stump4545 Posted June 21, 2013 Share #1 Â Posted June 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am looking for a tiny 35mm f2 for my MM. Â just go with the Leica 35mm cron v4 or is there something else to consider? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Hi stump4545, Take a look here recommendation for small 35mm f2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted June 21, 2013 Share #2  Posted June 21, 2013 I am looking for a tiny 35mm f2 for my MM. just go with the Leica 35mm cron v4 or is there something else to consider?  I have a Voightlander 35 mm f/1.4 that is really small.......at least to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted June 21, 2013 Share #3 Â Posted June 21, 2013 M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 (Summicron 40 clone), perhaps best value for money. Quite some talk around here. Cheers, Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share #4 Â Posted June 21, 2013 what about no 40mm framelines in the M9? Â not an issue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted June 21, 2013 Share #5  Posted June 21, 2013 Any of the non-asph Summicrons are good choices. Here are the V1 (8 element - M3 version with goggles), v2 1969 which I bought new and have used since, then the Voigtlander 35 f1.4 Nokton classic, then the Zeiss 35 f2, which looks taller in this picture due to the rear shroud raising it up compared to the others. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The v1 is lower contrast but small and nicely made, if expensive today. The 1969 v2 has nice contrast and no distortion, but not outstanding at f2.0. This sample of the Nokton is sharper at f2.0 than the Summicrons, but does have some focus shift stopping more than that (and there is sample variation). I love the Zeiss images, and so use it the most now, but wish it was smaller. As with the 50s, the Summarit is the real sleeper (at 2.5), but I don't have one (yet) for comparison. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The v1 is lower contrast but small and nicely made, if expensive today. The 1969 v2 has nice contrast and no distortion, but not outstanding at f2.0. This sample of the Nokton is sharper at f2.0 than the Summicrons, but does have some focus shift stopping more than that (and there is sample variation). I love the Zeiss images, and so use it the most now, but wish it was smaller. As with the 50s, the Summarit is the real sleeper (at 2.5), but I don't have one (yet) for comparison. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/207282-recommendation-for-small-35mm-f2/?do=findComment&comment=2355125'>More sharing options...
xalo Posted June 21, 2013 Share #6 Â Posted June 21, 2013 If in native state, the 40 brings up the 50mm lines. Three options: 1/ modify the lens mount by filing it a little (how-to's online I think) to bring up 35mm lines or buy one that's modified already 2/ ignore and get used to the wider field 3/ use a small wedge (e.g. from paper, wooden match or other) to block the frame selector at the position for 35. My preference, except on M3, where the whole finder is about 40mm, and on M5, where it triggers the battery test . I don't have an M9 (.68 finder, right?), but I understand it works like the film M's .72 finder and its framelines are supposed to be most accurate at 1m. Meaning they are more or less off beyond (wider than FOV of lens)... The 40 with 35 framelines are quite accurate at distances beyond 1,5m-2m, in my experience. Below, imagine a slightly narrower FOV. Â Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share #7 Â Posted June 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) is the Minolta 40mm of the same quality mechanically and optically as the Leica 40mm? Â is there only (1) version of the Leica 40mm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 21, 2013 Share #8 Â Posted June 21, 2013 If it's tiny you're after, you won't beat the MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 3.5/35. Runner up is probably the 3.5/35 Elmar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted June 21, 2013 Share #9  Posted June 21, 2013 As far as I know, yes, same level of quality throughout. Yes, only one Summicron 40 (at least optically — don't know if cosmetics changed with the Leica-Minolta branded CLs in Japan. Differences with practical impact between lenses seems the coating (more recent MC for the Rokkor) and filter thread stndard 40.5mm for Rokkor, Series 5.5/thread with non standard pitch (0.5) on the Summicron (workarounds exist).  P.S.: Just seeing John's comment. I sold my Elmar quickly as I found it not very versatile: very distinct look of an ancient lens, low contrast, warm cast. Didn't try much b&w though. Very small indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share #10 Â Posted June 21, 2013 so do the Minolta 40mm's go for much less then the Leica 40mm because of brand recognition only? Â Â how does image quality from the 40mm lenses compare to the small 35mm f2 v4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted June 21, 2013 Share #11 Â Posted June 21, 2013 All answers and much more starting for example here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-lenses/281960-rokkor-vs-summicron-40mm.html#post2386017 Cheers, Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share #12 Â Posted June 21, 2013 thanks for the link. Â so looks like the Minolta 40mm and Leica 40mm are twins. Â do they both take the same hood and front caps? Â thank you kindly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted June 21, 2013 Share #13 Â Posted June 21, 2013 You're welcome. For hoods, no, they don't, due to the different threads. Suggestions for sourcing commendable hoods for both are in the thread(s), if I remember well. Caps may depend on the type, but probably not. Adapters may help. A thing I like better with the Rokkor is the more recessed front element compared to the 35/2 iv. I leave filter and hood off more easily, making it really small. Sure enough, the lower price also helped to overcome some inhibitions in practical use (less overprotection scratch equals loss of value etc.). But that's probably just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marc G. Posted June 21, 2013 Share #14 Â Posted June 21, 2013 perfect thing if you want a small 35 = summarit, at least to me. flare resistant, equally good as the much more expensive summicron asph. if you don't need the hood for protection you can leave it off as this lens is nearly impossible to get to flare. Â and it is tiny, in case I didn't mention Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share #15 Â Posted June 21, 2013 how is the summarit mechanical quality? Â how does the summarit render, more like a pre asph or modern asph lens? Â Â Â hmmmmm......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marc G. Posted June 21, 2013 Share #16  Posted June 21, 2013 how is the summarit mechanical quality? how does the summarit render, more like a pre asph or modern asph lens?    hmmmmm.........  the rendering is a mix. if you look at the MTF curves, provided by Leica, you will see that the performance is on the same high level as the summicron asph. it is a very sharp lens, even wide open. other than that the very fine detail sharpens up till about 5.6, which is around the optimum (from my experience). as I said, the rendering is a mix between an asph lens and a pre asph. but the most amazing point is the flare resistance.  the mechanical quality of the lens depends on yourself. it's a different construction of the aperture ring (not as broad and flat as the one of the 35/2 asph, but rather a little bit smaller diameter and a ripped part that stands out from the aperture ring, where you will get your grip to turn it. the focusing throw is quite short which enables very quick but yet precise focusing (to the degree that is needed for a 35/2.5). the hood costs extra but is probably one of the best hood designs, up there with the one of the 28/2 asph and the other screw in hoods (21/3.4, 24/3.8, 35/1.4 FLE, all of those, I think, have screw in metal lens hoods too).  it is not as highly regarded as e.g. the summicron asph, which is a shame... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 22, 2013 Author Share #17 Â Posted June 22, 2013 as I want to travel as small as possible is lens hood necessary on: Â 35mm summarit 2.5? Â 35mm cron v4? Â 35mm cron asph? Â Â thanks for the advise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marc G. Posted June 22, 2013 Share #18 Â Posted June 22, 2013 by necessary I think you mean for the sake of flare protection. Â I can only speak for the Summarit (not necessary) and the Summicron asph (necessary but even with hood not resistant to flare). since the v4 summicron is older than the asph my guess is that it's more prone to flare than the summarit too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted June 22, 2013 Author Share #19 Â Posted June 22, 2013 with no hood the 35mm summarit would be about the same size/weight of the 35mm cron pre asph w/ hood. Â maybe i will just go with a no hood 35mm summarit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgcm Posted June 22, 2013 Share #20 Â Posted June 22, 2013 You will be surprised by Summarit 35. It's a very fine lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.