Which '35 M mount and Why?

[Nigel Meaby]

Ok it's Bank Holiday Monday here in the UK and it's not stopped raining all day, so I may be suffering from a bit of cabin fever, as I've been in the house all day.
I thought I'd start a Poll to quell my curiosity and to amuse me while the rain continues to hammer down and darkness falls.

If you could only keep one 35mm M-fit or LTM lens which would it be and why? It's just for fun so humour me. I know we all have the freedom to have more than one lens in a certain focal length but which is your personal favourite and why?

I'm sorry if your personal favourite wasn't included in the poll but I only had 12 options. Please don't be offended and join in the discussion anyway!

[Richard G]

Summicron version IV because its so small and for the focus tab and tiny hood and for the look it gives, especially faces. I'm not so sure about the legendary bokeh, especially on the M9. Flare at times concerns me. I have a lot of confidence in my Zeiss lenses from that and every other point of view and can see myself getting the ZM C Biogon eventually and might end up preferring that.

[JayM]

Nokton Classic f/1.4

Small, sharp, low price, all around excellent. Have some extra money coming my way and was trying really hard to find a reason to buy a Leica lens but the Classic is just too perfect for me.

[Calzone]

Voted "Other."

35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM. Less than 1500 ever made. Really magical wide open and at F2.0. Single coated but mucho sharp. Very detailed rendering.

Cal

[rover]

35/1.2 Nokton for me. Right sized for me, I don't like those stubby little guys. Fast, sharp and just nice to use. I could afford it too.

[jsrockit]

35mm C-Biogon f/2.8

As much as I'd like a faster 35mm lens, they are too big generally or just not as good... this lens keeps me from buying another 35mm lens because they aren't as good (unless you spend at least two times more and/or are willing to add extra size). The C-Biogon truly is a bargain compared to most M mount lenses.

[kxl]

CV 35/1.2... why? because sometimes you just need f/1.2.

[lcpr]

Another vote for the 1.2 - great below f/2, absolutely fantastic above it. Then again, it's my only M-mount 35, may add the C-Biogon though!

[jychoe]

I chose other b/c I have a 35 Nokton 1.4 and could not justify buying other 35s in the market.

but I would definitely like to try all of those before making a choice.

[MikeL]

Summilux asph.

My reasons: Medium contrast, not too big, and the thing just delivers at all apertures.

For me, this lens is one I'd really miss.

[michaelbialecki]

35mm 1.2........it just works for me.....plain and simple.....the size and weight do not bother me at all.....

cheer, michael

[N. Bruce Nelson]

I have the later Canon 35 mm f 2.8, which I like for its tiny size, and sharp but low contrast results. I have fallen in love with the look, and sometimes use it on my Micro 4/3rds G1, as well as on my rangefinder film cameras. (Canon III, L1, and 7, VC Bessa R and Leica CL). It is a very high value (performance vs cost) lens.

[slantface]

35 summicron ASPH

Just a great little lens. I have the chrome version, which is a little heavier, but fantastic build quality. The lens is amazingly sharp, no focus shift issues, and is tiny compared to the 35 Lux ASPH (which I also have, and love a lot).

I just think the 35 Cron is the best bang for the buck and you can use it for just about everything. Being a shorter focal length will also allow you to shoot at lower speeds handheld. Yes, all these 35mm lenses can do the same, but you can shoot at f2 in close to dark vs. a 50mm f2.

[menthel]

I have a v3 summicron and love it. Gives the kind of look I like, especially in b&w. Not tried any others but don't see any need to change!

[Nigel Meaby]

Well thanks so far to those who have posted and voted. Lots have voted but not talked about why they like a particular lens and lots who have voted "other" but have not stated which lens this is. I'm really interested to hear everyone's opinions on this. Lens choice is completely subjective with so many variables involved be it cost, size, rendering, speed, etc.
Feel free to post photo's too if you wish.

[photografity]

CV 1.2 - best bang for the $$$$

[Joe Brugger]

Other. 35/2.5 CV is on the M4-P most of the time. The price difference leaves a lot of cash in the travel and film funds, and most clients have no idea what lens is being used -- they just want sharp, clear photos.

[redisburning]

I don't own a 35mm (yet).

my short list is the 8 element cron and the biogon. probably the latter. every lens on that list is worth owning.

[steveyork]

I only have a Summicron ASPH, obtained many years ago -- I had at one time a 4th version; they tell me the ASPH is better. But from what I've read, the Zeiss Biogons are real nice. Someday I'll give one a whirl. I really like the drawing of an old 50mm Planar I used on a Contarex last summer.

[Glass Addict]

For me, it's simple. summilux asph fle. I have a few 35mm, but hopefully I will never have to let this one go. I can live without the others.

[sebastel]

...... and i just think of completely eliminating 35mm from my selection.
(biogon f/2 for me, i like how it "draws")

[umcelinho]

35/1.2 Nokton, because it's always sharp, it's fast, almost never flares and it handles nicely. yeah, it's big, but i like low light shooting.

[maddoc]

35mm Summilux-M "pre-ASPH" Why ? It is the only one I have .... I would not mind having additionally a 35/2.0 vs3 or 35/1.4 ASPH (had one borrowed from a friend for a couple of month) but for the moment the 35mm Summilux-M pre-ASPH is all what I need in 35mm focal length.

[Araakii]

Summilux pre-asph. The nostalgic rendering and the tone it produces just draws me into the photos immediately.

[Hosermage]

35'Cron V4... the only 35 I got. However, I'm more of a 50mm guy.

Had the CV f/1.2 before and sold it because of its size. I do miss it because its IQ was hard to beat.