Which 35mm do you recommend?

Another vote for the slowest one even for indoors... Size and distortion are a lot more important than bokeh or more speed. With 400 ASA film the 35mm f/2.5 works very well, and even with 100 ASA film... Enjoy that M2 with a really small, distortion free pancake!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Another vote for the slowest one even for indoors... Size and distortion are a lot more important than bokeh or more speed. With 400 ASA film the 35mm f/2.5 works very well, and even with 100 ASA film... Enjoy that M2 with a really small, distortion free pancake!

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
Bravo-Juan!...another sensible poster!....all is not lost folks! 😀
 
PS I agree with Roland about the OOF bits, ignore the internet noise, the f1.4 has however got some barrel distortion, but then all the non-aspherical fast 35s have some defects
 
I have the 35/2.5 again and highly recommend it. See my thread on IIIf & a 35/2.5 Color Skopar for some samples from this weekend.

William
 
Respectfully I would modify Roland's recommendation about ignoring bokeh remarks. I would suggest that you 'take them with a grain of salt'. Just be sure to check a variety of images made with these lenses and decide for yourself which type of rendering you like. Dave seems to imply discussing bokeh is 'nonsense', whereas in fact it is a real phenomena in photos that is evaluated subjectively. Whether the type of OOF rendering is pleasing or not in a certain lens is not nonsensical to determine, it is just something you will need to decide how much importance it will have in your shooting style.

As you state, you love to shoot at night and indoors, the f2,5 would be a very limiting lens.

I think your interests dictate a choice between the 1,4 or 1,2 noktons. I think as an all-round lens the f1,4 is the better choice due to size. That said, if you check the M-mount group on flickr like Roland suggested, you will see in the images there why the f1,2 nokton is highly desired: the rendering! Between these two lenses, you have a half-stop differential, a size differential and lens rendering difference.

I don't think you can make a bad decision 😉
 
I had the 35 skopar classic, sold it, regretted it, and bought the PII version. Very happy w/ to have that lens back. Bokeh is such a subjective thing, and depends a lot on the look an individual photographer is going after. I think the bokeh on the 35/2.5 is fine, but that's not why I bought that lens. I got it b/c it is really sharp, very flare resistant, and compact. If bokeh were the prime consideration, I would look for a faster lens, b/c I'd be doing more shallow dof shots.
 
I have the 35/2.5 classic and the 35/1.2 (and several other 35s, but let's not go there 🙂 ). Both are great within their limits. I find f/2.5 sometimes too slow for dim light, but otherwise it's wonderful. The Nokton is so big and heavy (for a RF lens) that you have to either not care about that or love how it renders images, or really need the extra 2 stops. I have used neither the 35/1.4 nor the 35/1.7, but if they're generally as good as the rest of the CV offerings, I think one of those would make more sense for a do-it-all lens.

Or you could look outside this box, and get a 35/2 Summicron (v3 should not cost more than the Nokton) or a 35/2 Biogon or a 35/2 M-Hexanon. Those are all great, compact lenses that have enough speed for most purposes, and their image quality exceeds most people's abilities.

Ari
 
Indoors, w/ the 35/2.5:

4067617122_cf043a43bb_o.jpg
 
i bought my color skopar 35/2.5 as a nice lightweight, sharp and distortion free daytime lens but have found it does quite well indoors during the day at f2.5



but for anything darker i turn to the nokton 35/1.2 🙂
 
I would personally recommend the 35mm 1.4.. its diminutive size and fast aperture make it an excellent lens that you'll always be apt to bring with you. I hear the 35 1.2 is better optically, but is hard to go for in my opinion because of its much larger size, price, and is only half a stop faster.

You might also want to consider the 35 1.7 screw mount lens, if you can find a copy.
 
I really like my Ultron 35mm f/1.7 -- here are some samples. I have also used the Color Skopar f/2.5 (LTM and M) and it's a good lens, nothing to dislike about it, I just find having f/2 at my disposal very useful for those low light shots.

Delta 400 shot at 1600. (CV Ultron 35mm at f/2)


Kodachrome 64 at f/4 or f/5.6:


f/8:


Superia 800 at f/2.8 I think


Click any photos to view in full or larger still.

Vicky
 
You what know guys, when I read in this forum how much Tom A. likes the 35 f1.4, and yet some members thrash it, I am kind of worried I end up at the wrong side of the camp if I were to go for this lens. It has a nice wide aperture which would be useful during low light. Price is intermediate among the three.

Next, I have been following Michael's thread on nokton 35mm f1.2 and I really like the way the lens renders i.e. very nice oof areas yet tack sharp when wide open. With Simon's wonderful pics posted in that thread too, it really swayed me towards the nokton. But then again, I always ask myself whether I am good enough to handle the lens well or not. The biggest aperture I ever shot at was f1.8 on a 50mm, that's about it. In addition, I am also aware of the size factor of this lens as brought up by many here.

Next, when I looked at pics taken by the 35mm PII, I also like them very much. The pull factor is the compactness of this lens and price - it is one hell of a lens for its price! Don't you think so too?

To be honest, I hope I can buy every one of them but I cannot afford it. It is really a tough decision for me. Or shall I just bite the bullet and go for the nokton 35mm f1.2 straight away?

Or am I not considering enough alternatives for 35mm, as one forummer said, should I also consider the leica lens as well? Am I missing out a great deal if I leave out leica at this moment? Or is the current range of CV good enough?
 
Don't worry about what others say (me included). Whatever you pick, whether you like it or not is personal. Just try one. If you buy it used, you won't loose a lot of money when you decide you don't like it. There is no bad lens in the lot.

The truth is in the pudding, if or not you like the photos you create. The "side of the camp" doesn't matter.

Yes, Leica lenses are good. But you need > 1 kUS for the lenses that were mentioned in this thread.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
Don't worry about what others say (me included). Whatever you pick, whether you like it or not is personal. Just try one. If you buy it used, you won't loose a lot of money when you decide you don't like it. There is no bad lens in the lot.

The truth is in the pudding, if or not you like the photos you create. The "side of the camp" doesn't matter.

Yes, Leica lenses are good. But you need > 1 kUS for the lenses that were mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...
I second all this, and there are even a few here that would recomend a J12! 🙂
Dave.
 
I've got a 35/2.5 (Classic, but optically it's the same as the pancake), and a 35/1.4 SC, and I really like them both.

I've had the 2.5 longer, and I agree with all of the comments regarding sharpness, contrast, small size - it's an exceptionally good lens.

But I wanted one fast lens for low light and narrow DOF uses, and I tried a couple of test shots with the 1.4, and was convinced - I've since used it a lot and like it a lot (it was the only lens I brought with me on a trip to Thailand and Cambodia last year, with an M2 and some APX-100). It does have some barrel distortion, as others have said, but I don't do the kind of shooting where that's a problem.

I did compare a 1.2 when I bought my 1.4, but despite its apparently superb performance, it's way to big for me to want to carry around.
 
I picked up the 35/1.2 last month. Haven't shot it enough to form a firm opinion on the results yet. Its size and weight haven't been a problem. Sure, it's noticeable, especially when added to a bag with other equipment. On the other hand, I attach it to a Bessa and carry them for hours in my hand with no worries. I'm 6'4" with large hands, so others might have more of an issue. I do find the weight of the lens makes it easier to steady the camera compared to light-weight lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roastchestnuts
Tiny Voigtlander 35mm f3.5 Aspheric
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
Yokosuka Mike
Yokosuka Mike
G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
WJJ3
WJJ3
Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
CandidChronicles
Alternative to Voigtländer 35mm 2.5?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
filmtwit
filmtwit
J
  • Article Article
Weird & Wonderful Scale Focusing 35mm cameras: 11 cool models of bygone era that are still fun user-collectibles!
Replies
10
Views
717
Muggins
Muggins
Back
Top Bottom