What 35mm to pick for my M8?

S

Strangeluv

Christer Johansen
Local time
2:28 PM
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
309
Hello all,

I know this subject has probably been up several times, and I have searched and found lots of info, but I got serious problems deciding what to go for. Hopefully you guys could help me out here.
I got however a few prerequisites for my 35mm.

- $1000 max.....hopefully quite a bit lower.
- Contrasty.
- Fast. Minimum F/2.0. Preferably faster.
- Sharp
- Preferably M-mount but LTM will do.
- Size, well not that important, but would prefer the smaller ones.

So, please enlighten me and give me your recommendations :)
 
Faster than F2 and small, then I can only think of Nokton Classic F1.4 MC or SC.

If F2 lenses are okay, then ver III Summicron should be within your budget.

If somewhat larger size is okay, Biogon F2 is my choice.

Hiromu
 
Cron V2 and Con V3. I like version 2 better because of the nice tab for the f-stops, very handy when shooting with a sunhood! They are comparable concerning price (about Euro 600 to 700 for a decent one)
 
summicron v4, aka the "bukeh king" is a good choise i think. i have one and really enjoy it
 
Thanks for the ideas folks. How would you rate the Voigtlander 1.2 compared to the Cron's and the Biogon in terms of sharpness and bokeh? I know its huge, but I could live with that and it is within my price range.....
 
In your budget, my first choice would be a 35mm Zeiss f/2 Biogon. Performance is similar to the v4 Summicron.

The CV Nokton f/1.2 is a one of a kind lens - performance is not stunning, but there is no competition at that speed. It's probably better than the pre-asph 35mm Summilux (not my favorite Leica lens) stop-to-stop.
 
Get a 'Cron or an M-Hexanon.
If you want to go real cheap, the Canon 35mm f/2 is tiny, contrasty and sharp, plus you could buy two or maybe three for the price of a Summicron.

Phil Forrest
 
Let me be the first to post the "what about the 28mm f/2.8 Hexanon"? Or something that has nothing to do with the 35mm focal length in the OP. :angel:


Nah.

I also recommend the 35mm Summicron pre-asph. And don't let the "bokeh king" mocknicker soil your choice ;)
 
Strangeluv said:
Thanks for the ideas folks. How would you rate the Voigtlander 1.2 compared to the Cron's and the Biogon in terms of sharpness and bokeh? I know its huge, but I could live with that and it is within my price range.....
Click to expand...

While subjective, IMO, F2 and up bokeh is very comparable for these 3 lenses (have a look at the Flickr M-mount forum). Besides size, the major difference is that the Summicrons and the two Biogons have practically no distortion, while the 35/1.2 barrels very noticeably.

One lens that performs very well on digital is the 35/1.7 Ultron. Try a copy, if you get a good one it might save you lots of money.

Also have a look at Reidreviews, there is a recent 35mm review on the M9.

Roland.
 
Have to second what back alley said, the C-Biogon 35/2,8 is pretty great. I got a 35mm Summicron IV, and am surprised by how often I choose the C-Biogon over it. It's a really nice lens.
 
Get yourself a Konica L-Hexanon 35/2.0.

Not the obvious choice I know, but:
  • It's as close optically as you can get to a W-Nikkor 35/1.8 LTM, which are getting collectable and expensive rapidly
  • It takes easily available 46mm filters
  • It's production run was limited to 1,000 copies in 1996
  • It's beautifully made, sturdy and precise
  • it's LTM and will fit any Barnack nicely (you know you want one of those too)
  • There are a few of them on eBay right now : item 130371325842 for instance. Sells for USD 1050
  • Their price will go up once the W-Nikkors have become priceless (happened before with the Konica UC-Hexanon as well)
You can read more on it on my website, here
 
Zeiss' 35mm Biogon 2.8 is a fantastic piece of glass. I'd compare it with my four Leica lenses any day. CV's 35mm Nokton 1.4 Classic (MC) is a piece of crap - terrible barrel distortion, vignetting, very soft edges and not an f 1.4 in terms of light gathering. Totally unusable IMHO. I tried two, thinking the first was a lemon, but they were both the same. Returned them for the Zeiss. I was very interested in a used 35mm Summicron or Summilux at the same time I tried the Zeiss, but no more. This Zeiss is amazing - and new.
Rich
 
JSU said:
If you want to spend your entire allowance, go for the CV Nokton 35/1.2, if you want to spend half as much find a very clean CV 35/1.7.
Click to expand...

I have an Ultron 35 1.7 too and did a comparison on the forum with my v.4 and pre asph lux. The Ultron came out on top until I said which lenses took the pics! If you want to spend all your cash get Leica. If you want a v.4 on a budget get the Ultron. I've shot both for quite a while and can't seperate them.
 
my pick would be a used mint condition 35mm f2.5 summarit-m. not f2, but the m8 still has less noise than film so i don't mind. these are some other options:

35mm f2 summicron iii or ii
35mm f2 biogon
35mm f1.4 nokton classic
35mm f2 m-hexanon (rare)
35mm f1.7 ultron (ltm)
 
I have the Voigtlander nokton 35/1.4 SC which I love, very fast, strong contrast, reasonably small and affordable. For a few milimeters more you could consider the summicron 40/2.0 which I also have, great lens and very compact and cheap. Comparing those two lenses I find hard to say if one is really superior to the other. At the moment I mostly use the nokton, because it is the only one I have an infrared cut filter for for use in my M8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom