View Full Version : Talking 35mm lenses ... what's hot ... what's not!
There's been an excellent thread running about the Canon f1.4 50mm courtesy of Roland and I noticed that a lot of other 50's and their merits have been discussed ... it's been interesting and informative for me because the 50mm is my prefered lens and I like to hear opinions on their various strengths and weaknesses.
I know very little about 35's ... I use one occasionally and have three in my kit. A Hexanon f2 KM ... a Canon f2 LTM and a Summaron f3.5 which has just been cleaned by DAG and to my dissapointment still has a large black speck of dust in it. Oh well, you could barely see through it before so I suppose I should be satisfied and I know the dust particle will not affect images! :p
Chris101
01-17-2008, 22:52
Hey Keith,
I just cannot warm up to a 35mm lens on a 35mm SLR, I love it on a 645 SLR, and it seems to be the natural focal length for RF, P&S and DSLR cameras - to my eye at least. For one, it handles sloppy framing nicely, so it works for quick-draw and hip shot kind of stuff - the things I like to do with RF and P&S cameras. And it's the normal lens on a DSLR (1.5x crop sized sensors.)
I have a Voigtländer Ultron 35mm f/1.7 lens, and I like it a lot because it seems to render oof stuff at a lower contrast than the sharply focussed portion of the image. Plus it's quite affordable, and is fast enough to do the kind of available light work I like to do. In fact that is the only lens that is on my Leica.
Strange that a man who has three 35 mm lenses should claim to know little about that focal length. The Canon 35/2 has a stellar reputation. It is also always rather beyond my means.
Strange that a man who has three 35 mm lenses should claim to know little about that focal length. The Canon 35/2 has a stellar reputation. It is also always rather beyond my means.
It's strange that I've only used that Canon once ... on my Leica II with a finder. I was dissapointed with the lack of contrast but was using BW400CN at the time and was getting mixed results from the local kodak 1hr. I stumbled over it on P.net and got the lens and a hood with a filter and original caps for less than $300.00
The Summaron turned up in a box of stuff I bought off eBay ... it was with a beater IIIf that came with all sorts of odds and sods and was very hazy but unmarked. As for the Hexanon ... that was Erik's fault! :p
interestingly someone told me a while ago that they didn't think the Canon was a particularly good lens!
photobizzz
01-17-2008, 23:54
I have had 2 and now have decided to use 40 as my 35 but the Schacht travegon 35/3.5 was very contrasty, the CV Ultron 35/1.7 was nice but just not my cup of tea, mabye I should have tried harder to like it....but I am happy with the 40/2 M-Rokkor as a subsitute.
When I bought a used M2 some 40 years ago I got a new 35 Summicron at the same time. I don't recall now how that lens choice was made, but I think it was simply the natural suggestion of the knowledgeable clerk at the shop. A year later I returned for a 90mm TE but it never was used as much as the 35.
Just a couple of years ago I tried a 50mm on it and immediately liked the "air" around the 50 frames. But I found I had to keep moving back to get everything I wanted in the frame. The 35 has indeed such a natural feel that I thought to double the pleasure with another. Something different. The Zeiss Biogon ZM. Definitely larger, but I have not directly compared the results.
I'll put up a couple of samples both shot in mixed incandescent light with fairly wide apertures and slow shutters... ancient Summicron for the four gents (county officials at a retirement party for the one at right), and the Biogon for the four ladies from the staircase above, at an art event.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47209&d=1183876855
the 35mm biogon is ace, I really love mine.
The 35mm field of view also happens to be my favorite to use with a rangefinder, it just feels right, there's no better way to explain it.
I posted a lot of pictures I took with my biogon in the cron vs biogon thread i started so I don't want to repost them again here and be redundent. :)
mfunnell
01-18-2008, 01:48
I also think a 50 is my "natural" focal length for "typical RF" subjects and distances. In my earlier OM days I probably had a 50mm lens on 80% of the time and changes were normally longer rather than wider. I thought the same would apply when I bought my first RF (the Hexar RF) and it did, except... On occasion I found myself wanting something wider - which almost never happened with my OM gear unless in cramped and mostly indoor circumstances.
So I bought a 35 (I was lucky enough to find an M-Hexanon 35/2) and immediately found it to be a good "change of pace" to 50mm framing. I think the differences between an RF and SLR viewfinder allowed or encouraged me to see the alternative framing (and shots I might not otherwise have seen). Certainly the frameline preview allowed me some visual experiments that then encouraged me to move ahead.
Once I used the lens I was very pleased with the results. Since then I've bought a Konica UC-Hexanon 35 for its different rendering (OK, so I like Konica) and a Summaron 35/3.5 (for yet another different rendering). These days, while I still use 50mm a lot, I use 35mm and 75mm as well (the 75 a little more frequent|y). I find the variation useful for different subjects (and perhaps my own moods or whims) and helps me vary things when I feel "stuck". Hell, I'm even using 28mm from time to time - and I used not to "see wide" at all.
...Mike
How about the new CV 35 1.4?
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/v-lens/v-l-m/35-1.4/index.html
You read my mind :). Could this be the giant killer?
That one popped out of nowhere!
Not if it has the some shmokeh as the 40 nokton. ;)
It's slightly smaller (shorter) than the 40 too.
How about the new CV 35 1.4?
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/v-lens/v-l-m/35-1.4/index.html
I could do that I Photoshop…………. easy…….. is it real Eric?
I dont speak Japanese. :( I guess it is. I got the link from a fellow photographer. Isnt it the oficial Cosina homepage? It looks like it.
:D joke :D sorry
Kim Coxon
01-18-2008, 02:41
If you go through the normal Cosina site from the homepage, you end up with the same page. However, it only shows on the left menu on some pages which is odd. Some pages still show the 35 Ultron and others don't so not everything is up to date. ;)
It looks as though there are 2 versions SC and MC like the 40. Price appears to be 50% higher than the 40 which would put it at about $600.
Kim
What went through my mind when I looked at that CV 35/1.4....
Very small, check.....
Closest focus distance .7m, check.....
Errr, gonna have to pay extra for that hood.....
40 Nok shmokeh or 35 Nok cream?
That is a very nice looking lens.
I have not suffered much gas lately, but I have been thinking of replacing or adding a 35.
What I have tried....
Canon 35/2.8, a keeper, I love the character of its images, a great period lens for my older cameras, but tough to hood and minimum focus distance of 1 meter.
Canon 35/2, too small, fingers were cramped on the tight focus ring and aperture rings particularly when hooded, didn't like the high contrast.
Summicron 35 IV King-0-Bokeh, also too small with that stupid focus lever that is the size of Rhode Island, horrible build quality for such an expensive lens, and that is why I sold it, but it produced the best images, it is a great picture taker, Love/Hate relationship.
35 Ultron, sold the first to buy the Summicron thinking it would be an upgrade, bought the second to replace the Summicron as an upgrade (and it was on sale). I like it quite a bit, good balance of tone, contrast and sharpness. I prefer the size, don't like the longer close focus limit, I think 1 meter, this is a keeper, or will only be sold for a Biogon or a lens I buy and decide while having both can replace it.
35 Nokton, a big wonderful lens. If only it was smaller so that it could be my only 35. I sold it only because it was such an expensive item that I just didn't use enough.
Now, I have not been having many GAS pains for a while, I am very happy with my kit, but I would like a 35 Biogon I think. The image quality is very good, on par from what I have seen with the Summicron. I have handled it and I know that I like the size and ergonomics better, and more and more when shooting with a 35mm lens I find myself at the close focus limit of my lenses so .7 is a good number for me.
We will see about this new CV 35, maybe it can be a possibility too.
Brian Sweeney
01-18-2008, 02:57
My favorite is the Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5. Mine is in S-Mount, but works with an adapter. i also have the 3.5cm f1.8. Faster, both are equally sharp.
In thread mount- the Canon 35/2.8 is my favorite. Fits on the CL in the pouch case.
CV 35 f2.5 classic
Moderately fast, fairly compact, modestly priced, quite sharp, rather contrasty, relatively flare free and reasonably easy to use.
I have had one for about three years and I am starting to see a lot to commend having something that’s “good enough” I just point it at stuff and it takes nice photos.
Nikon Bob
01-18-2008, 05:42
I struggle to use a 50mm and have always found a 35mm is close to what I see with both eyes open. I have a 35/3.5 Summaron LTM that works well and a 35/1.4 pre asph lux that came with my M4. The pre asp lux is my favourite being small,compact and reasonably fast when needed. It gives excellent results stopped down and is usable wide open but not up to modern standards wide open. I can live with that. The new CV 35/1.4 may be the answer to anyone looking for a fast compact 35mm with modern standards of performance wide open that does not break the bank to own and use.
Bob
rogue_designer
01-18-2008, 05:52
The new CV 35/1.4 may be the answer to anyone looking for a fast compact 35mm with modern standards of performance wide open that does not break the bank to own and use.
Yes. But only if you use M mount. Mr. K why did you forsake us LTM users?
*lament*
Guess I'll stick with my Ultron.
dazedgonebye
01-18-2008, 07:06
My next 35mm lens will be part of a Hexar AF...if I can get my hands on one.
Palaeoboy
01-18-2008, 08:54
Even though I dont think the 40mm has harsh bokeh as the examples that are always shown have bright highlights in the background which cause problems for most lenses. Either way this lens has an extra lens element, I think it should be judged on its own merit before the harsh bokeh tag is applied.
PS I think the 1.7 Ulron is gone forever!
Currently, the most underrated 35 IMO is ....
.... the 35/1.7 Ultron. Wonderful bokeh (much better than the 35/2
Summicron, any version if you ask me), sharp enough, nice
handling, reasonably small. The only thing I dont like about it
is the .9m min. focus. They sell cheap used, PhotoVillage has
MINT/NOS ones for US 319.
Half a stop faster than all 35/2s out there obviously, which people
make a big fuss about for 50mm lenses, but somehow for the
Ultron, nobody cares.
Funny that the 50/1.6 Nokton is always compared to 50/1.4 lenses,
but the 35/1.7 Ultron to 35/2 lenses.
Roland.
I am not a fan of 35mm lenses, but I have these right now:
1. Canon 35mm/2.8: I really like the overall image quality that I get with this tiny lens. It is very well made and it does not need a shade.
2. Summicron 35mm/2 [first version with goggles]: This is a classic lens. I use it once in a while and I like the results that I get with it.
I now have as a loaner from Mark the original Biogon 35mm/2.8. I still need to get results back.
Since talking lenses is always ultra subjective and everyone recommends the lens they own, I will have to add the 35 summilux pre-asph. It's just so unique.
CV 35 f2.5 classic
Moderately fast, fairly compact, modestly priced, quite sharp, rather contrasty, relatively flare free and reasonably easy to use.
I have had one for about three years and I am starting to see a lot to commend having something that’s “good enough” I just point it at stuff and it takes nice photos.
Exactly! I used to call this my "dirt lens," because I usually mounted it to my very user-grade M4-P, which I carried with me in my jacket or briefcase. I ended up using this setup a lot, and guess what I discovered after owning this lens for "about three years," It's a damn good little lens! I love the size. It's got good street-shooting speed and good strong contrast.
.
Nikon Bob
01-18-2008, 10:21
Yes. But only if you use M mount. Mr. K why did you forsake us LTM users?
*lament*
Guess I'll stick with my Ultron.
Agreed, a new 35/1.4 in LTM would be very appealing too.
Bob
Yes I mix and mach.
It is not a problem, I remember the character of each because i remember the photos taken with them.
I dislike wide angles.
My favorite are the 50's
I had the CY 35 and a Minolta AF 24 and a Pentax 24, for cases were I could not step back enough. The CY 35 is nice.
Also the 40 rokkor is very nice, sharp and vivid in close planes and delicate in rendering the far background.
Then I bought the ZM 35, and I was taken by a storm.
I Can' t compare it to Leica's 35 which are too expensive.
I have already said it is outstanding in other posts.
Sometimes I tempted to take the M5+35 ZM in lieu of the GS690
Keith, you should give it a try. It seems to me perfect for the outback in color.
As to bokeh, I am sorry, but I am heretical: I hate to see defocused areas. So bokehwise I am even unable to distiguish the king of bokeh from a crap.
Once I made a statistic on hundreds of HCB photos. Only a few less than five posted some lack of focus. And those were the ugly ones.
Quondam Homerus dormit
Cheers
shadowfox
01-23-2008, 14:29
Currently, the most underrated 35 IMO is ....
.... the 35/1.7 Ultron.
Roland.
Yaay! (I have to add another Yaay! to please the minimum response character length).
amateriat
01-23-2008, 23:46
The last 35mm lens I used with any regularity was attached to my Konica Hexar autofocus. Probably a big part of the reason why the latest Nokton (f/1/4) calls out so loudly to me right now. I went out on the streets at night with that camera on a regular basis, with and without flash, and truly had a ball. More avaiable-light fun than with any other setup I've had before or since (well, okay, my old Nikon F3 with 85 f/1.4 AI-S, but the Hex was still way-stealthier). The 50 f/2 on one of my HRFs comes close, but I get the feeling that bolting the upcoming Nok on a Hex will bring me back and then some.
- Barrett
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.