Who Loves Their 35mm f2.5 Classic?

dazedgonebye said:
...though to be fair, the Ultron isn't all that big or expensive.
Click to expand...

I own the Skopar and I'm borrowing the Ultron from a friend right now and I can't get over how huge the Ultron seems compared to the Skopar. I don't have any shots back from the Ultron yet, but size and ergonomically, I'm glad I have the Skopar.

I think I will probablly pass an getting an Ultron of my own, but I may eventually get the 35/1.2 - might as well go all the way if I'm going to go large and fast.
 
 
The size is great, the contrast a bit harsh, but the OOF part is ugly, same goes for the Ultron, although different. This of course compared to Leica lenses which are also x times more expensive.

For acheap nice 35mm I would choose for the Summaron 2.8
 
Magnus said:
The size is great, the contrast a bit harsh, but the OOF part is ugly, same goes for the Ultron, although different. This of course compared to Leica lenses which are also x times more expensive.

For acheap nice 35mm I would choose for the Summaron 2.8
Click to expand...

That opinion seems to contradict the evidence; do you have direct experience with both lenses? I am assuming your talking about the f2.8 m-mount version not the ltm
 
lubitel said:
btw I am also thinking about Ultron, because I love speed 🙂 but I am afraid I will miss the classic. Its so small and handy.
Click to expand...

IMO, they are far enough apart (1.7 & 2.5) to justify owning both (if your pocket allows it). You're right the classic's size is great. It's main reason why it is still in my bag. BTW, I have hundreds of "justifications" for owning many lenses. 🙂 Let me know if you need another one. 😛



.
 
Magnus said:
Yes the m mount version.
Click to expand...

So you think it’s sharper than the CV? What about the flair, better controlled?
I admit “bokeh” isn’t top of my list of priorities, particularly with a 35 so I don’t have an opinion there, can’t say I’ve been offended by it so far however
 
With regard to bokeh: the 35/2.5 will never be called the "king of..." but neither did I find it offensive or distracting. With regard to price: the 35/2.8 Summarion may be a bargain compared to a Summicron, but it will cost you 2-4x more than the Color Skopar.

Here is a picture to illustrate bokeh. Sorry it's not the best scan, but it'll have to do:
 

Attachments

  • rff050814-23.jpg
    rff050814-23.jpg
    164.1 KB · Views: 0
jja said:
With regard to bokeh: the 35/2.5 will never be called the "king of..." but neither did I find it offensive or distracting. With regard to price: the 35/2.8 Summarion may be a bargain compared to a Summicron, but it will cost you 2-4x more than the Color Skopar.

Here is a picture to illustrate bokeh. Sorry it's not the best scan, but it'll have to do:
Click to expand...

Your probable right I never bother about bokeh myself, I use OOF, and anyway, if I remember correctly the 2.8 Summaron has bokeh in the corners at most apertures and reacts to sunlight like Dracula
 
RayPA said:
IMO, they are far enough apart (1.7 & 2.5) to justify owning both (if your pocket allows it). You're right the classic's size is great. It's main reason why it is still in my bag. BTW, I have hundreds of "justifications" for owning many lenses. 🙂 Let me know if you need another one. 😛
.
Click to expand...

I can't justify owning even one...these are toys for me.

I'm still undecided as to if I should even test drive that Ultron. I don't want to spend the extra money and I've been trying to talk myself out of one. If I like it, that'll be a lot harder.
 
I've never used the 2.5 so I can't say whether it's better or worse than the Ultron (which I own and love).

However, I've always taken the approach of filling out my stable of focal lengths first, then upgrading lenses within that set as needed. I do this because I feel like adding new focal lengths lets me get different types of shots than I could before. It also gives me more time to get to know my lenses so that when it comes time to replace one I can better judge whether the investment is worth it.

A long way of saying - keep the 2.5 'cause it's a good lens and you seem to like it and use the money to get the 75 or 21 (I love my VC 21, but if I was doing it all over again I'd pop for the ZM 21 as it's a full stop faster which I find myself often needing).
 
bmicklea said:
I've never used the 2.5 so I can't say whether it's better or worse than the Ultron (which I own and love).

However, I've always taken the approach of filling out my stable of focal lengths first, then upgrading lenses within that set as needed. I do this because I feel like adding new focal lengths lets me get different types of shots than I could before. It also gives me more time to get to know my lenses so that when it comes time to replace one I can better judge whether the investment is worth it.

A long way of saying - keep the 2.5 'cause it's a good lens and you seem to like it and use the money to get the 75 or 21 (I love my VC 21, but if I was doing it all over again I'd pop for the ZM 21 as it's a full stop faster which I find myself often needing).
Click to expand...

You've hit on one of my major motivators. I do intend to get the 75mm and if I get a good deal on one, and "settle" for the 35mm skopar, I can also swing the 21mm skopar.
On the other hand, the 35mm will likely be on the camera more than half the time...so is that the best place to compromise?
On the other other hand, where else could I compromise?
 
dazedgonebye said:
You've hit on one of my major motivators. I do intend to get the 75mm and if I get a good deal on one, and "settle" for the 35mm skopar, I can also swing the 21mm skopar.
On the other hand, the 35mm will likely be on the camera more than half the time...so is that the best place to compromise?
On the other other hand, where else could I compromise?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your situation - if you're a professional or exhibiting amateur then the quality of each piece of glass might be your top priority. If not then I'd still say that you should worry about which lenses are "compromising" only after you've got the focal lengths you need to full express your photographic ideas covered.

Just my opinion though.
 
dazedgonebye said:
I can't justify owning even one...these are toys for me.

I'm still undecided as to if I should even test drive that Ultron. I don't want to spend the extra money and I've been trying to talk myself out of one. If I like it, that'll be a lot harder.
Click to expand...


...sounds to me like you've answered your own question. If you're worried about the extra $150, can't afford one and want more toys down the road then don't test drive the Ultron, get the Skopar and save your money for the 75 and/or the 21. It's pretty evident from the posts here that those that have responded love their 35/2.5 classic lens. It's a great little lens. good luck.


.
 
dazedgonebye said:
You've hit on one of my major motivators. I do intend to get the 75mm and if I get a good deal on one, and "settle" for the 35mm skopar, I can also swing the 21mm skopar.
On the other hand, the 35mm will likely be on the camera more than half the time...so is that the best place to compromise?
On the other other hand, where else could I compromise?
Click to expand...

I just looked through your web-site and I think the Skopar could have been made to do that type of work, very nice by the way, please get a second opinion but those desert photos have the same look as the Skopar, sharp fine drawn contrasty detail with a sense of drama
PS I have no experience of the Ultron or any of the current Leica 35s at all
PPS anyone claiming the Skopar was any type of compromise would have to have good evidence AFAIC
 
Last edited:
Well, I asked him not to bring the Ultron. I know that the right thing to do for me is to buy a skopar and leave room in the buget for other FLs.
I appreciate the positive feedback on the skopar from you guys. I wanted to be sure that buying one would not be a false economy and I'm pretty confident now that it won't be.

I'll have my Bessa R in the next couple of hours and I'll have to get some pictures out of it...though at first, I'll just have a couple of FSU lenses to use with it (I26 and J9).

So, I'm in the market for a black skopar from a North American seller.

Thanks
 
Sparrow said:
I just looked through your web-site and I think the Skopar could have been made to do that type of work, very nice by the way, please get a second opinion but those desert photos have the same look as the Skopar, sharp fine drawn contrasty detail with a sense of drama
PS I have no experience of the Ultron or any of the current Leica 35s at all
PPS anyone claiming the Skopar was any type of compromise would have to have good evidence AFAIC
Click to expand...

Thanks Stewart,
I often wonder if anyone visits that site.
I think you can see how I wonder how such a thing as "too much contrast" might be possible. As someone that often shoots in the mid-day Arizona sun, I've come to embrace bright light and deep shadows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Color-Skopar Differences
Replies
9
Views
5K
agentlossing
agentlossing
F
The Lens Repair Apocalypse: Repair Shops INUNDATED with work, and will get worse.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
WoodallP
WoodallP
J
  • Article Article
Weird & Wonderful Scale Focusing 35mm cameras: 11 cool models of bygone era that are still fun user-collectibles!
Replies
10
Views
759
Muggins
Muggins
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
896
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
Back
Top Bottom