Which 35

J

John Cox

Member
Local time
1:21 PM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
43
I'd like to get a 35mm focal length. I Shoot mainly during the day and scale focus, most work is done at f8-f11. I have a budget of around $700.

To get an idea of what I do and will use it for here is my Web site, www.theworldexposed.com

I'm in the middle of my once yearly night project right now and a fast lens wouldn't hurt (Currently I'm using a 50 1.4 canon LTM for this)


The current offerings from Cosina Voigtlander are the 35 1.4 and the 35 2.5. Of the two which would be recommended for my situation?
-Also. Is there some gem I've missed? Would a canon or Nikon LTM lens be worth looking at? Is there a Leica or Zeiss lens in my budget?

Thanks in advance,
John
 
If you are shooting stopped down, there is not much reason to spend more money for faster lenses. Of course, if you plan to shoot at low light, it would be good. I use Nokton 35mm 1.4 and am pretty satisfied. It is sharp, fast and small! I also love the focusing tab.

There is also older Ultron 35mm 1.7. The lens is slightly slower and bigger than nokton but gives more pleasing bokeh and has short focus throw. I recently sold it only because I can't afford to have too many 35mm.

I also have nikon nikkor-w 35mm 2.5 and it is a gem. It is slower and heavier than nokton but it is sharp! If you can get it for a bargain, it is highly recommended.
 
I have the Voigtländer 35/2.5 (M-mount) lens. It's an excellent performer ... as well as very compact and easy to live with. Unless you need the extra speed, it's hard to do wrong with it. At $400 or so new, it's a bargain.

I've no experience with the Nokton 35/1.4 lens. It's similar, though, to the Nokton 40/1.4 ... another fine performer. I'd hunt around for comparisons between them ... I'm sure I've seen some on this forum.

G
 
I use the 50 more than 35 but when I do I use one the little Voigtlander 35/2.5 pancake for M and the wonderful little (but certainly weighty) Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM are my personal preferences. Neither are the fastest in the pack but they provide worry-free, wonderful images from wide open on. The Voigtlanders seems a bit more contrasty than the Nikkor but, I have been happy enough with both not to be tempted to look for other 35mm options.
 
I had the 35 1.7 and hated it. I did love my 40 1.4 (recently upgraded to a 40 f2 m rokkor)

Would the 35 1.4 be similar to the 40 1.4 in tone and contrast? I'm looking at pictures on flickr but you can never tell how people Photoshoped things or what developer was used.
 
Another vote here for the Skopar 35/2.5. Its cost/performance ratio is way way up there, and f/2.5 is all you'll ever need if shooting stopped down most of the time. It also doesn't have the obvious barrel distortion of its faster two siblings.

John Cox said:
The current offerings from Cosina Voigtlander are the 35 1.4 and the 35 2.5.
Click to expand...
There's also the Nokton 35/1.2, but of course you don't need the f/1.2 maximum aperture unless you're shooting in very low light.
 
The 35 1.2 would actually be my ideal lens (based on reviews and images I've seen), but out of my price range unfortunately.
 
John Cox said:
The 35 1.2 would actually be my ideal lens (based on reviews and images I've seen), but out of my price range unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Which sounds a bit weird considering how you mostly shoot, but certainly a fine lens and a great option for your night project. :) I suggest considering a Zeiss C-Biogon 35/2.8, another small lens with excellent IQ. It should fit into your budget if you can find a used one. The CV 35/2.5 is perhaps the most obvious choice.

While I like the CV 35/1.4 personally, I recommend the 2.5 and 2.8 lenses for people who predominantly shoot stopped down. But if you need the lens speed, there is no better alternative at its price point and size.
 
Another vote for the Zeiss c-Biogon.

With careful shopping, I managed to find one for a few dollars more than your budget.

Note that the Zeiss warranty is non transferable so keep this in mind when considering used (Zeiss) lenses.
 
Forget about rendering, sharpness bokeh, etc. They are all "good enough", IMO (for film shooting anyways), and all technically better than anything from the 50s (Nikkor and Canon). I Suggest to decide based on size, speed, price, close focus, and filter size.

It goes like this:

Skopar: > US 290, tiny, 39mm filter, 0.7m Min. Focus
35/1.4: > US 500, small, 43mm filter, 0.7m Min. Focus
35/1.7 Ultron: > US 500, bigger than 1.4 but not huge, 39mm filter, 0.9m Min. Focus
35/1.2: > US 800, huge (frame-line intrusion), 52mm filter size, 0.7m Min. Focus.

We all have our favorites, but, really, only you can decide which you prefer.

Leica is out due to price. The ZM 35/2.8 is just in your price range, but the Skopar is so good, why bother ?

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom