700 euros - what M mount lens to buy?

[tanel]

I bought a M6 recently. Due the difficulties of selling my other gear I did not have money to get a M mount lens.

A job opportunity appeared and it seems I'll be documenting the behind the scenes for a shot movie.
These two just match together so well that it would be a sin not to take M6 along on that job.

So, due the difficulties I still have selling some of my gear to get an M mount lens, I have a spare of 700 euros (that should be around 875 US). What lens to get?
In theory I was going to get some 35mm Leica lens. Sadly I don't have time to raise my funds in such a short time period.

What would you do? Save and get the lens you wanted in a first place or settle for something less and re-selling it later?

Best wishes,
Tanel

(if this is in a wrong sub-forum I'm terribly sorry)

[SimonSawSunlight]

35mm f1.2 Nokton.



Or a v3 Summicron, if it has to be Leitz/Leica. ;)

[Renzsu]

35mm Nokton f/1.2 would be a great option, nice and versatile. If you can swing the weight (which really isn't all that bad to begin with), then it's a stellar lens to work with. Not sure what the going rates are for classic 35mm summiluxes but you could take a look at those as well.

I'd go for a 35mm lens anyway. Very versatile focal range, depending on how you use it, it can feel wide, or normal.. that or a 28mm.. 50's can be a bit cramped, but if you think you got the space around you, then it might work as well. Something wide would be nicer though if you plan on shooting sets..

[mfogiel]

It is not said that Leica lenses are the best for everything, the first thing is to decide the FL, then if you mainly want to shoot colour or B&W, and finally, what ergonomics counts for you. I would wholeheartedly recommend one of the 50mm lenses, which are not that expensive, beginning with the Collapsible Summicron, Rigid or DR Summicron, or one of the later Summicrons. Another option which is greatly enjoyed by many, is the Elmar M - very much loved and very sharp, collapsible, hence light, but only f 2.8, or the Zeiss Planar, razor sharp
. In 35mm you could probably find easily one of the older Summicrons, or you could get the 35/2 Biogon, which is actually on par with the latest Summicron for half the price. Another interesting option are the CV lenses, which are sometimes not only great value for money, but actually great lenses on their own, like the 35/1.2 Nokton, that has the bulk as the only substantial drawback. So, choose the FL, and go to the classifieds to see what you can find.

50/2 Collapsible Summicron


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4651922781_1b261e8aa5_b.jpg

Nokton 35/1.2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2254/1792498613_e10009cc1b_b.jpg

[SimonSawSunlight]

oh right, for the money, you might even get a 35mm summaron + 50mm (collapsible) summicron combo and be ready for everything. :)

[k.a]

i would have bougth a summicron, 35 or 50 mm depending on what focal length you like the most

[John Lawrence]

If you're heart is set on a 35mm Leica lens, you could get a very nice Summaron 2.8 for your money and come away with some change for film.

John

[ferider]

Sounds like you need a fast lens.

Decide on either 50 or 35, then I recommend one of: clean 50/1.4 Canon LTM, a CV Nokton 50/1.5, or a CV Nokton 35/1.4.

All outstanding fast lenses, that cost less than your budget. It does sound like spending less than 700 Euro will be welcome. :)

I recommend against the 35/1.2, due to size and viewfinder obstruction. Not exactly what Leicas were made for, IMO.

Roland.

[tanel]

I'm a wide-angle person, so anything longer than 35 would be pretty much no-go. My main lens is 24mm (on a canon's F-1 slr). While I do love such wide angle, it often is a bit too wide. 50mm is a bit too narrow, so I figure that 35mm would be perfect. And 28mm framelines on M6 is a bit hard to see for my eyes.

Although there is a 28mm Zeiss Biogon with uv filter and a hood for sale here just a tiny bit less than 700 euros.

As for film preference- mostly b6w but there are times then I find myself using color film (not as often maybe, but it happens).

[SimonSawSunlight]

Not exactly what Leicas were made for, IMO.

I haven't seen many SLRs with 35mm f1.2 lenses around though :p

yours are valid suggestions, too, of course =)

[John Lawrence]

Another option is a used 35mm 2.5 Summarit (the recent one) - if you can ever find one!

John

[Turtle]

If you are shooting indoors I would not dream of using a lens slower than f1.4 if you do not intend to shoot flash. Shallow DOF will also assist in portraits/people shot separation. IMHO forget Summarons and Summarits as they are too slow (as lovely as they area) and see if you can get a good used copy of the 35 1.2 Nokton. It will be very kind to the ladies too. I don't see too many other options apart from the 35 1.4 Nokton, which albeit smaller, seems to test not nearly as well due to focus shift and the like. Good copies of the admittedly huge 35 1.2 test very well indeed. I dont own one but I would buy one for the job you are referring to.

[semilog]

For the kind of work that you're intending to do, it sounds like the 35/1.2 Nokton is a good option. If you've never shot a really fast wide lens, that's the way to go. It will be a revelation, especially on an M.

Zeiss 35/2 Biogon is another option. Lower speed but very high contrast and a ton of detail. Less of a glow, more modern, raw documentary feel. I just bought the smaller 35/2.8 Biogon, but for what you intend to do I don't think you'll want a 2.8 lens. There are several good reviews of the Biogon f/2, here and elsewhere on the net.

[edodo]

Try to find the Voigtlander 25mm skopar for around 200 euros used. And then get a 500 euros summicron!

[pau3]

Why not a 35/2.5 color skopar? It's dirty cheap, if you go for the ltm version
(including adapter) and I'm sure you will be happy. If necessary, you can push
film, loose shadow detail and get strong contrast images behind the scenes...
If you prefer, the m version is identical. Also, the 40/1.4 is cheap and excellent.
Just don't try to get to much in the frame. Both much smaller than the 35/1.2,
and cheaper, and both will do the job (with the right film, with enough light)

Best,
Pau

[buzzardkid]

There's a very nice Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 Single Coated in the classifieds tonight.

Just passing the word, I'm not connected to the seller (I think, who is selling it anyway :p)

[le vrai rdu]

I bought a M6 recently. Due the difficulties of selling my other gear I did not have money to get a M mount lens.

A job opportunity appeared and it seems I'll be documenting the behind the scenes for a shot movie.
These two just match together so well that it would be a sin not to take M6 along on that job.

So, due the difficulties I still have selling some of my gear to get an M mount lens, I have a spare of 700 euros (that should be around 875 US). What lens to get?
In theory I was going to get some 35mm Leica lens. Sadly I don't have time to raise my funds in such a short time period.

What would you do? Save and get the lens you wanted in a first place or settle for something less and re-selling it later?

Best wishes,
Tanel

(if this is in a wrong sub-forum I'm terribly sorry)

a CV or zeiss 35 I guess
you can even buy a 35 and 50mm CV with 700€

[le vrai rdu]

In fact I had a bessa R a 35 2,5 a 50 2,5 and a 21 mm f4 and finder for 700€

[Tom A]

If you are going to shoot low light (movie set, stage etc) - only sensible lens is the 35f1.2. It is a substantial lens - but unique in its speed and performance. It is also remarkably flare resistant - important for movie/stage.
The Summilux 35f1.4 non-asph is (and was) a very good lens in its time - but today lenses like the 35f1.2, Nokton 35f1.4 and the Nokton 40f1.4 are better - at considerably lower cost.
Anything f2 or slower will hinder you - you will keep running out of shutterspeeds that can be hand held. Also get a form of Soft release as that will give you a 1 stop advantage too.
The Zeiss 35f2 is very, very good - but it is a f2. The CV 35f1.2 is not that much bigger - and you gain 1.5 stops.
With a asa 1600 speed film and a f1.2 - your limit is probably more "to see what you focus on" than lens performance. You are down to light levels where the camera/lens sees more than you do!

[Slump]

Hey, I was in the same situation as you are now a few months ago.

I bought my M6 then had to make the same hard decision.

The 35mm choice was quite obvious for me, as I am a 35 kind of guy :D

I made my choice on a 35/2 Zeiss Biogon. I had a nice second hand piece, for around 500€. I must say I am not disappointed. It is a really nice piece of glass. Its only disadvantage is that it is limited to f2. I come from a 35/1.4 Leica R. So I admit sometimes I miss the 1.4 but, you can't have it all :)

If you really want a Leica lens, then if you give it some time, you might be able to find a 35 cron at around 750€, but it is getting harder and harder.

[januaryman]

Sounds like you need a fast lens.

Decide on either 50 or 35, then I recommend one of: clean 50/1.4 Canon LTM, a CV Nokton 50/1.5, or a CV Nokton 35/1.4.

All outstanding fast lenses, that cost less than your budget. It does sound like spending less than 700 Euro will be welcome. :)

I recommend against the 35/1.2, due to size and viewfinder obstruction. Not exactly what Leicas were made for, IMO.

Roland.

Great suggestions that I had in mind to suggest; also consider the Canon 35/2.0 LTM - my current favorite 35.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3371/4643984201_2a037e02c3.jpg

[35mmdelux]

I prefer small form factor lenses on my Leica; therefore, I would suggest the 40/1.4 Nokton. The 35/1.2 isn't a bad idea -- smooth bokeh and fast.

[gshybrid]

Movie sets are generally well lit(Hopefully by professionals) I don't think you would need a particularly fast lens for that but it should be a little longer since you are not always going to get close to the action. Off set however can be incredibly dark even in working areas. I would want 2 lenses, for you money something like a CV 35 1,4 and a CV 75 2,5.

[setyotomo]

CV Nokton 35/1.4 should be enough , you can always sell it later for good money if you want to go for 35 cron / lux.

[errore404]

Buy a Summicron 50, Wetzlar version or newer. Then go two steps back, and you have a 35.

[Rob-F]

Movie sets may be well lit, but you said you will be working behind the scenes. That could include moments when the lights are off. It could include taking shots inside an actor's trailer or dressing room. So a reasonably fast lens would be safest and most convenient. You have expressed a preference for a 35mm lens, with a 28mm or 24mm being a possibility. I think the 35mm or 40mm Cosina-Voigtlander (CV) f/1.4 Nokton should be your main workhorse lens. I think its unobtrusive small size outweighs the slight 1/2 stop advantage of the f/1.2. It also leaves some money to pick up a 28mm or 25mm for those situations where the working room is very tight.

Reason to consider the 40mm: it matches the M6 35mm framelines very well, at all but very close distances. Reason to prefer the 35mm: it will give you a little safety margin around the edges when working quickly. And you would have to file the 40mm to make it bring up the 35mm frameline. The 35 requires no modifications. It's good to go.

[lawrence]

Loads of good advice here. Of course the CV Nokton 35mm f1.2 looks like a winner for this particular assignment, however it really is quite large and although I have one I wouldn't want it as my only 35mm. Of the 35mm CV lenses, I personally like the Ultron as it's optically superb (only available s/h now). However, I would imagine that the handling of the CV 35mm f1.4 is better than the Ultron and you can buy one new, so that seems to be the best recommendation.

[retnull]

Your stated goal is to "document behind the scenes" -- this makes me wonder is 35mm will get you close enough to the action. If you're staying "out of the way" and have only a 35mm, then a close-up shot will be impossible.

So, if one lens, I'd say 50mm or longer. Or, a combo like 35mm + 90mm.

[tanel]

Loads of good advice here indeed! Thank you all who posted their replies! I've had some time to think about it and figured I would be taking Canon F-1 with 24mm and 50mm 1.8. And if I can get a lens for M6 in time, I will be replacing that 24mm with (hopefully) 35mm lens. So I would have two bodies, two lenses. One for close up (M6 would be perfect as it is quiet) and a second body for working at a distance. While 50mm might still be a bit too wide- it's still 1.8 (I do have 135mm 2.8 but it might not work out in a low light).

I have yet to buy the lens but 35mm Nokton seems really nice.
The reason I haven't already bought it is that (with the help af a fellow forum member) I found a "bokeh king" for 700 euros. It's in somewhat ..khm, used.. but according to the seller it is fully working and ready to go.

So, I'm between these two. Nokton would be cheaper and I'd have money to buy a second lens but to be honest with myself - "bokeh king" is what I had in mind in the first place when buying that M6.

I have pretty steady hands, so I figure that 1.4 and 2.0 doesn't make too much difference for me. But I do have to admit that money is the issue here. Having some left for a second lens or for something else would be nice. Then again, I'd hate to sell the lens later on as I'm one of the few in my country who is into rangefinders and Leicas. I'd prefer to keep what I buy.