Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Fast budget 35mm
Old 02-26-2011   #1
Yoricko
Registered User
 
Yoricko's Avatar
 
Yoricko is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 88
Fast budget 35mm

Hello guys,

I posted a thread about a 35mm giving a classic look a while back. Now I'm looking for a budget fast 35mm lens.

These are what I have in mind -
CV 35mm ƒ1.2 (V1)
CV 35mm ƒ1.4 MC
CV 35mm ƒ1.7
Canon 35mm ƒ1.5 LTM
Canon 35mm ƒ1.8 LTM

Not sure what to get. Do let me know if you know any other lens makes

The 1.2 has a huge filter thread which isn't compatible with my largest coloured filters. It also weighs quite a bit.

The 1.4 suffers from a lot of focus shift problems, which is very bothersome for me because I often work at distances under 1.2 meters. Also quite soft, but that is not the big issue here.

The 1.7 seems like a good lens for me, but it is almost like a collector's item now, and the minimum focusing distance is 0.9 meters I believe?

The Canon uses weird filter sizes, so I'll probably have to find some weird step-up on evilbay. There is also very little information on them in the web.

Don't ask me to get a Summilux, I am pretty broke right now.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2011   #2
Ranchu
Registered User
 
Ranchu's Avatar
 
Ranchu is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,091
I've never had any of those, likely I never will, but if I was going to get one this would be the one, and this is some reasons why (not mine).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luck00/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2011   #3
andredossantos
Registered User
 
andredossantos is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 34
Posts: 1,442
For me, the 1.2 Nokton would be the choice. I usually shoot MF and mostly use 35mm and Digital for low light situations. In addition, you get that beautiful creamy rendering that at this point is almost universally lauded.

The second choice would be the f/1.4 Nokton. I used it quite a bit and never found it soft enough to notice or bother me. OK, I'm sure it's not as sharp as a Summilux or 'Cron but honestly Im not too exacting or demanding about that sort of thing. This lens has a bad rep but personally I think that's a bit overblown. I think it mainly suffers because the 1.2 is (or "was" I should say) not even twice the price, and rightly so.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents
__________________

Website

Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2011   #4
wlewisiii
StayAtHome Dad & Photog
 
wlewisiii's Avatar
 
wlewisiii is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Age: 49
Posts: 5,340
Of those, I used to own Canon 35/1.8. Good lens, reasonably priced and, like all Canon RF lenses, exceptionally well made. It gives something of a "classic" look wide open but sharpens up nicely by f4. I should not have sold it.





William
__________________
My Gallery
My Best Pictures

Playing and learning daily with: 4x5 Crown Graphic, Leica IIIf w/ 50/2 Summitar, Nikon F2 Photomic w/ 50/1.4 & Olympus E-PL1.

"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type. And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #5
back alley
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ moderator
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: canada
Age: 62
Posts: 34,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoricko View Post
Hello guys,

I posted a thread about a 35mm giving a classic look a while back. Now I'm looking for a budget fast 35mm lens.

These are what I have in mind -
CV 35mm ƒ1.2 (V1)
CV 35mm ƒ1.4 MC
CV 35mm ƒ1.7
Canon 35mm ƒ1.5 LTM
Canon 35mm ƒ1.8 LTM

Not sure what to get. Do let me know if you know any other lens makes

The 1.2 has a huge filter thread which isn't compatible with my largest coloured filters. It also weighs quite a bit.

The 1.4 suffers from a lot of focus shift problems, which is very bothersome for me because I often work at distances under 1.2 meters. Also quite soft, but that is not the big issue here.

The 1.7 seems like a good lens for me, but it is almost like a collector's item now, and the minimum focusing distance is 0.9 meters I believe?

The Canon uses weird filter sizes, so I'll probably have to find some weird step-up on evilbay. There is also very little information on them in the web.

Don't ask me to get a Summilux, I am pretty broke right now.


you seem to have a pretty healthy 'budget'...the 1.2 is not what i would call a cheap lens.

and the lenses on your list...you have negative comments about all of them...doesn't seem like to really want any of them.

i find it all confusing...
__________________
heart soul and a camera
flickr

x-pro1...x-e1...8...14...18...27...35...60
rx100


"learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist"
pablo picasso

...it is very simple to be happy, but it is very difficult to be simple...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #6
Krosya
Konicaze
 
Krosya's Avatar
 
Krosya is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 3,676
From your list - cv 35/1.2 is clearly the best lens you can get. It's not really a "budget" lens, but not too pricey either, considering what you get for the money.
Best value for money would be Cv 35/1.7 IMO. Great Image quality and CAN be made to focus closer: - see this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=97167







I like Canons too, but not as all-around lenses.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Rangefinders : Hexar RF , Leica M5 and RD1S w/ many M and LTM lenses

Folders
:
Welta Weltur 6x6/645, Welta Weltur 6x9/645


flickr
  Reply With Quote

Canon!
Old 02-27-2011   #7
elmer3.5
Registered User
 
elmer3.5's Avatar
 
elmer3.5 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Age: 40
Posts: 587
Canon!

Hi, i had many VC lenses but only the ultron 1.7 in your list.
But i have currently the LTM canon 35mm 1.8, (ebay aprox 300 usd) i´ve read this is an average lens but to my experience it is superb optically and very small.

Check on these.

Canon at f4



Summilux at f4 version 3.




Canon, it doesn´t flare either!





I sold out many 35´s and at last kept this canon ltm and the summarit 35mm.

Bye!
__________________
Elmer3.5

m9 + sonnar zm 50
m3 + rollei sonnar 40
g1 + planar 45

Last edited by elmer3.5 : 02-27-2011 at 07:21.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #8
f16sunshine
Like boots in the dryer..
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 45
Posts: 3,101
Nice deal on a cv f1.7/35mm in the rff classified right now.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #9
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 6,547
Where did you get your information on the Nokton 35 f1.4?

Reading your list... seems to me that you just painted yourself into a corner for no other reason other than internet gossip. Of course, after reading your note I wondered about your sources...

And you forgot the Konica Hexanon 35mm f2.

Go for the CV. Either the f1.2 or 1.4 fit your description. Take care!
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
No longer selling any Nikon SLR glass...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #10
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
 
batterytypehah!'s Avatar
 
batterytypehah! is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 1,804
Which body would this be for? I can't tell from your post(s). Are you sure you can accurately focus a really fast lens? Does it matter to you or would you rather risk missing the focus versus not getting the shot at all? Even at 35, DoF gets mighty thin at 1.2... Not to mention the physical sizes of the lenses.

My fastest lenses are 50/1.8 on the Contax (not trivial, even with its long base length) and 40/1.7 on the Revue (hit and miss, the puny RF is not up to that speed). Not sure I'd want to go any faster, although the Sonnar 1.5 always beckons...

All of which is to say, if I were you, I'd start with a 1.8.
__________________
WANTED: Fujimoto/Lucky 70M negative carrier

“You’ve never seen everything” – Bruce Cockburn

Contax IIa + Leica IIIf + M3 (project) + Zorki-1 (project) + Fuji GS645 + FED-2 + Vitomatic II + Revue 400SE + more + still more
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #11
Yoricko
Registered User
 
Yoricko's Avatar
 
Yoricko is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_n View Post
From your list, the f1.2. Not on your list but staying with CV; the f2.5. It can give you a classic look but is small and manageable. Closest focus 0.7M.
I have that lens and it is a nice, sharp, medium-low contrast look.

ƒ2.5 isn't going to help me with dimly-lit streets, even with Tri-X at 1600. No, I do not want to specifically buy Delta 3200 or TMax 3200 just to shoot dimly lit streets (although the tonality is quite pleasant).

Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post
you seem to have a pretty healthy 'budget'...the 1.2 is not what i would call a cheap lens.

and the lenses on your list...you have negative comments about all of them...doesn't seem like to really want any of them.

i find it all confusing...
I'm looking for personal opinions and first-hand experience with these lenses or ... if they know something that I am unaware of, that would be very nice.

A well-used condition of the older generation of Lux is about 1650USD? The CV 1.2 only costs 950USD, and if I can find it used it might be a little bit cheaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krosya View Post
From your list - cv 35/1.2 is clearly the best lens you can get. It's not really a "budget" lens, but not too pricey either, considering what you get for the money.
Best value for money would be Cv 35/1.7 IMO. Great Image quality and CAN be made to focus closer: - see this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=97167

I like Canons too, but not as all-around lenses.
Woah! Thanks for the heads up! Didn't know my favourite 50 ƒ1.5 can be modded as well (though I've already sold mine.. dear me)

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmer3.5 View Post
Hi, i had many VC lenses but only the ultron 1.7 in your list.
But i have currently the LTM canon 35mm 1.8, (ebay aprox 300 usd) i´ve read this is an average lens but to my experience it is superb optically and very small.

Check on these.

Canon at f4

Summilux at f4 version 3.

Canon, it doesn´t flare either!

I sold out many 35´s and at last kept this canon ltm and the summarit 35mm.

Bye!
Thanks for the pictures! I've seen those test shots somewhere before. I can only hope it appears in my local buy & sell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Nice deal on a cv f1.7/35mm in the rff classified right now.
Thanks for the heads up. Cheers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave View Post
Where did you get your information on the Nokton 35 f1.4?

Reading your list... seems to me that you just painted yourself into a corner for no other reason other than internet gossip. Of course, after reading your note I wondered about your sources...

And you forgot the Konica Hexanon 35mm f2.

Go for the CV. Either the f1.2 or 1.4 fit your description. Take care!
Maybe I like to .. corner myself with negative things.

Bah.

A friend of mine told me about the review on 35mm lenses at reidreviews.

Seems reliable. Also did a small search on the net and it seemed more of a QC problem than the lens design problem. If I were to buy this lens, I would need an M9 to test with (using M6).

Quote:
Originally Posted by batterytypehah! View Post
Which body would this be for? I can't tell from your post(s). Are you sure you can accurately focus a really fast lens? Does it matter to you or would you rather risk missing the focus versus not getting the shot at all? Even at 35, DoF gets mighty thin at 1.2... Not to mention the physical sizes of the lenses.

My fastest lenses are 50/1.8 on the Contax (not trivial, even with its long base length) and 40/1.7 on the Revue (hit and miss, the puny RF is not up to that speed). Not sure I'd want to go any faster, although the Sonnar 1.5 always beckons...

All of which is to say, if I were you, I'd start with a 1.8.
M6. I use Tri-X at 200, 400, and 1600. I plan to experiment and find a timing for EI6400 in the near future.

Right now, most of my pictures are not plagued with focus problems but subject movement and camera shake (shooting at poor lighting conditions at 1/8th and 1/15th at 1600 with a ƒ2.5 lens). A moderately fast lens like the 1.7 could probably bump up the shutter from 1/15th to 1/30th, which makes a BIG difference. I also do not want to rely on rating my Tri-X at 6400 (high contrast, different look form my body of work) or buying specialty film (cost and trouble).
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #12
Tipton
Tipton Photo
 
Tipton's Avatar
 
Tipton is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 115
FWIW I know you'd be happy with the 35 1.2 if you don't mind the size. I've grown to love using the lens. If you don't mind f2, I can't say enough good things about the tiny 40mm Summicron.
Just my 2 cents.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #13
filmtwit
Registered User
 
filmtwit's Avatar
 
filmtwit is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: West Coast
Posts: 1,071
What about the Zeiss 35mm f2 Biogen?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #14
Yoricko
Registered User
 
Yoricko's Avatar
 
Yoricko is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tipton View Post
FWIW I know you'd be happy with the 35 1.2 if you don't mind the size. I've grown to love using the lens. If you don't mind f2, I can't say enough good things about the tiny 40mm Summicron.
Just my 2 cents.
I've dearly regretted selling my cron. The 1.2 is a good lens, the weigh will not bother me that much since it'll be in the bag most of the time, out only in low-light situations and such. Just a little quirk that I can't use my coloured B&W filters on it.
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2011   #15
dyao
Registered User
 
dyao is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 268
The Canon 35/1.8 only focuses to 1m - also if you're thinking about that one, why not think about the 35/2 as well?

The 35/1.8 is my primary lenses - most of the shots on my tumblr are taken with that or the canon 50/1.5
__________________
tumblr

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2011   #16
makeitmine
Registered User
 
makeitmine is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 29
hi yoricko,
among all the lenses, i have experienced with only the CV 35mm f1.4mm. In fact, i have own the lens 3 times, 2 MC versions [ sold the first one, regretted. Bought the 2nd one, stolen ] and so now i bought the 3rd one, a single coated version.

I am not too sure if you shoot colour or black and white film more. But personally i notice that there are slight difference between the sc and mc, with sc retaining more highlights, subtle colour (colour films) while mc really produces punchy, contrasty images.

you mentioned that you are concerned about the focusing shift issues. i think i was lucky, in all 3 lenses i had, i never experience that issue. So perhaps, it really depends on the copy you purchased? If getting new is not an issue than maybe you can find the right copy at your local store.

good luck in your search!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2011   #17
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 6,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoricko View Post
Also did a small search on the net and it seemed more of a QC problem than the lens design problem. If I were to buy this lens, I would need an M9 to test with (using M6).
I agree with SolaresLarrave that it looks like you're relying too much on third- or fourth-party hearsay evidence on the Internet.

What do you want the M9 for?
If you use an M6, it seems perfectly sufficient to me to test the lens on your M6.

From your list, I'd buy the f/1.2 if you have the money. If you do need larger colour filters, consider them an investment into the future.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2011   #18
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 39
Posts: 11,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoricko View Post
The 1.7 seems like a good lens for me, but it is almost like a collector's item now...
It is still the cheapest fast option I know of so I can't see how you'd say this...
__________________
www.flickr.com/jsrockit
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2011   #19
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 6,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoricko View Post
The 1.7 seems like a good lens for me, but it is almost like a collector's item now
What's the problem with a lens that you can get under $500, if you're willing to consider the 35/f1.2 which costs $750 used, or the Canon 35/f1.5 that actually is a collector's item?
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2011   #20
Yoricko
Registered User
 
Yoricko's Avatar
 
Yoricko is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
I agree with SolaresLarrave that it looks like you're relying too much on third- or fourth-party hearsay evidence on the Internet.

What do you want the M9 for?
If you use an M6, it seems perfectly sufficient to me to test the lens on your M6.

From your list, I'd buy the f/1.2 if you have the money. If you do need larger colour filters, consider them an investment into the future.
I guess so.

So I can tether up and test the lens in the shop to find a good copy. Sounds like an ass thing to do, but ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It is still the cheapest fast option I know of so I can't see how you'd say this...
Cheapest, yes. Availability, low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
What's the problem with a lens that you can get under $500, if you're willing to consider the 35/f1.2 which costs $750 used, or the Canon 35/f1.5 that actually is a collector's item?
Didn't know that :S
__________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #21
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 39
Posts: 11,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoricko View Post
Cheapest, yes. Availability, low.
They come up more than the canons.
__________________
www.flickr.com/jsrockit
  Reply With Quote

Which LSM 35mm would you recommend?
Old 03-01-2011   #22
danderby
danderby
 
danderby is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 4
Which LSM 35mm would you recommend?

I recently bought another Bessa-R to try out for weddings when I want to work close and quiet. Speed (f/2.8 or faster) and ease of handling would be considerations. In any case, getting a screw mount was probably a mistake but I had a Bessa-R a while back and adored it. Thanks for suggestions. DD
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #23
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,604
Just picket up a Zeiss T* 35/2.8 for $34 US dollars. How's that budget for ya? - especially Zeiss T* optics. It even came with a camera attached! - A nice weather-proof Yashica T3 with a waist-level finder.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #24
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 39
Posts: 11,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by danderby View Post
I recently bought another Bessa-R to try out for weddings when I want to work close and quiet. Speed (f/2.8 or faster) and ease of handling would be considerations. In any case, getting a screw mount was probably a mistake but I had a Bessa-R a while back and adored it. Thanks for suggestions. DD
LTM CV 35mm f/2.5
__________________
www.flickr.com/jsrockit
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2011   #25
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 6,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
LTM CV 35mm f/2.5
Agreed, no question about it - outstanding value for money.
Second best option is a 35/f1.7, and third best one of the Canons.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
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 19:44.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, 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.