Which '35 M mount and Why?

Which '35 M mount and Why?

  • Total voters
    445
ramosa said:
Michael: Thank you! I didn't know that I could click on a poll response--and it would show who voted for it. (After years on RFF, I'm still learning!)

It's interesting to think about it now, with the passage of time. I still believe the Lux 35mm asph v1 is the best 35mm lens that I have ever used. (Great rendering on film and digital--and I never noticed any focus shift. I have used two other 35mm lenses: Cron v4 and Cron ASPH.) To make a long story short, I ended up selling off all of my Leica gear, but, over the past year, have returned and made a couple purchases (i.e., M6 and Cron 50mm v5) and aim to add just one more lens--a 35mm. This time around, I think size will play a big factor in my choice--so I'll likely end up with another Cron of some variety.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I find it interesting how a lot of people here and on the Leica forum tend to start out wanting the best performance, and then at some point realise that other factors play a part in the enjoyment and ability to get the shots you want, like size and weight.
 
Nice to see there are plenty of choices! My 35 Summicron ASPH is the lens I have owned the longest and has had the most use but a 35 Zeiss 2.8 Biogon-C spends a lot of time on the M2 for B&W and there is the 35 3.5 Summaron LTM for the classic look. Given the choice I would probably toss in a 35 2.5 Color-Skopar just to round out the 21/50 set. Too many great 35s' and just not enough money...
 
I voted "Other" meaning the fabulous Summaron f/2.8, my fav 35mm in any format. Versus my 'crons v3/v4, the Summaron wins for build quality and haptics. The milled-edge aperture ring is perfectly placed and can be set by feel (whole-stop detents). In addition, rendering is not too shabby. :) I do have the Sigma 35/1.4 Art to provide high-tech performance and AF, but at a huge weight penalty and the performance does not transfer meaningfully to 135 film.
 
analoged said:
I have a Lux Pre Asph now! Let's see how I get on with it.
Click to expand...

Just picked one up recently too. So far I'm really enjoying it - even though I'm yet to develop anything from it :eek:
But hey, 35mm Leica lenses are like pizza right, even at their worst they're still good right??
So until I develop some rolls and change my mind, it is the best 35 in the whole world! :D
 
I started with a new Summicron v.1, still my favorite for its small size and fine look. I like 35's though and also have the Summilux ASPH pre-FLE, Biogon f/2 (just sold my f/2.8), f/2.8 Summaron (which has smeary corners on full frame digital), and f/1.4 Nokton. My old Summicron is now coded and has had service from DAG, so besides fondness as my first Leica lens it works very well.
 
I do love my Canon 35 f2 LTM. Cheap, small, sharp, great rendering. It's awesome. Also love the 35 2.5 Skopar quite a bit. Too sharp for me, but still a phenomenal lens in a minuscule package.
 
Doug said:
f/2.8 Summaron has smeary corners on full frame digital
Click to expand...

Not only on digital.

Leica M2, Summaron 35mm f/2.8, Tmax400.

Erik.

10410583244_058c0a12dd_c.jpg
 
35mm lenses are probably the most concerned one of every people. It is amazed that a 4 year old question is still being discussed now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jsrockit said:
35mm C-Biogon f/2.8

As much as I'd like a faster 35mm lens, they are too big generally or just not as good... this lens keeps me from buying another 35mm lens because they aren't as good (unless you spend at least two times more and/or are willing to add extra size). The C-Biogon truly is a bargain compared to most M mount lenses.
Click to expand...

It was my choice as well. It's just insanely great. The Summicron is a different look (and yes, slightly faster), but it's not better.

Here's my photos taken with it.
 
I use several 35mm lenses. My favorites include the Summicron V1, the Biogon 35/2, the SLR Distagon 35/1.4, Canon 35/2, ... etc.
 
i've kind of settled on the following:

color: zeiss 35/2.8 C biogon
b&w: summaron 35/2.8

very strange to see such soft corners on the summaron images above. my copy exhibits almost no corner softness.
 
After burning hole in shutter curtain by 1.5 lens, I'm glad to have just 2.5 Summarit.
I can't replace M4-2 curtain by myslef. Only in FED-2.

Getting affordable, NiB Leica made lens is also nice experience. :)
 
What is it with 35mm and 35mm lenses? Talk about happy conundrums to have! By focal length, 35mm has the longest list of glass I want to try/own.

Good times.

Daryl J., adding strictly editorial commentary
 
Shocked to see the smearing from the Summaron ƒ/2.8. I used one once and it showed none of that behavior.

--35 Summicron ASPH was a gem on film; for digital, focus shift ruined many close-in images shot at ƒ4 & 5.6 and sold (at a loss) with a heavy heart; difficult to justify a pricey lens like that for ƒ2 & 8 only. Perhaps my sample required adjustment but the cost of the CLA in light of this lens' recent depreciation as the new version waits in the wings, made such an exercise less meaningful

--35 Summicron v.1 has supplanted the former, but for B&W. Delicate tonal gradation, 'sentimental' lower-contrast look at the widest apertures and very high resolution stopped-down. Along with the 50 Rigid, 35 Summaron ƒ/2.8, Canon 35/1.8, 50/1.4 & Nikon 35/1.8 LTM (to name a select few), one of a handful of legacy lenses worth the expense/effort and still relevant for digital.

--35 Biogon C for color, if you can live with the high contrast; IMHO, bested only by the new ZM 1,4/35 but at 1/2 the weight and 1/3 the cost. Despite its size, the new Zeiss, about as technically perfect a 35 there is, may be my next...
 
Summilux 35 pre ASPH, followed closely by Version IV Summicron, due to size and image rendering. I have gone forth and back several times from the ASPH to the pre ASPH versions of both following (personal) financial high and low tides, but weight and size finally won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom