Which lens to choose for wider and fast?

P

padraigm

Established
Local time
6:41 AM
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
83
Hi all,

As I have begun to play with my M8 I am realizing that the 50mm Cron and 40/1.4 Nokton are just a little too long for me with the crop factor. I have a VC 25/ Snap-shot f/4 which is great outside but pretty useless inside if there is no light. So my choices are VC 35/1.4, Leica lux 35mm. I need a wider lens and fast.. Do you think I could get by with a 35mm Cron? Has anyone read or have access to the review on the VC 35/1.4 by Sean Reid. I am not hearing good things about it. Going from 40 to 35 is not much I know, but every little bit helps. The 28 Cron is nice but ohhh so expensive I think it's just not realistic right now. I am willing to wait to make this purchase the right one instead of any regrets later of what I should have done. Being compact is also a big objective. Zeiss perhaps?

All suggestion and comments are very much appreciated.

thank you
 
I think you've drawn yourself into choosing a Zeiss wideangle; at f/2.8 that's not too bad, and certainly excellent if you compare it to the CV 15mm f/4.5 or 12mm f/5.6, "speed"-wise, of course.
 
As far as the focal length goes, you've got the frameline selector to help you decide which one suits you best, before you go buying anything.

A 35mm is like a 46.5mm lens, slightly wider than a 50 but a lot narrower than a 35 on film. Maybe that's your best bet, but if you liked a 50 on film, I wonder why the 40 isn't working for you on the M8 because the coverage is almost the same (53mm equiv.).

I have 35 Summicron, which was my most-used lens on film. Now I use a 28 on the M8 mostly. I still use my 50 as the intermediate lens. The equivalent of 66.5mm just doesn't seem like that much different.
 
Ben, you are right. The 40 should do me for a while, but its tight indoors and the 35 just gives that bit more. Ideally I think the 28mm would fit the best but the price for a summicron is pretty darn high. I want to believe that the VC 35 will work for me but most people seems to think it not so good. If money was not much of a problem it would be the 28 cron or the 35 lux/cron. But I think in the end I will settle for an alternative. I really want it to be fast and I am putting speed over a little reduction in quality. IMHO the M8 is so bad with high ISO that you just have to get a lens as fast as possible to help keep the iso to a level that will yield good results. Zeiss is still in the running though...
 
What about the 28/1.9 VC? obviously not as good as the summicron, but when your talking about indoor work, slow shutter speeds tend to even things out considerably.
 
Last edited:
I concur. I have the 28mm summicron now, but I used to have the 28/1.9. The 28/1.9 is a very good lens, and certainly a superb value. The 35/2 biogon would also be a good choice, but considering that the 40/1.4 is not wide enough for you, the 35mm is not going to be much wider. For me, the wide angle lenses on the M8 start at 28mm....anything longer than that is more of a normal lens on the M8.
 
Agree with Stuart; a 28 is my "normal" on the M8, and the Voigtlander 28 Ultron has had good reviews.
 
The 28 ultron is a great lens. If I needed a wide angle for the M8, that's what I'd go with unless I found myself with a ton of spare cash. Heck, even then I might go with the 28 ultron and use all that spare cash for something else.
 
When Sean Reid was testing the new 35 1.4 Voigtlander he compared resolution and sharpness to the 28mm Ultron. The Ultron absolutely walloped it.

Kind of wish I hadn't sold mine now!
 
Thanks for the input guys. I will look seriously at the Ultron. although I think the lens might me a bit big for fitting in my coat pocket and going out as I like to do. I agree that the 35/1.4 is probably not enough of a difference. But taht speed and low form factor is very attractive. Speed is important to me as a way of keeping the ISO low at all costs. Maybe a summariat and just live with f2.5...
 
There is no free lunch, you can't really have high speed, small size, wide angle and cheap all at one time. You have to sacrifice one or more of those attributes to arrive at a lens.
 
I don't think going to a 35 is going to get you what you want. The difference between the 35 and 40 is barely noticeable. I use the 35m framelines on my 40 even and really ... I just don't think you're going to notice any difference.

The 28/1.9 is probably your best bet. And its a great lens.
 
I have a 35 Ultron which I am really, really happy with. I don't find it too too big at all... with the hood on I think it's still not too much bigger than a 50mm summicron. Yet I, too, am looking to go wider, indoors, low light, and deciding between the 28s, summicron and ultron... Can anyone tell me how different they are in size?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom