which m-mount 35 renders like a canon ltm 50/1.8?

[haempe]

+1 for the nokton.
I buyed mine 2 month ago because I found my skopar too slow.
Its a solid lens.
Ok, I'm not a 35mm guy, but I have nothing to say against the IQ.
The little barrel-distortion don't bother me.
Best value for the money, if you buy new.

I wish, there where a similar lens in 50mm.

Edit:
addendum:
a shot with 1.4 for boke-comparison

 

[Bingley]

Paul, I can't think offhand of a 35mm lens that renders quite like the Canon 50/1.8 in its combination of contrast and very smooth bokeh, but I wonder why you're eliminating ltm 35s from consideration. The CV Ultron 35 has somewhat lower contrast than the Skopar 35, and would give you the extra speed you're seeking. And it can produce some lovely, lovely images. Take a look at the work by Vicky Lamburn and Tuna over at flickr: both of them use the CV Ultron for a lot of their photography. Although its look is not exactly like the Canon 50, it's still quite lovely for both color and b&w. It's a bit on the large size (why I sold mine), but if size is not an issue you may find it fills your needs.

 

[paulfish4570]

thank you, haempe. looks good to me ...

 

[paulfish4570]

and thank you, Steve. wasn't the ultron made in m-mount, too?
oh, as for the adapter parameter, i want to further simplify.

 

[Krosya]

oh, as for the adapter parameter, i want to further simplify.

I dont see this as "Simplify" at all. It actually complicates things more, IMO, as you cut out many lens choices but not wanting to use LTM-M adapter. How id it NOT simple to just attach one to a lens and just leave it there?
Anyway, I too would suggest LTM lenses (so you would have to use ltm-m adapter 😉 ) - Canon 35/2 or 35/1.8 and a little larger one - Ultron 35/1.7. Even Konica that I would suggest is LTM lens - UC-Hexanon 35/2. So - it seems that you best choices would require an adapter.
I dont have CV 35/1.4, but based on pics I have seen from it - it doesnt really have the same look as Canon 50/1.8 ltm lens.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I see others answered the 35/1.7 Ultron. I agree with that. Get the Voigtlander 35 adapter with it, you are set. Small, lower contrast rendering- sounds like what you are after.

 

[paulfish4570]

ok, ok, ok, so i'll consider LTMs, too. gee whiz, y'all are a persuading lot ... 🙂

 

[haempe]

I see others answered the 35/1.7 Ultron. I agree with that. Get the Voigtlander 35 adapter with it, you are set. Small, lower contrast rendering- sounds like what you are after.

I thought the same. But after 2 month lurking for a good example for a resonable price I gave up and buyed the Nokton.
I have not regretted it.

 

[porktaco]

just to mess things up, why don't you get a 40 cron?

 

[Keith]

If you can get one for a fair price I recommend the KM Hexanon. Brilliant build quality and from what I remember of mine it wasn't particularly contrasty and the OOF doesn't frazzle your brain like the Nocton!

Roland actually recommended this lens to me a long time ago ... I sold it recently and have definite regrets!

 

[paulfish4570]

what does a 40 cron go for? and i definitely would consider the hex.

 

[back alley]

40 summicron or for less $$ the minolta 40/2...about $350.

 

[porktaco]

40 cron could be up to 500

 

[Bingley]

The 40 Rokkor is a beautiful lens. So is the Canon 50/1.8. But I wouldn't say the two lenses share the same look. If I were trying to get close to the look of a Canon 50/1.8 in a 35 focal length, I'd follow Dr. Sweeney's advice.

 

[porktaco]

yeah. i agree 40 cron isn't the same look as the canon.

 

[back alley]

i can't tell one look from another...

 

[ferider]

The M-Hex 35/2 and (a good) 35/1.7 Ultron behave almost identically. Medium contrast, high corner to corner resolution, and low distortion. I personally believe the 35/1.7 was derived from the M-Hex by replacing 2 spherical surfaces with one aspherical. The two lenses behave much like, say, a good 50/1.5 Nokton. Sorry, but in performance, both lenses will run circles around the Canon 50/1.8 - completely different; 40 years of optical and technical development have left their fingerprint. Astounding how so many people seem to use macro contrast only to propose a "similar" lens, when macro contrast can largely be controlled via exposure and filters.

Paul, have you considered filtering your Canon 50 to adjust the contrast to your 35 color skopar, and then change development recipe (to be less contrasty and more sensitive) ?

Roland.

 

[raid]

Paul,

I recommend to you very highly the 40mm/2 Summicron.
It is a beautiful lens.

 

[umcelinho]

summicron 35mm v1 maybe? about 10 years younger than the canon, but seems to have the same mood.

i thought of the canon f2 as well, i had the opportunity of shooting a few snaps with one and it's a quite impressive lens. the only reason i didn't take it was that its price was much higher than the market price (it was in argentina), but the lens sure left a great impression. maybe the f2 or one of the faster canon 35s could be a good fit to the 50/1.8

i like the canon 50/1.8 a lot, the way it draws and the tones it delivers especially with color are delightful.

 

[paulfish4570]

Roland, i no longer own the canon, but i remember it well, and i see the results when combing my photobucket files.