PDA

View Full Version : Whats the best 35mm lens for shooting film?


papo
05-20-2017, 22:38
Right now i am eyeing the Biogon 2.8 that according to reviews and forum opinions seems to have an amazing price/value but I see all of these other 35s so i wonder, what other great or even better alternatives are out there when shooting film?

Thanks in advance!

bayernfan
05-20-2017, 22:50
Zeiss offers a lot of value/$, no doubt. But you've gotta like the Zeiss look. Very sharp, lotta micro-contrast. Personally, I find it the look too modern. I shoot film because of the classic aesthetic. I also prefer the rendering of a classic lens.

Some of my favorite 35mm LTM/M Mount lenses are: 35/2 Summicron V1/2/3, 35/2.8 Summaron, 35/3.5 Summaron, 35/1.4 Summilux pre-asph V2, 40/2 M-Rokkor, W-Nikkor 35/1.8, W-Nikkor 35/2.5

Chriscrawfordphoto
05-20-2017, 23:03
I loved my Biogon 35/2.8 when I was still shooting Leica. It was the sharpest 35mm lens I have ever shot, in any camera system. It is, as bayernfan mentions, a very contrasty lens.

sara
05-20-2017, 23:08
I've used the Voigtlander 35 2.5 pancake lens for a very long time and it has served me well (I've changed to Summicron since then).

A friend of mine told me that the Voigtlander has a little but more contrast.

mcfingon
05-20-2017, 23:10
I have a 35 f2 Biogon, which I think is excellent. Works nicely with my M6 and Delta 100 film.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/51008/U51008I1494059667.SEQ.0.jpg

Chriscrawfordphoto
05-20-2017, 23:14
http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/smiley-chair.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/analsexbike.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/sober-2007-1.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/phd-wireless.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/buy-sell-everything.jpg

I shot all of these with the 35mm f2.8 Biogon with Tri-X film and Leica M6.

KM-25
05-20-2017, 23:15
My faves are the ones I have, 35 F2 Summicron V4 and 35mm 1.4 FLE.

mcfingon
05-20-2017, 23:24
http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/smiley-chair.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/analsexbike.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/sober-2007-1.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/phd-wireless.jpg



http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw4/images/product_full/buy-sell-everything.jpg

I shot all of these with the 35mm f2.8 Biogon with Tri-X film and Leica M6.

They all look super-punchy Chris. Great stuff.

jamin-b
05-20-2017, 23:30
I have the Biogon 2.8 and a Summaron 2.8, with goggles, for use with the M3, and the VoigtlanderColor Skopar 2.5 (LTM). The biogon and Summaron are two very different lenses - the Summaron is more organic, sharp but never harsh, and it is hard to imagine anything sharper or more contrasty than the Biogon. For a while I actually disliked the Biogon, especially on digital (in sun I found the contrast overdone) but have come to appreciate it. The Voigtlander is also quite contrasty but without the bite of the Biogon. it often gets taken along because it is so compact but , while it is perfectly good, somehow it leaves the a impression of being neither here nor there.

I like to pair sharper, "cleaner" films like Arcos, Pan F, Ektar with the more "gentle" lenses and the sharper, digital ones with more grainy ones like HP5+, color 400 ISO and up and the Fomapans.

Nice to have so many choices, especially when each is really quite excellent in its own way.

teddy
05-21-2017, 01:40
Zeiss offers a lot of value/$, no doubt. But you've gotta like the Zeiss look. Very sharp, lotta micro-contrast. Personally, I find it the look too modern. I shoot film because of the classic aesthetic. I also prefer the rendering of a classic lens.

Some of my favorite 35mm LTM/M Mount lenses are: 35/2 Summicron V1/2/3, 35/2.8 Summaron, 35/3.5 Summaron, 35/1.4 Summilux pre-asph V2, 40/2 M-Rokkor, W-Nikkor 35/1.8, W-Nikkor 35/2.5

I also shoot for a certain look and aesthetic - and I also shoot the Leitz Summicron 35/2 V1, Summaron 35/2.8. I consider them in the group of the sharpest lenses in the world. I even find that the Summaron 35/2.8 gives me a balance of both worlds - vintage and modern when it comes to high contrast and that look of the 50's with colour and black and white.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2697/32103672674_fa6c89d9b5_z.jpg
Leica M3, Leitz Summaron 35/2.8, Fuji Provia 100F, 81a Warming Filter, 40 seconds

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/510/32583722770_7029ac3a4f_z.jpg
Leica M3, Leitz Summicron 35/2 V1, Fuji Velvia 50 (1998), 81a Warming Filter

Richard G
05-21-2017, 03:58
Of course there isn't just one. I like this C Biogon very much, but also enjoy my version 4 Summicron. The latter is tiny. Tinier still is the f3.5 Summaron. I like the results I've had with Ektar and black and white with that 1950 lens.

ChrisPlatt
05-21-2017, 05:38
A: The one I like best that fits the lens mount on the camera I am using! ;)

So many answers; none of them are wrong.
There are many unsung heroes in this category.

Many in this forum praise the humble CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar.
Mine is the only LTM lens I have kept.

When I'm out in a downpour I can continue to shoot away happily
with the modest 35/2.5 Nikkor lens on my Nikonos camera.

To SLR users I suggest you try the superb Pentax 35/3.5 lens,
available in both M42, ES screw and PK bayonet versions.

Chris

Ko.Fe.
05-21-2017, 07:27
Right now i am eyeing the Biogon 2.8 that according to reviews and forum opinions seems to have an amazing price/value but I see all of these other 35s so i wonder, what other great or even better alternatives are out there when shooting film?

Thanks in advance!

Forum opinions also glorifying Color Skopar, which is slightly faster, lighter, much easier to handle (IMO) and not expensive as Biogon.

"Film" consist of two very different ventures. Where is color film and for it Color Skopar is "an amazing value/price" for negatives scans reviewed on the screen and inkjet prints.

And then where is BW film where it is still relatively easy to get it done right by DIY and print from the negative in the darkroom.... I never printed from modern 35 2.8 Zeiss. But I printed from illusive, rare and flaring like crazy "Russian Biogon"... I prefer it to Color Skopar 35 2.5 on the darkroom prints or even scans.

But my best color, bw film and digital lens is the Summarit-M 35 2.5. It was worth to pay twice than slightly slower Zeiss and it is not time bitten lottery as Canadian Crons, which I also like for their build, handling and even images, but see no practical reason to pay current speculative price.

Roger Hicks
05-21-2017, 08:26
Doesn't matter a lot. I've one of the cheapest (Color Skopar) and one of the astonishingly valuable cult classics (pre-aspheric Summilux, the first Leica lens I ever bought new) and I use the Summilux more 'cos it's faster and I like the handling slightly better. I sold my 35/1.7 Ultron because someone REALLY wanted it and it was sort of between the other two: superb performance, indifferent handling.

Cheers,

R.

Erik van Straten
05-21-2017, 08:49
I have collected quite a lot of 35mm lenses over the years: Elmar f/3.5 thick cam, Elmar f/3.5 nickel, Summaron f/3.5 LTM, Summaron F/3.5 M, Summaron f/2.8 M (fits also screw mount), Summaron f/2.8 goggles, Summicron f/2 (8 elements), Summicron f/2 (8 elements) goggles, Summilux f/1.4 goggles v1, Summilux f/1.4 v1, Summilux f/1.4 v2 infinity lock, Ultron f/1.7 LTM and Ultron f/1.7 M, not to forget the Nikkors 35mm f/2.5 and f/1.8. I like the Summilux f/1.4 v1 the best, but the others are nice too, so I keep them all.

Leica I model C, Elmar 35mm f/3.5 thick cam, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4225/34600284662_2971958979_c.jpg

SaveKodak
05-21-2017, 08:51
The Zeiss lenses are the best bang for the buck, and in the case of the 35/1.4, the best period. I personally love the 35/2 Biogon for it's speed, performance, and handling. Some people said that this lens is softer wide open, but I have 25mp images from my A7, shot at F2, that are ridiculously sharp. I had the 35/1.4 and it's the best 35 I've ever shot, but it's IMO too big for a film sized M.

ferider
05-21-2017, 09:19
I have quite a few 35s. My favorites are the Summicron v1 and the chrome VM Ultron 35/1.7.

Both are truly amazing lenses. Technically, the Ultron runs circles around both ZM Biogons. And, did I mention that I like my lenses well built ?

Roland.

Chubberino
05-21-2017, 09:51
I haven't been able to dabble much because budget restricts it, lol, but I adore my Summaron 35mm 2.8 for film and digital. If I had my druthers, I'd probably get the 8-element Summicron, but it's very expensive.

narsuitus
05-21-2017, 10:12
Here is another vote for the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4

DwF
05-21-2017, 10:20
http://m0.i.pbase.com/o4/91/523491/1/53569710.manatmetsizedless.jpg

35 Summicron v4 ...but those Biogon-C pics sure look good!

Erik van Straten
05-21-2017, 10:32
Leica M5, Ultron-M 35mm f/1.7 chrome, 400-2TMY.

Very nice lens, very sharp (this is at full aperture) and zero distortion. Much handier than the Zeiss f/1.4 I would say.

Erik.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1540/24380497380_bc4293ddaa_c.jpg

FrozenInTime
05-21-2017, 10:52
The 35 Biogon-C is almost perfect for daytime outdoor use.
Go inside and you are also going to want a 35/1.4 - especially if you don't want to change mid roll to a pushed / higher ISO film.
Having both is the perfect long term plan.

Why both ?
The ZM 35/2.8 is incredibly small and technically near perfect.
35/1.4s are either bulky or less corrected and characterful.

I built up to three 35mm lenses over the years :
35/2 Summicron IV ( soft wide open - sold/traded for below )
35/1.4 ASPH ( pre FLE ) - great wide open but flares
Voigtlander 35/2.5 ( bought to accompany flaring above - good but sold for below )
ZM 35/2.8 - sharp, distortion and flare free
MS 35/1.4 - tiny, fun - oozes character but not for pixel peepers.

Timmyjoe
05-21-2017, 11:12
I'm probably the only one here who isn't a fan of the Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH. I always found it rendered too "heavy" for my tastes in B&W. Maybe it's because I never mastered it. Been shying away from the Zeiss look too, as mentioned above, find it too "modern", too "spot on sharp", and a bit too "snappy" for my tastes.

Have fallen hard for the W-Nikkor-C 3.5cm f2.5 of late. Find it renders on Kodak Double-XX just as I imagine.

Best,
-Tim

Erik van Straten
05-21-2017, 11:32
Have fallen hard for the W-Nikkor-C 3.5cm f2.5 of late. Find it renders on Kodak Double-XX just as I imagine.



I love that lens too, very much, but I can't mount it on my Leicas!

Contax I, Nikkor 35mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3868/32250976184_4cd988c50c_c.jpg

papo
05-21-2017, 11:45
Thank you guys for all of your infos, maybe (just maybe) i should have added that all i have to spend is a grand :D

creenus
05-21-2017, 12:08
I'm happy with the Leica 35mm Summarit-M f2.5, fwiw. Sharp, small, light.

maggieo
05-21-2017, 12:29
Of course there isn't just one. I like this C Biogon very much, but also enjoy my version 4 Summicron. The latter is tiny. Tinier still is the f3.5 Summaron. I like the results I've had with Ektar and black and white with that 1950 lens.

I don't have a Summicron, but I have the C Biogon and a 35/3.5 Summaron and I concur that both are great, if very different lenses.

maggieo
05-21-2017, 12:34
Summaron on film:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5301/5551040262_737672dfc3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/9swwSJ)
Rudy's Dad, September, 2010 (https://flic.kr/p/9swwSJ) by Maggie Osterberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5177/5541669777_38bf57e9c7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/9rGvmD)
Dad in the Sunroom, September, 2010 (https://flic.kr/p/9rGvmD) by Maggie Osterberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4114/4744216589_c449ff63ed_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/8eemiK)
Red Wine, Red Tomatoes, April, 2010 (https://flic.kr/p/8eemiK) by Maggie Osterberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4068/4604461969_58f482fea6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/81T58k)
MCB At Pioneers Park, May, 2010 (https://flic.kr/p/81T58k) by Maggie Osterberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/), on Flickr

Digital B&W, for comparison:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3906/14643241434_d1f1c0224d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/oiYrvU)
District 113, April 11, 2010 (https://flic.kr/p/oiYrvU) by Maggie Osterberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mediawench/), on Flickr

ktmrider
05-21-2017, 15:57
I have owned lots of 35mm lenses including the CV 35f2.5, CV 35f1.2 and Zeiss 35f2.8. They all are great. I think it would come down to speed and size. I really like the 35f1.2 except when I am on a hiking trip. The Zeiss was with me during hiking in Scotland and Spain on the M9 a couple years ago. I bought it cause I did not want to lug the 35f1.2 through the hills of Scotland.

As has been said earlier, most 35's made today are great. It comes down to size, handling and cost more then sharpness, flare resistance or bokeh (still trying to decide what the hell that means).

If you live within distance of a good camera store, try to handle as many samples of different lenses as you can.

michaelwj
05-21-2017, 17:49
Everyone has their favourites as you can see.

The best 35mm lens for your Leica is the one that is fast enough to get the shots you want, small enough to carry, affordable enough to buy, delivers the images you want, and feels good ergonomically.

What's wrong with the C-Biogon?
Is it too slow? Look at the CV 1.7/35
Too small? Look at the 2/35 Biogon
Too expensive? Look at the CV 2.5/35
Not good ergonomically? Look at the CV 1.7/35 or 2.5/35
Don't like the images? Look at the 2.8/35 sumamron

If you're shooting black and white, you have so many other variables that contribute the the final image, so if you don't like the images from the C-Biogon (which is a mighty fine lens), then maybe start different films/development/printing options.

stillshunter
05-21-2017, 22:47
Had a few in my time. The 35 summicron (think mine's a v2 or 3 no matter) has proven the best allrounder - esp. Nice balance between size and quality.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

bayernfan
05-21-2017, 23:35
Had a few in my time. The 35 summicron (think mine's a v2 or 3 no matter) has proven the best allrounder - esp. Nice balance between size and quality.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

Yep, my v2 is definitely the best all-rounder 35 I've owned. Tiny lens, awesome ergonomics, stunning image quality.

infrequent
05-22-2017, 00:21
Surprised no one has mentioned the 35/2 UC-Hexanon in LTM.

telenous
05-22-2017, 03:25
Thank you guys for all of your infos, maybe (just maybe) i should have added that all i have to spend is a grand :D

For a grand you can get any of the Voigtlander 35's. Of them the one that seems the best compromise in terms of performance, size, speed, cost, is the Ultron 35/1.7. The Nokton f/1.2 is too big/heavy. The Nokton f/1.4 is nicely compact but it lags behind in performance. The Skopar f/2.5 is really good but, personally, I'd get it only after I had a fast 35. So there. :angel:

.

Ko.Fe.
05-22-2017, 05:55
Interesting. I'm also looking at third 35 under 1K$. To replace my third CV CS which does job well but has no performance, hint, spark, pinch and so on. I wish, I like Biogon C, but it has bad ergonomics for me, while rendering is nice. Ultrons, both LTM and ZM are well alive lenses on BW, but, againg no tab. And the only lens which I'm finding to be worth to try under 1K$ is .... Nokton 35 1.4 :). Lens with performance.

Phil_F_NM
05-22-2017, 07:32
I've used the following 35mm lenses for film and a few of them for digital as well:
Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8
Canon 35mm f/2
Voigtlander 35mm f/1.7
Leica Summaron 35mm f/3.5
Leica Summicron 35mm f/2
Leica Summilux 35mm f/1.4 V2
Komura 35mm f/2.8
Nikon 3.5cm f/2.5
Nikon 3.5cm f/1.8
Jupiter 12
Konica UC Hexanon 35mm f/2

Now, all of these are excellent lenses, as are all of the lenses that have previously been mentioned so you're only getting opinions from folks who prefer a lens for one reason or another, but none is the "best."
In my opinion though, my favorite of all these lenses is the UC Hexanon. I should have never sold it but life goes on.

Phil Forrest

borge
05-22-2017, 07:54
I prefer the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 ZM personally.

I've tried the following over the course of several years:

Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 ZM
Leica Summicron 35/2.0 ASPH
Leica Summicron 35/2.0 "King of Bokeh"
Leica Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH FLE
Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton Classic

mpaniagua
05-22-2017, 08:08
Probably it depends the result I\m aiming for. For classic, vintage mood, I like Elmar 35mm f3.5(LTM) Not that sharp but give a very classic mood I like.

Otherwise, I go for either Summicron or Summaron, pretty sharp lenses.


On SLR, normally go for Rolleiflex QBM 35mm Distagon. Normally use it on my Rolleiflex SL35e but also on the Canon EOS 6d.

Regards

Marcelo

jsrockit
05-22-2017, 08:20
Some I've owned or used...

Favorite: Zeiss C-Biogon 2.8 - just a great great lens for the money and the last M 35mm I had ever owned.

Zeiss Biogon f/2 - perfectly fine but a little larger than I liked for a 35mm M lens

Cheap: CV 2.5 - great size and price, but kind of generic

CV 1.4 Nokton... great size and speed... but can show focus shift.

CV 35mm 1.7 ... underrated.
35mm Elmar 3.5 ... tiny and very old fashioned in results. Interesting when used on digital.

35mm summaron 2.8... excellent low contrast lens for color

MS optical 35mm 3.5... tiny and cool, but expensive for the quality.

Borrowed: Nikon 35mm f1.8 LTM lens... magical wide open. However, focuses the opposite way to M lenses.

Canon 35mm f/2 - Overrated.

mpaniagua
05-22-2017, 08:49
...
35mm Elmar 3.5 ... tiny and very old fashioned in results. Interesting when used on digital.


Any picture jsrockit? I've used only on b/w on my Leicas, but got curious about your comment.


Regards.

Marcelo

jsrockit
05-22-2017, 09:02
Any picture jsrockit? I've used only on b/w on my Leicas, but got curious about your comment.


Sorry, but no unfortunately. It's been a long time since I used it and I can't for the life of me remember which images it would have been. I'm going from memory on what I had thought about it at the time. All I can say it that my copy was not really that sharp wide open and had plenty of corner softness... but it could work at times to soften harsh digital M8/M9 files at times.

tunalegs
05-22-2017, 09:06
Now, all of these are excellent lenses, as are all of the lenses that have previously been mentioned so you're only getting opinions from folks who prefer a lens for one reason or another, but none is the "best."
In my opinion though, my favorite of all these lenses is the UC Hexanon.

Why is it the best?

Phil_F_NM
05-22-2017, 09:46
Why is it the best?

It's not the "best," as there is none. This is all subjective, according to the user's preference. I preferred the UC Hexanon because of the way it renders an image and the extraordinary build quality.

Phil Forrest

stompyq
05-22-2017, 09:54
Some I've owned or used...

Favorite: Zeiss C-Biogon 2.8 - just a great great lens for the money and the last M 35mm I had ever owned.

Zeiss Biogon f/2 - perfectly fine but a little larger than I liked for a 35mm M lens

Cheap: CV 2.5 - great size and price, but kind of generic

CV 1.4 Nokton... great size and speed... but can show focus shift.

CV 35mm 1.7 ... underrated.
35mm Elmar 3.5 ... tiny and very old fashioned in results. Interesting when used on digital.

35mm summaron 2.8... excellent low contrast lens for color

MS optical 35mm 3.5... tiny and cool, but expensive for the quality.

Borrowed: Nikon 35mm f1.8 LTM lens... magical wide open. However, focuses the opposite way to M lenses.

Canon 35mm f/2 - Overrated.

!!!!! Magical?? You calling a lens magical???!!!! Now I really need to find a Nikon 35mm 1.8

jsrockit
05-22-2017, 09:58
!!!!! Magical?? You calling a lens magical???!!!! Now I really need to find a Nikon 35mm 1.8

In this one case, there is something special about that lens. Whether it'll matter is another question though.

stompyq
05-22-2017, 09:59
In this one case, there is something special about that lens. Whether it'll matter is another question though.

Annndddd... theres the Jsrockit I know. Normal service has resumed:)

mpaniagua
05-22-2017, 17:11
Sorry, but no unfortunately. It's been a long time since I used it and I can't for the life of me remember which images it would have been. I'm going from memory on what I had thought about it at the time. All I can say it that my copy was not really that sharp wide open and had plenty of corner softness... but it could work at times to soften harsh digital M8/M9 files at times.

Sound just like my copy. Will get an M to EOS 6d adapter and give it a try.

Regards

Marcelo

ChrisPlatt
05-28-2017, 14:15
I just bought a CZJ Prakticar 35/2.4 (Flektogon) for my new Praktica B200.

Chris

Contarama
05-28-2017, 14:24
I bought my 35/2 Nikkor for my SLR from the Leica Store. Really good lens. I think it is because it came from the Leica Store. :)

newfilm
05-28-2017, 14:50
I shot all of these with the 35mm f2.8 Biogon with Tri-X film and Leica M6.

The contrast looks really high, almost like it's clipping the black, is that normal for this lens?

ChrisPlatt
05-29-2017, 13:55
I bought my 35/2 Nikkor for my SLR from the Leica Store. Really good lens. I think it is because it came from the Leica Store. :)

I love my 35mm f/2.0 Nikkor lens. It's my best 35/2 lens that fits on my Nikons. ;)

Chris