MrFujicaman
Well-known
Small and light....Try a Vivitar XC series camera (M42 mount) and a SMC Takumar 35mm f3.5.
Recent sales of the 43mm for Leica, close to $1000; I got my K mount for $300 a couple of months ago from a local camera store, as new with the hood and caps.
I find the manual focus feel to be excellent, and rendering similar to the Zeiss Planar 45/2 Contax G. Fantastic optic!
But it's not a 35, for that, I'd go with the tiny 35/2.8 SMC-M.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
It was just a general comment, not aimed at you or anyone else when I realised that film cameras are not available new these days and so a good secondhand one will have to be found for the new lens.
Regards, David
gzisis69
Established
Thanx for the answers, they really help a lot. The leica cl with a zeiss 35 2.8 would be a grear combination but they dont have 35mm framlines.. can one use that without them ?
I am thinking of the nikon f2 with the 35 f2 but this lens is not my favorite from what i have seen in fotos.
I am thinking of the nikon f2 with the 35 f2 but this lens is not my favorite from what i have seen in fotos.
kram
Well-known
Nikon F2 with a Zeiss 35mm ZF F2. Which is a combo I use.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's been that way for a while on the LTM lens ... There were only about 2200 of them made, about 50/50 black vs silver, and it seems most of them were used infrequently, kept in their box with viewfinder and cases. I got lucky and found a "user" that was in lovely condition but just the lens with caps for $560.
The FA43 Limited was much pricier than $300 used in the past, although never as high as the LTM Special. At $300, it's quite the bargain! The last one of them I owned was about triple that new, sold for about double that IIRC once used. Interesting.. !
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't know why the F2 with 35/2 would not be a favorite, other than that it's not generally the best at being "small and light". I used an F, F2, F3, FM, FM2, and FE2 with the Nikkor 35/2 AI-S for years and years ... about 25 overall ... and never found much to complain about with it. It's a perfectly fine performer.
G
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
I agree with you Godfrey. Apart from a poor Ken Rockwell review, the Nikkor 35mm f2 has been in production from circa 1965. I couldn't imagine the possible number of National Geographic images, or other pro images that have been made with it in those 50+ years.. Pretty much 'the' standard 35mm if you were using a Nikon. It is a 'perfectly fine performer' for sure!
Sure, just use the outside of the 40mm lines which are always visible.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
gelatine silver print (summilux 35mm steel rim) leica m5
Erik.
Erik.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I have a 35mm f/2.0 AI-S and I think it might be the sharpest lens I own. It does, however, have some issues with flare/ghosts:
000097470022 by Aaron Alfano, on FlickrI'm choosing to consider it a feature and not a bug.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Noctilux, Summilux, Nikkor, name + ASPH, (add your favourite lens make)....each one has its unique set of characteristics......ultimately we decide which compromises we choose to live and work with.
thawkins
Well-known
A Canon QL17 is an excellent small camera. An excellent 40mmF1.7 fixed lens’s and built in meter. If you are using a camera with an “M” mount the Soviet Jupiter J12 is often a great lens and not terribly expensive.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Either this thread is unnervingly like (at least) one other thread, or I am having a really sick case of deja vu.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Sonnar2
Well-known
35mm is the domain of rangefinder, not SLR. My vote for the Bessa R2 (M-mount) with the current 35/2 Classic Ultron. A very sharp lens. Or, if you don't need it that sharp, a Bessa R (Leica Screw Mount) with the Konica UC-Hexanon 35/2. Very mild wide open and sharp enough to get landscapes at f/8.
Archiver
Veteran
To quote the late Robin Williams: "Vuja day. I don't think I've ever been here before."
Did I read upthread that the OP has a Pentax MX? That's a great little camera, and can use any of the K mount M, A and M42 screwmount lenses with an adapter.
Pentax themselves still have a M42 to K mount adapter which is intended to be more or less permanently affixed to the lens mount, and you can attach and detach screwmount lenses at will.
I've been doing some research about fast SLR 35s and the problem is that fast lenses tend to be fairly large and heavy. There's a middle period where the once all metal lenses became part metal and plastic, reducing their weight, but even later lenses like Zeiss became heavier again, like the Zeiss classics. By the way, you can get Zeiss classics in Pentax K mount, although they cost a bit and are heavy.
The SMC Pentax M 35mm f2.8 is extremely small, one of the smallest SLR 35s. It would make your MX pocketable in a jacket. The 35mm f2 is larger but still pretty small and light. Pentax lenses tend to be smaller compared with their contemporaries.
I'm tossing up whether to get a Summicron R 35, Contax 35 f2.8, or a Zeiss classic 35mm f1.4. The latter will be large and heavy, but is the only one with f1.4, which I really enjoy with my ZM Distagon 35. A good Summicron 35 seems to be a nice balance between weight and aperture, but costs about double or more of the Contax 35 f2.8. A Minolta 35mm f2 or f1.8 (HH variant) looks pretty good and costs less than any of them.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Yes Phil, I'm sick of this endemic too!
It's interesting because it almost looks like an assessment.
First, there is a set of criteria which need to be met.
Camera A (CA) and lens A (LA) already exist. OP wants a different lens to replace LA with Ln, but it needs to rigidly adhere to criteria X and loosely fit criteria Y. The possibility of replacing CA requires that Camera B (CB) rigidly meet the same criteria (fully manual, only light meter.) At the beginning of the thread, the possibility of attaining a rangefinder camera (M6) is not mentioned.
Then there is a call for opinions.
Then we get to the various answers.
Responses include:
CA + (Ln = X and Y)
CA + (Ln = <> X and = Y)
CA + (Ln = <> X and <> Y)
CB = (CA) + (Ln = X and Y)
CB <> (CA) + (Ln = X and Y)
CB <> (CA) + (Ln = X <> Y)
CB = M6 + (Ln = X and Y)
CB <> M6 + (Ln = X and Y)
While the fun thing that cannot be measured is the subjective quality of the 35mm lens itself. That initial question of what is the "best" small + light + 35mm lens. We all have different opinions and the OP doesn't like rendering of his already stellar SMC Takumar 35mm f/3.5. It's a lens with great character, but it doesn't suit the OP's taste, so why might any other lens which WE the respondents prefer, but the OP may not? An example is that some of us like the 35mm ASPH Summilux. Personally, I hate it; if I had one I'd sell it and fund sheet metal and exhaust work on my car, or at least fund a 35mm UC Hexanon, one of my favorite lenses. I did like the pre-ASPH 'Lux but I liked the Konica lens better than the 35 'Lux and the 35 'Cron, just my opinion. Then again, I don't prefer 35mm anymore these days, so my preference may be discounted. The thread started at one of the smallest and lightest SLRs (Pentax MX) then moved through some of the heaviest manual cameras + heavy lenses, then inexorably moved to the entropy of the rangefinder camera common denominator.
It's formulaic and a conversation we routinely revisit. I'm culpable, just as any of us, but if the OP already has an otherwise perfect camera and stellar lens, it would appear that their image quality preferences are different from others' so providing a list of compatible options without the subjective opinions makes more sense.
As for the assessment, that can be subjective too, but I have my own theories.
Phil Forrest
IOW, a typical meandering rff thread.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
IOW, a typical meandering rff thread.
I never said I wasn't long winded. Gonna get a PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) with data like this one day...
Phil Forrest