achmannyc
Newbie
Any thoughts concerning which 35mm lens to get for my Canon VI-L? I am trying to decide between the Canon F2.8, F1.8., F2.0; VC 35mm F1.7; and the Leica Summaron 35mm F2.8.
A store near me has a Summaron 35mm F2.8 in mint-minus condition with a B+W filter for $485...is it worth it?
Any input would be appreciated.
A store near me has a Summaron 35mm F2.8 in mint-minus condition with a B+W filter for $485...is it worth it?
Any input would be appreciated.
P
Peter
Guest
That depends whether you are using it or for collection. For user I recommend the Ultron 35mm/1.7. Most of my current photos are taken with it.
jdos2
Well-known
Second the Ultron. I've used very few LSM lenses, and the Ultron was completely satisfactory lens, free of funky bokeh, and very sharp.
achmannyc
Newbie
This is for user only. Mostly for street shooting in NYC, low light often with Delta 3200. More opinions on the VC Ultron appreciated!
As sharp as the pre asph summi, faster, a little less expensive. Especially if speed is a need of your's you can't go wrong. The Canon 2.0 is another excellent lens, their best 35, but very rear. It is perhaps a little longer than the others when wearing its hood, about the size of a 50 Summicron, but that is still a smallish lens.
I vote Ultron.
I vote Ultron.
taffer
void
The Voigtlanders 35/2.5 are also very nice lenses, if you don't need a faster lens, they are a cheaper option than the Canon 35/2 (which is going for outrageous prices lately) and the Ultron. Btw there was a nice Ultron for sale here a while ago, check the 35mm classifieds.
richard_l
Well-known
Of the four Leitz/Leica lenses which I have (including the latest 50/2 Summicron and 50/2.8 Elmar), my favorite is the 35/2.8 Summaron. A lens like that would be a bargain at $485. However, it is an M-mount lens designed for the M2, and I don't know how it compares to the LTM version.
back alley
IMAGES
old vs. new?!
old has that old time look, might be cool for those mean streets of new york. less contrast but good resolution.
new has better sharpness and more contrast, esp. the 35/2.5 cv lens.
if i had the cash i would get a canon 35/2 in a n.y. minute!
being poor i have the 35/2.8 which is growing on me. it is tiny and well built, good sharpness and lower contrast.
you have a lovely canon, stay with canon. if you can afford 4 bills for the summaron then wait and find a nice 35/2 canon.
and if you really hate it - send it to me. i'll provide the address and heck, even pay the shipping!!
where are you in new york?
joe
old has that old time look, might be cool for those mean streets of new york. less contrast but good resolution.
new has better sharpness and more contrast, esp. the 35/2.5 cv lens.
if i had the cash i would get a canon 35/2 in a n.y. minute!
being poor i have the 35/2.8 which is growing on me. it is tiny and well built, good sharpness and lower contrast.
you have a lovely canon, stay with canon. if you can afford 4 bills for the summaron then wait and find a nice 35/2 canon.
and if you really hate it - send it to me. i'll provide the address and heck, even pay the shipping!!
where are you in new york?
joe
Yes, I think "old vs new" is a very good first decision point. There's been quite a lot of change in lens design over the past 5 decades, with excellent choices throughout that time. Older ones emphasize sharpness over contrast, and you might or might not find that preferable. If wide-open sharpness is critical, then a newer aspheric design would be the choice. It's a lot harder to see differences among lenses at f/8.
achmannyc
Newbie
Thanks for all the info everyone. I never see the Canon 35 F2 on Ebay...the Summaron just felt right, but my friend john (http://johnstrazza.com) has the VC F1.7 and his results are simply amazing....might have to do it.
BTW, i am in the East Village, Manhattan, Joe.
BTW, i am in the East Village, Manhattan, Joe.
back alley
IMAGES
i would think it might be easier to find most things in n.y.
joe
joe
djon
Well-known
I have both Summaron and Elmar 35 3.5....the Elmar's a 1937. Both lenses are very sharp. The Elmar, being uncoated, is flarish without a hood...but seems to equal the Summaron when I use the wildly expensive Leica hood (fits my 35 Summaron, 35 Elmar, Fed 50, and 90 Elmar).
Virtually all lenses are sharper with hoods in most lighting situations...which is an argument for physically short 35mm lenses like Elmar, Summaron, and the slower Canon. The Ultron, having such a large front element, cries out for a hood., so at it's best it's as big as a tele.
Virtually all lenses are sharper with hoods in most lighting situations...which is an argument for physically short 35mm lenses like Elmar, Summaron, and the slower Canon. The Ultron, having such a large front element, cries out for a hood., so at it's best it's as big as a tele.
back alley
IMAGES
achman,
did you ever get a 35?
joe
did you ever get a 35?
joe
Antonio Shalder
RF-Brasil
I have two wide angle lens for LTM, both from FSU. The first one is the very very commented Jupiter-12, black, from 1975. My sample has excellent contrast and resolution (bought from asr-photo at e**y). No complains 10 for value and 9 for performance. The problem is to get one that was not "serviced" by a non qualified repairman, aka "curious".
The second one is a Russar MR-2 20mm/5.6 and it's an amazing value for money. Distorsion is minimal, contrast high and resolution far more than acceptable.
Those lenses are the only reason for me to not buy a Bessa-R. I read several posts saying that both aren't compatible with this camera. Sorry for my English guys...
The second one is a Russar MR-2 20mm/5.6 and it's an amazing value for money. Distorsion is minimal, contrast high and resolution far more than acceptable.
Those lenses are the only reason for me to not buy a Bessa-R. I read several posts saying that both aren't compatible with this camera. Sorry for my English guys...