longer than the Mandler lens (but lighter), another stunning performer is the LTM mount Pentax SMC 43mm f/1.9 Special. It's a bit of a rarity, but is truly a superb piece. I use it on the CL quite a lot too.
G
Also available in K mount, for much less $, and focuses closer, too. The 31mm Limited that Phil mentioned above is also superb and wider, closer to the desired 35mm, but more expensive than the 43mm.
bluesun267
Well-known
If you're a bit flexible on the focal length (and want to stick with SLRs) you could do a lot worse than a Nikon FM, FM2 (or FE/FE2) and the Voigltander Ultron 40mm F2. Body of the FM/FE series is mid-sized and ergonomically great, and the lens is sharp, small, fast enough, and focuses really close.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
"The 40 is not of my taste so i'm not considering anything else than 35mm"
Danny D
Member
I think the Nikkor-O 35/2 is a lovely lens, you can shave a few grams off by getting a 2.8 or 3.5 but they don't render as nicely imo.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It's too bad the 45mm f/2.8 P lens based on the Tessar design isn't a 35mm f/2.8 instead! It would really solve the O.P.'s problem. Yeah, I know, at 35mm it couldn't be a Tessar. It would have to be bigger with more elements. Still, it seems strange that with all the lenses Nikon has made, there isn't a really compact 35/2.8, or even a 35/3.5. None that I know of, anyhow. Maybe with aspherical elements it could be done.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Nikon never seemed to chase compact size, except perhaps for the budget E series lenses.
Compact can compromise things. Actually when it comes to optics, every single design decision is a compromise in some form or another. 
Some SLR wides are tiny but as a result, vignette or distort. If you’re ok with that no worries.
35/2.8 are not big money makers, either, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put lots of engineering into them; that’s reserved for the speedy ones.
Some SLR wides are tiny but as a result, vignette or distort. If you’re ok with that no worries.
35/2.8 are not big money makers, either, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put lots of engineering into them; that’s reserved for the speedy ones.
gavinlg
Veteran
I would agree with this, the f2 nikkor is much nicer in rendering.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
The 35/2 Nikkor is my most often used Nikon lens but it is definitely not small and light.
Chris
Chris
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
It was mine too....& it never even crossed my mind.
steveyork
Well-known
It's hard to beat a rangefinder and 35mm lens for small and light. For me, in practice, this is the focal length that maximizes the advantages of a rangefinder over an SLR. And the best rangefinder for a 35mm lens, in my experience, is an older 0.72 Leica (e.g., M2, M4) b4 they added the 28mm frame line. The choice of M mount lens is immense -- Summicron, Voigtlander, Zeiss ZM. They all make great lenses at various price points. Other rangefinder options out there of course, but they're not as convenient in my experience, and lack the breadth of M mount lens availability.
Small and light for an SLR is more limited. Lots of great SLR's out there too, but they're just so heavy. But I would consider a plain prismed F or F2 + Nikkor 35/2, possible an FM2 if you don't wear glasses. These combinations would come in probably at the 850-975 gram mark. Or if you want real small, less weight maybe an Olympus OM1, ect or Pentax MX, though I don't know much about Olympus or Pentax. Figure they would be about 200 grams less weight; close to the same weight as a rangefinder.
Lots of good options, with prices ranging from nominal to very expensive. Good luck with your choice.
Small and light for an SLR is more limited. Lots of great SLR's out there too, but they're just so heavy. But I would consider a plain prismed F or F2 + Nikkor 35/2, possible an FM2 if you don't wear glasses. These combinations would come in probably at the 850-975 gram mark. Or if you want real small, less weight maybe an Olympus OM1, ect or Pentax MX, though I don't know much about Olympus or Pentax. Figure they would be about 200 grams less weight; close to the same weight as a rangefinder.
Lots of good options, with prices ranging from nominal to very expensive. Good luck with your choice.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited was indeed my favorite Pentax lens when I had Pentax digital SLRs and is a little less costly than the LTM version of the same optics, never mind far more available. But I found the lens to be rather less appealing when adapted to mirrorless bodies due to the very light and loose feeling focusing ring, designed to be driven primarily by the screwdriver-drive for AF in the Pentax SLR bodies. Fitted with the mount adapter necessary for mirrorless or RF use, it is a bit bulky. Of course, it would be scale focus only on an RF camera.
But certainly worth considering. It's a wonderful performer with beautiful bokeh and terrific sharpness when stopped down just a tiny bit, again similar to the Mandler 'Lux 35.
G
Pioneer
Veteran
As mentioned there are tons of good options for compact high quality lenses in rangefinder land, but since you are wanting something for an SLR, and further you just happen to have an MX, I would immediately step out and pick up an SMC Pentax M 35mm/2. The Pentax 35/3.5 lens is better at all apertures but since this will be your only lens, the M 35/2 is no slouch either and it isn't much larger. I only use mine wide open when I am shooting in very low light so if there are any problems wide open you won't see them.
I am currently shooting a One Camera On Lens project right now and I choose the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35/2.5 in M mount for my Leica. Very compact and very good image quality from f/2.5 on up to f/11. After that you get a bit of diffraction but it is still a mighty good image.
But if I was interested in working with a Pentax auto-focus SLR camera I would pick the Pentax 31mm Limited without any hesitation. It is the best I have ever worked with and gives you just a tad wider image than a 35. Beautiful images. But I'm not too sure I would call that lens compact.
Of course if you were to consider Minolta instead it is very, very hard to beat the MD W-Rokkor-X 35mm f/1.8. Excellent quality all the way through the aperture range. The only fault I have ever been able to find with mine is that it is susceptible to flare without a hood.
Lots of choices and most of them good in this focal range. Good luck choosing.
I am currently shooting a One Camera On Lens project right now and I choose the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35/2.5 in M mount for my Leica. Very compact and very good image quality from f/2.5 on up to f/11. After that you get a bit of diffraction but it is still a mighty good image.
But if I was interested in working with a Pentax auto-focus SLR camera I would pick the Pentax 31mm Limited without any hesitation. It is the best I have ever worked with and gives you just a tad wider image than a 35. Beautiful images. But I'm not too sure I would call that lens compact.
Of course if you were to consider Minolta instead it is very, very hard to beat the MD W-Rokkor-X 35mm f/1.8. Excellent quality all the way through the aperture range. The only fault I have ever been able to find with mine is that it is susceptible to flare without a hood.
Lots of choices and most of them good in this focal range. Good luck choosing.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Just noticed "but since im going to invest to something new" and wondered if there are any new film bodies to fit them...
That includes SLR's and RF's.
Just a minor 2d worth.
Regards, David
That includes SLR's and RF's.
Just a minor 2d worth.
Regards, David
Pioneer
Veteran
My only "New" lens, if that is what is being referred to instead of "Used but New to me" is my SMC Pentax DA 35/2.4. This is a digital lens intended for use on an APS-C sensor but it does cover 24x36 on film as well. However, to use it you would need a Pentax film camera that allows electronic aperture control of the lens as there is no aperture ring.
This is actually a very good 35mm on my Pentax PZ-1p but I have only used it on film just a few times. On film I prefer the previously mentioned 31mm Limited. Most of its short life in my hands it has been a fixture on my Pentax K10D.
However, it is very compact and light with great image quality so it would certainly be a contender on the right Pentax film body. Not to mention that the price is certainly very attractive.
kram
Well-known
Leica Cl with the Zeiss ZM 35mm f2.8. The CL can be had for ~1/3 M6 which are now silly money.