Which small 35mm for film M

R

rsolti

Established
Local time
2:10 AM
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
105
I am looking for a reasonably priced small sized 35mm lens for film M. I want to stay under $1,000. Naturally, the Zeiss Biogon looks good on paper, but its a little larger than I wanted. A UC Hexanon would be perfect....except it is .9 minimum focusing distance. I like sharper/contrastier look over the dreamy/softer. How is the voigtlander Nokton 35 1.4 on film? I guess it doesn't have focus shift as on the digital bodies. Is it one of the sharper/contrastier lenses? I would prefer a fast lens, but no slower than 2.5. Any of the older Crons under $1,000 be a good choice? Which lens would you guys recommend?

Just to let you know, from examples I have seen my ideal pick based on rendering would be a Cron IV
 
Last edited:
I have a CV 35/2.5 Pancake version 1. Very sharp, reasonably small. It would hard to find a used cron for under 1K, unless it is a beater.
 
rsolti said:
I am looking for a reasonably priced small sized 35mm lens for film M. I want to stay under $1,000. Naturally, the Zeiss Biogon looks good on paper, but its a little larger than I wanted. A UC Hexanon would be perfect....except it is .9 minimum focusing distance. I like sharper/contrastier look over the dreamy/softer. How is the voigtlander Nokton 35 1.4 on film? I guess it doesn't have focus shift as on the digital bodies. Is it one of the sharper/contrastier lenses? I would prefer a fast lens, but no slower than 2.5. Any of the older Crons under $1,000 be a good choice? Which lens would you guys recommend?

Just to let you know, from examples I have seen my ideal pick based on rendering would be a Cron IV
Click to expand...

While it's a bit bigger than then 35/2.5 CV look at the 35mm 1.7 CV Ulton. It's an excellent performer and well under the $1k limit.

Best regards,

Bob
 
What's the issue with a Zeiss? If sharp and contrasty is your tastes, you can't go wrong with that glass.

Saw one here recently for less than 900.
 
Have you looked at the MS-Optical Perar 35f3.5? it's the smallest 35mm (or smallest lens) that I have seen, and takes very sharp photos. Do a search on earlier threads. It's under $1000 at Japan Exposures.
 
Oops, I just re-read your criteria, and saw that you are looking at something faster than f 3.5 . Look at the Canon 35mm f2.
 
Actually, with the Canon 35mm, you'll probably be limited to .9m as well without modifying the mount and doing some work on the mechanism. I always forget about that close focus thing since a meter is fine with me and if I want closer I go for a Super Angulon. All RF coupled screwmount lenses will be limited to .9m close focus, for the most part.
So, this leaves the M Hexanon and V2 V3 Summicrons as your lower cost options aside from the CV 35mm f/1.4. That's not a small lens either. You can fit a Canon 35mm inside one of them practically. It's quite wide and sticks out of the camera just as much.
Something to try might be to get a user Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 and modify it for close focus use. They are plentiful, cheap and simple to work on.

Phil Forrest
 
If you could live with f/2.8, I'd suggest the C-Biogon. Absolutely stellar performer. And compact. And focuses to 0.7 m.
 
kossi008 said:
If you could live with f/2.8, I'd suggest the C-Biogon. Absolutely stellar performer. And compact. And focuses to 0.7 m.
Click to expand...

So seeing that you have both the Zeiss 35 2.8 and CV 35 1.4 you still recommend the C-Biogon, huh? I have seen nothing but good from that lens. Maybe I will do that and get a faster 50 to make up for it :)
 
rsolti said:
Is there a name for this lens? Canon slipped my mind. From what I remember this lens is similar to a Cron V2 or V3 in rendering, yes?

Edit: I forgot about the .9
Click to expand...

It's called a Canon 35mm 1:2.0 lens. Probably mostly black with chrome trim. I don't think they made an all chrome version. LTM mount.
 
I have both Biogon 35/2 and CV 35/1.4, Biogon is of higher resolution and contrast at f2. Heard that 35/2.8 is just as good, if not better, than 35/2. Do you mind using a contax G? 35/2 planar focus down to 0.5m, contrasty, though not as sharp and smooth bokeh wise as biogon.
 
aleksanderpolo said:
I have both Biogon 35/2 and CV 35/1.4, Biogon is of higher resolution and contrast at f2. Heard that 35/2.8 is just as good, if not better, than 35/2. Do you mind using a contax G? 35/2 planar focus down to 0.5m, contrasty, though not as sharp and smooth bokeh wise as biogon.
Click to expand...

I've never paid attention to the Contax G Planar 35 f/2 as I haven't tried that system. How much is it for conversion on one of those? What does not as sharp mean? How soft?
 
Another vote for the Canon 35mm f2. Small as a button, but won't focus closer than a meter, if that's a critical need for you.

The Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 is pretty well regarded too, although I've never owned or used one personally.
 
I am kind of surprised that there have been no suggestions for the version III summicron. They pop up for under a $1,000.
 
If you're looking for tiny you won't do better than the Perar. Terrific little lens, I like mine.

That said you might go the 35/2.8 compact Zeiss route. Everything I've read says it's a terrific lens, as long as you don't need top speed.

Kent

JMQ said:
Have you looked at the MS-Optical Perar 35f3.5? it's the smallest 35mm (or smallest lens) that I have seen, and takes very sharp photos. Do a search on earlier threads. It's under $1000 at Japan Exposures.
Click to expand...
 
V3 Summicron is a great choice. Be patient and wait for one in your price range. It is an outstanding lens optically with a nice signature, it's amazingly well built and really the perfect size, as small as you'd want to go and still usable. I've been shooting a lot with my 28mm CV 3.5 and just popped my Cron back on and it is just really a treat to use (and I consider the CV a really nice, well built lens).

If you don't get the Leica, eventually you are going to want to see what they are all about, so really, you're saving yourself money by just buying one now.

The only reason I'd buy something else is if you want the more vivid, contrasty color characteristic of Zeiss lenses. I suspect it might give a more modern look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom