Best ltm 35 under 250€
Old 02-02-2017   #1
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Best ltm 35 under 250€

Hello,
I'd like read your opinions on this. I want an ltm 35mm lens to go with a Canon 7 or P I also plan to buy. I'm on a budget. I should be under 250€, would prefer if it could be found in Europe. It should be reasonably sharp at least when stopped down a bit, corners don't matter too much. And I want little geometric distortion. That's one of the reasons I don't stick with an SLR, the non-retrofocus designs. Focus tab would be nice.
Options that I've seen:
Summitar (Edit: nonsense, SUMMARON) 35 3.5 shows up from time to time in my price range.
Canon 35 2.8 rather rare in Europe, but they exist.
Canon 35 3.5: I haven't read a lot of good things about it.
Jupiter 12: distorts a bit too much for my liking, otherwise I like pictures I see online. No focus tab.
Color Skopar 35 2.5: Stretching the budget. And I like old things better. Optically probably best. No focus tab.
Komura 35s: Not too common in Europe. No focus tab (?).

How would you rate these? Especially how do the Canons and the Summaron 3.5 compare?
Any input highly appreciated!
J.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #2
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Oh, and please suggest other lenses!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #3
Livesteamer
Registered User
 
Livesteamer is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston Salem North Carolina
Posts: 1,282
Don't forget the Nikkors. I have a Nikkor 35mm f2.5 that is a very nice lens but at the top of your price range. The Nikkor 35mm f3.5 is also good and a good Jupiter 12 can be a fine lens. Or, maybe a Canon 28mm f3.5, also very nice. Too many to choose from. Joe
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #4
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,085
The Canon 35 2.8 is a very nice lens if you like that classic 1950s lower contrast look. I also would recommend the fine preforming Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 in LTM lens, a legendary lens in my opinion, so good it was also used on the Nikonos camera.

In today's world wide web marketplace, buying a lens outside Europe is a cinch.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #5
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,227
Of these I only have the J12 - which you should get with plenty of money left in the bank. It's not a technical lens - sharp only in the centre and every form of issue by the edge (though not severely). However there are few wide angle lenses that have 80+ year old designs and that produce usable images.

Canon's quality lens line is very good, and while never aiming for perfection the CV lenses are, as you imply, probably the best optical formula short of the high-end Zeiss and Leica lenses.

Why exactly the 35s? There are good 28s, but perhaps more particularly good 40s.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #6
rumbliegeos
Registered User
 
rumbliegeos's Avatar
 
rumbliegeos is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 247
I can say from experience that you can buy a very clean Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM lens, and it can develop haze within a few years.
__________________
Gerry
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #7
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,316
Color Skopar, easily.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #8
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livesteamer View Post
Don't forget the Nikkors. I have a Nikkor 35mm f2.5 that is a very nice lens but at the top of your price range.
^^^ this.

And regarding Color Skopar, try the second LTM version (39mm filter), it does have a tab (well a pin that functions as a tab). You should be able to get it for your budget.

For your budget, if you shop carefully, you might be able to get Canon 35/1.8 or even 35/2 as well.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #9
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livesteamer View Post
Don't forget the Nikkors. I have a Nikkor 35mm f2.5 that is a very nice lens but at the top of your price range. The Nikkor 35mm f3.5 is also good and a good Jupiter 12 can be a fine lens. Or, maybe a Canon 28mm f3.5, also very nice. Too many to choose from. Joe
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
AFAIK, Canon LTM lenses and RF-Nikkors, particularly in LTM, are scarce in Europe (Continental at least), but sought after.

Hence they're often quite a bit more expensive than in the Anglosphere.

What do our British experts say?

Indeed especially the Nikkors seem very rare here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
The Canon 35 2.8 is a very nice lens if you like that classic 1950s lower contrast look. I also would recommend the fine preforming Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 in LTM lens, a legendary lens in my opinion, so good it was also used on the Nikonos camera.

In today's world wide web marketplace, buying a lens outside Europe is a cinch.
Well, I'd rather avoid a) import taxes and b) difficulties and expensive shipping in case a return is necessary. I'd counsider buying form a member here though, as b) would be very unlikely.
Have you compared the Canon with the f/3.5 Summaron?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrambler View Post
Of these I only have the J12 - which you should get with plenty of money left in the bank. It's not a technical lens - sharp only in the centre and every form of issue by the edge (though not severely). However there are few wide angle lenses that have 80+ year old designs and that produce usable images.

Canon's quality lens line is very good, and while never aiming for perfection the CV lenses are, as you imply, probably the best optical formula short of the high-end Zeiss and Leica lenses.

Why exactly the 35s? There are good 28s, but perhaps more particularly good 40s.
Well, 35 is the widest I can afford in the RF world, especially if I want to avoud auxiliary finders. Otherwise 28 would be nice, I do love my GR. I do like the 40 FoV as well, but I'm not aware of 40s in ltm beside the CV 40 1.4, out of my budget I think.
But I also plan to have a small kit that doesn't encourage me to change lenses too much, and 35 and 85-100, which I might add at some point, seems pretty good.

I might indeed go for the Jupiter, I'd like to spend less, but probably the distortion will eventually bug me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumbliegeos View Post
I can say from experience that you can buy a very clean Summaron 35mm 3.5 LTM lens, and it can develop haze within a few years.
But the haze can be cleaned out quite easily, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Color Skopar, easily.

Cheers,

R.
No doubt, but that's not what I wanted to hear
I really only included it for completeness, but it's not really in the budget, and I'd like to have something that also satisfies my fetish for old precision machinery...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #10
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,127
Of the ones you list, I had the Canon 35/2.8 and the J-12, and have a W.Acall 35/3.5 (same as the Komura with a different name on it). The J-12 is a lens which I found alternately fun and frustrating. With B&W it was good, but with color every once in a while I'd get a weird purple flare (I have a habit of shooting contre-jour); the ergonomics are irritating if you need to change apertures often. The Canon is very competent and well-built; I could have been quite happy with it as my only 35. I sold both because I fell in love with the look the slower W.Acall produces.

I also have a Canon 35/1.8, which I bough here on RFF for just a little over your price limit; it's quite nice, and the speed can be useful, though it doesn't make me willing to give up the little W.Acall. I also have a Nikon 35/2.8 from an L35AF that I hacked into an LTM mount for cheap, but that's probably not really an option unless you feel like a project.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #11
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
. . . No doubt, but that's not what I wanted to hear
I really only included it for completeness, but it's not really in the budget, and I'd like to have something that also satisfies my fetish for old precision machinery...
Yeah, but I'd rather have a new(er), sharp, non-hazy lens than an old, flat, hazy one. I had two 35mm Summarons before the Color-Skopar existed and they were both mediocre. I had two or three Jupiters too (Zorkii and Kiev) and they were awful. Then in 1982 I bought a then-current Summilux...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #12
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
retinax,

for a RF, a Canon 7 is a huge camera, quite as large as a, say, Canon F-1.

A typical 35mm LTM lens is tiny — it looks completely awkward on a Canon 7!

And since you're on a budget, why not simply take a much cheaper 35mm SLR lens with an adapter?

There are hundreds excellent 35mm SLR lenses that would look much better on a Canon 7 — and zone focusing isn't that complicated

And, let's not forget: in the 1950s, when retrofocus was «dernier cri», Angenieux offered their 35mm not only for Exakta etc etc., but also for Leica
I suppose you're right about the looks, but then again, I don't care tooooo much. That is an argument in favor of a Canon P rather than 7 though...
I really do want RF focusing. Zone focus is nice in good light and longer distances, but with the subject closer than two meters it's not easy even with a 35 at, say, f/5.6. At least for me.
Retrofocus is indeed not a huge deal. I'll take one of those Angenieux if you insist in giving me one
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #13
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Of the ones you list, I had the Canon 35/2.8 and the J-12, and have a W.Acall 35/3.5 (same as the Komura with a different name on it). The J-12 is a lens which I found alternately fun and frustrating. With B&W it was good, but with color every once in a while I'd get a weird purple flare (I have a habit of shooting contre-jour); the ergonomics are irritating if you need to change apertures often. The Canon is very competent and well-built; I could have been quite happy with it as my only 35. I sold both because I fell in love with the look the slower W.Acall produces.

I also have a Canon 35/1.8, which I bough here on RFF for just a little over your price limit; it's quite nice, and the speed can be useful, though it doesn't make me willing to give up the little W.Acall. I also have a Nikon 35/2.8 from an L35AF that I hacked into an LTM mount for cheap, but that's probably not really an option unless you feel like a project.
I like contre-jour, too... so Canon... Or what else can you say about the Komura/Acall? How does it compare to the Canon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Yeah, but I'd rather have a new(er), sharp, non-hazy lens than an old, flat, hazy one. I had two 35mm Summarons before the Color-Skopar existed and they were both mediocre. I had two or three Jupiters too (Zorkii and Kiev) and they were awful. Then in 1982 I bought a then-current Summilux...

Cheers,

R.
Ouch, I thought the Summarons were at least decent generally, and the Jupiters when adjusted correctly, too... that does steer me toward Canon and CV, indeed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #14
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,085
"Have you compared the Canon with the f/3.5 Summaron?"

Yes i have, I own both makes plus the Nikkor and the Komura and the J-12

The Canon is most similar to the Summaron in its drawing but I have used the Summaron more because I had it before all the other ones (40 years now).

The full f 2.8 bore on the Canon is a nice feature but in reality it is not as important as one would assume, I would buy any of them if the price and condition are right. You cannot go wrong with any of them.

BTW, I am in Canada and I gotten use to paying high taxes and duty and high return postage on almost on any photo gear I have bought.

As even the few vintage pieces of gear I bought from local Toronto photo stores in pre internet days I had to pay through the nose.

Example : used 25mm Canon f3.5 lens in LTM , $ 450 CAD plus tax on top of that (1990 price) not mint, no 25mm finder incl.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #15
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
I like contre-jour, too... so Canon... Or what else can you say about the Komura/Acall? How does it compare to the Canon?
Here's everything I've written on the lens, plus some sample photos:
https://filmosaur.wordpress.com/tag/w-acall-353-5/

If you have other questions, just ask.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #16
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 630
I only have J-12 and komura 35/3.5. I like the komura better.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #17
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 71
Posts: 6,213
Canon 35/2.8. Tiny. Solid build. Sharp. Wonderful lens. Why did I sell it?
If you get one don't sell it.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #18
kermaier
Registered User
 
kermaier's Avatar
 
kermaier is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 1,663
The Canon 35/2.8 is a very nice lens, sharp enough. I prefer the older chrome-over-brass version with 34mm filter to the later anodized-aluminum-alloy with 40mm filter. Although the latter definitely has better ergonomics, it is more prone to haze, the aperture linkage is mechanically crap, and the filter size is a pain.

The Nikkor 35/2.5 is a better performing lens, IMO, than the Canon, but may be pricier in LTM than your budget. Also, it has a truly impossible-to-find 34.5mm filter thread, the whole lens barrel rotates with focusing, and the aperture ring turns in the opposite direction from Leica and Canon lenses.

::Ari
__________________
M9-P, Fuji X100
For Sale: Canon hood for 50/1.8 RF lens
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-02-2017   #19
nhchen
Nathan
 
nhchen is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 215
What about a canon 35mm 1.8? It must be within your price range too.
Nathan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-03-2017   #20
ale_f
Registered User
 
ale_f is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Milan
Posts: 13
The Summaron 3.5 is stuck on my M2 since like two years. It obviously doesn't have that clinical look of the Summicron but it has a very interesting rendering, apart of the very solid build.
Also, closed down to f22 virtually there is no need to focus if you shoot street.


Senza titolo by del Rey., su Flickr

I won't be concerned about the fog as once you find a clear copy, or CLA one it won't be affected again for years.
Taking about Summarons a week ago I bought a 2.8 ltm version (waiting for it to arrive ) It will be difficult to decide which one to keep
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2017   #21
faurefan
Registered User
 
faurefan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 13
Another vote for the LTM Summaron 35mm f/3.5.

It's an ergonomic challenge (changing aperture without altering your focus), but the character, tonality and yes sharpness are nonpareil for an early modern lens.

I also own the Canon LTM 35mm f/2.0 and would unhesitatingly recommend the Summaron over it. The pictures are just better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #22
summar
Registered User
 
summar is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 275
I've used an LTM Summaron 35/3.5 for many years and haven't had any trouble with haze. Might this have to do with humidity? I live in a very dry climate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #23
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,996
The Komura designed and manufactured lenses I can whole heartedly recommend.

Google 'Komura rangefinder overview' and find my article on the lenses that were sold under Komura and other labels, to get an edge in finding those lenses with shops and on eBay.

Good luck!
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #24
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 932
If you're going to shoot B&W, don't ignore the ancient 35 f3.5 Elmar. I have one bought with a IIIa and the lens produces wonderful results. It is tiny, however, so mounting it on a Canon 7 would be a bit like using the lens cap. On a IIIa, however, it's a great fit. Mine is, as most are, pre-war and uncoated. Wouldn't give it up for a LTM Summicron.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #25
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 407
I have the Canon 35/2.8 (34mm filter thread version), 35/1.8 which has some scratches on front element (bought for bargain price due to needing other work as well) and they are both rather low on contrast. I've mostly shot with those on fast B&W film so I can't say anything about resolution other than it seems to be sufficient for fast b&w films.

I happen to have a Opton Biogon 35/2.8 for Contax RF as well and that has more contrast. Haven't shot with it enough to evaluate it fully, though it does give the impression of more sharpness but again, haven't shot it on more resolving film to actually pass judgement.

My buddy has the Skopar and uses it on Canon 7. Nice combo!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #26
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by summar View Post
I've used an LTM Summaron 35/3.5 for many years and haven't had any trouble with haze. Might this have to do with humidity? I live in a very dry climate.
Hi,

Oil can vaporise at lowish temperatures and glass has a high thermal capacity and so would be cooler and so you get oil vapour condensing on the glass.

One old fashioned way of distinguishing glass lenses from plastic was to flatten them against your (clean) cheeks and feel that the glass was cool and the plastic wasn't.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-06-2017   #27
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 437
I have the Canon 35mm f2.8. It is low contrast like others have pointed out and pretty soft at the corners until f5.6.

I had the 35mm skopar and wish I had kept it. Mine had a focus tab (the version that looks like the 25mm f4). That was high contrast but sharp from wide open.
__________________
Gary

flickr

www.garyharding.website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-10-2017   #28
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 89
Thank you all for all the input! johannielscom, O2Pilot, I had already found both your websites about the Komura lenses, very informative!
Pretty much all lenses under consideration have received some praise. Some more lenses have been recommended. I've gotten a great offer which I however declined because import tax would spoil it. So I've been waiting for just anything thing to pop up.
I've found a Canon 35 1.8 in Europe, but I'm on the fence. I really like how it "draws", as far as I can say from pictures online. It has a nice size (on a Canon 7), nice speed (which I don't think I'd really need that often..) But it has a lot of barrel distortion... which I really dislike. Just as bad as the Jupiter-12 (which has pincushion though, IIRC). What do I do?!?

Last edited by retinax : 02-10-2017 at 13:14. Reason: typos
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-10-2017   #29
AlwaysOnAuto
Registered User
 
AlwaysOnAuto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 485
Wait for a Canon 35 2.8 to show up.
You won't be disappointed.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DSC07978-1 (Small).jpg (22.5 KB, 14 views)
__________________
IIIa, M3, some lenses + digital
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 14:16.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.