The Ultimate Shootout

[noisycheese]

Any of the three lenses in question will do a good job and make nice photographs. If I could have my pick of the litter, I would probably pick the 35 Summicron ASPH.

 

[Pioneer]

Owned them all, liked them all, sold them all.

I now have two more that are not on that list and I like them far better though that has nothing to do with their image quality. They all work quite well in that arena and I have no complaints.

 

[Texsport]

I also prefer the Canon FD 35/2 concave thorium for color and sharpness.

Texsport

 

[traveler_101]

Owned them all, liked them all, sold them all.

I now have two more that are not on that list and I like them far better though that has nothing to do with their image quality. They all work quite well in that arena and I have no complaints.

Veni, vidi, vici - what Pioneer conquered was the expectations of prestige attached to specific lenses.

There are those that must have Leica; not bad in my view if you want a specific look or historical legacy, matching a camera with a period lens. I almost always shoot my IIIf with the 5cm Elmar f/3.5.

 

[goamules]

If best means "anticeptic, cell-phone flat field, biting contrast, personality-less color rendition" I could tell you. But you wouln't want to hear it.

I shoot old lenses. If I wanted "best" or "perfect" images I'd throw away all my 35mm cameras and start shooting cell phones. Or an old Pentax K1000 or OM1 with a kit lens.

 

[Texsport]

If best means "anticeptic, cell-phone flat field, biting contrast, personality-less color rendition" I could tell you. But you wouln't want to hear it.

I shoot old lenses. If I wanted "best" or "perfect" images I'd throw away all my 35mm cameras and start shooting cell phones. Or an old Pentax K1000 or OM1 with a kit lens.

Agreed, but my move toward perfection would, and frequently is, medium format - likely with a Mamiya 7II.

Texsport