Under $300 fast 35mm options... opinions.

[rogue_designer]

So - I was an idiot and between an accident, and a botched repair attempt, I thoroughly destroyed my Ultron 35 1.7. Faced with the loss of my only fast 35 in LTM, i need to track down another.

I like the Ultron. I can get one used for 200-300. But for about the same, I could get a Canon 35/1.8 or 35/2. I am intrigued by the performance and signature of both.

Are there other options in the F2 and faster ranges that I'm overlooking? I like them sharp but "interesting" is cool too. 😀

 

[januaryman]

The Canon 35/2.0 will probably go for more than $300 unless you get lucky. The 35/1.8 is reportedly not so great wide open. The Ultron, which I like a lot is modern, and I'd like to get a "classic" look too, but there is no cheap and fast 35 lens that I know of - at least not as cheap as that... If you can get the 35/2.0 for 200-300 please let me know where!

 

[funkaoshi]

The Ultron has a pretty 'classic' look I would say. It's fairly muted in the way it renders scenes. I'm not sure shelling out for an old Canon is worth the trouble of finding one in good condition.

 

[capitalK]

This thread is relevant to my interests.

 

[rogue_designer]

The Canon 35/2.0 will probably go for more than $300 unless you get lucky...If you can get the 35/2.0 for 200-300 please let me know where!

Hmm - maybe I was being optimistic there. 😀

If I can find one at that price point - do you think it's a better performer (sharpness/signature) than the Ultron? Relative value is irrelevant, I have no intention of selling.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Personally, I like the 35/1.8. Most of this set uses it wide open, and I find it plenty sharp. I hate the infinity lock but otherwise recommend it.

a sample:

 

[kshapero]

Hmm - maybe I was being optimistic there. 😀

If I can find one at that price point - do you think it's a better performer (sharpness/signature) than the Ultron? Relative value is irrelevant, I have no intention of selling.

PhotoVillage has a CV Ultron 35/1.7 new for $319. As of yesterday.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

35/1.8 on KEH for $300

 

[rogue_designer]

Thanks for the image set MabelSound - it's quite lovely. And shows me in a few instances how the 1.8 would handle contrasty, flair inducing situations. Good to see.

I saw that one on KEH as I was shopping prices for another Ultron - that's what made be think to ask about options.

Must ponder.

 

[BillBingham2]

Shameless Plug....

Shameless Plug....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/12996/cat/2

No shipping as we can meet somewhere (other than downtown tonight!)

B2 (;->

 

[rogue_designer]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/12996/cat/2

No shipping as we can meet somewhere (other than downtown tonight!)

B2 (;->

Bill - if you can wait a week, I'll take it.

 

[januaryman]

The Ultron is a winner, for sure. If you're set on a Canon, contact jiri_e on ebay. He last offered me a 35/2.0 for $275 when I could not afford it. It eventually sold for over $400. Still, that Ultron is sweeet.

 

[kevin m]

If you like a more modern signature and could live with an f2.5 max aperture, the CV 35/2.5 is sharper than the other lenses you're considering.

 

[johne]

How about a J-12? With a shade it is surprising. See my Ohio River at night on
http://flickr.com/photos/jelrobertson

johne

 

[funkaoshi]

The 35mm f/2.5 from Cosina is sharper, but it's also way too punchy/constrasty. Some people like that look, but I found it made everything I shot look a bit too saturated.

 

[steverett]

The Canon 35/2.0 will probably go for more than $300 unless you get lucky. The 35/1.8 is reportedly not so great wide open. The Ultron, which I like a lot is modern, and I'd like to get a "classic" look too, but there is no cheap and fast 35 lens that I know of - at least not as cheap as that... If you can get the 35/2.0 for 200-300 please let me know where!

I saw one go for $290 on ebay about 2 days ago. You just have to be patiently watchful.

 

[rogue_designer]

If you like a more modern signature and could live with an f2.5 max aperture, the CV 35/2.5 is sharper than the other lenses you're considering.

I've thought about this. But I definitely prefer having at least f2 - if not faster (I shoot ALOT of twilight/evening street).

And since I'm already typically pushing TriX a stop or two, added contrast is not a bonus.

The only thing I was considering was getting this for a walkaround lens, and a faster one for available darkness/special effects. But since there isn't a 1.2 or 1.4 in LTM I've found (certainly not that I can afford), I didn't see the sense if having only 1/2 stop or so difference between lenses.

 

[kevin m]

... but it's also way too punchy/constrasty.

It looks very much like a 35 Summicron Aspherical.

 

[januaryman]

I saw one go for $290 on ebay about 2 days ago. You just have to be patiently watchful.

Patience! Who's got time for that! 😉

re: the Skopar Classic 35/2.5 - I love the very different look it has from any of my other lenses, and I'm keeping it in spite of it be too damn tiny.

I caught a very cheap Canon 35/2.8 just now from KEH and figure to use it as my "other" lens on the Leica M2. Chrome. If it's gonna sit on an old M2, it needs to be chrome. Period. (I can't help it, it's me.)

 

[Bingley]

@Rogue -- For your needs, it sounds like the Ultron is the way to go. You liked that lens anyway, and its probably the best bang for the buck out there in a fast-ish 35 for under $300. FWIW, I posed the same question as your OP over a year ago (as between the Ultron and the Canon 35/1.8), and the advice I received favored the Ultron.

@Jim -- Congrats on the Canon 35/2.8! I'm enjoying mine (recent ebay win), and, yes, it looks perfect on an M2!