recommendations for small and cinematic 35 or 28?

[gniquil]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

I know this may sound strange, but I am shooting for a certain type of look in my pictures. What I would like is a small lens with a high minimum aperture (say 2.8, good enough), and lot of flare, in the 35 or 28 focal range. Any recommendations, preferably an older and relatively cheap lens (any of the older canon or russian lenses?).

 

The reason is I would like produce that "cinematic" look that I see in many wedding/fashion/hipster images. And since I am shooting film, sharpness is not at all important. Also I really only shoot in daylight, so it would be good enough to have a 2.8 so that I have a just tiny bit of power to isolate but not overly so.

 

I have the 35 cron asph and 50 lux and both of these are so technically sound that I can hardly ever to get them flare. So if you have any techniques that helps me to get these lens flare, let me know as well.

 

Frank

[Ecar]

I was going to suggest a Russian Jupiter 3, which would be about perfect in terms of "look", but then I realised you are after a 35 or 28...

The Jupiter 12 may be a good choice (I had one once), but since the rear element protrudes into the body, there's a risk of damaging the shutter - you'd need to check it very carefully on the particular camera you'd want to mount it on.

I think you'd find that the Canons from the 50's or 60's are "too good" for your purpose - I have a 35/1.8 and a 35/2 from that era and they are excellent performers, although not as sharp as modern lenses of course. They are also more expensive on the used market. The same applies to the Nikkors.

[pfhrased]

I know it's not a 35, but the m-rokkor 40/2 (summicron-c) may have some of the characteristics you're after. It's tiny, and a joy to use.

 

 

[gniquil]

I know it's not a 35, but the m-rokkor 40/2 (summicron-c) may have some of the characteristics you're after. It's tiny, and a joy to use.

 

 

 

Beautiful pictures and very interesting. I am using a M6 classic. Which frameline would the 40 bring up?

[pfhrased]

Beautiful pictures and very interesting. I am using a M6 classic. Which frameline would the 40 bring up?

 

thanks!

 

by default it brings up the 50mm frameline. Mine's modified (lug slightly filed) to bring up 35mm.

[Duane Pandorf]

Not an inexpensive lens but I'm enjoying the Leica Summilux 35mm pre-ASPH. It definitely flares and you can get that "glow" when your subject has a high contrast background.

 

The lens is almost always attached to my M-E. My blog is full of examples. Stopped down or wide open.

 

This may be an example for the cinematic look?

 

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

you might consider the 50mm Elmar 3.5F, which is an old collaspible lens from the 50's. When used w/o a hood this lens is a flare king. It also renders relatively soft when shot wide open, and overall not nearly as "clinical" as the newer lenses. The lens is also very compact and light. You should be able to get one in good condition for $400-$500.

[UliWer]

Well, I'd look upon the classical 1:3.5/50mm Elmar as a rather flare-resistant lens - the hood doesn't matter much.

 

The later version with 1:2.8 was more prone to flare, comparable to the 50mm Summicron - though not the last Elmar-M version, which is very, very tough against flare.

 

The typical flare lenses with 50mm are the Summar, the Summitar and the collapsible Summicron - though the question was for 28 and 35mm lenses, wasn't it?

 

In this range it get's dificult with Leica lenses: the 35mm Summicrons in their different versions all are rather flare sensitive, but they are all rather expensive as well.

 

With the cheaper 1:3.5/35mm Elmar or the Summaron both with 1:3.5 and 1:2.8 you won't be very successful looking for flare. The 1:5.6/28mm Summaron is one of the smallest Leica lenses you can get, but in my experience is a total failure if you look for the slightest flare - it might loose contrast in some situations but will never ever flare. I don't know about the different versions of the 28mm Elmarit - but anyway they are rather big and expensive again.

[gniquil]

Thanks everyone for the replies. It's interesting to see that old lenses tend to be more in the 35mm to 50mm range. I guess collectively the industry did advance over the past half century (in terms designing wider lenses).

 

And given 35 to 50s are much easier to find and cheaper, I will probably start looking into those.

[pfhrased]

Thanks everyone for the replies. It's interesting to see that old lenses tend to be more in the 35mm to 50mm range. I guess collectively the industry did advance over the past half century (in terms designing wider lenses).

 

And given 35 to 50s are much easier to find and cheaper, I will probably start looking into those.

 

I find it can be helpful to look at a ton of pictures on flickr by searching for a particular lens.

Maybe you also want to look at something like the old 21 super angulon?

[TomB_tx]

For an inexpensive trial you might look at the Voigtlander 35 f1.4 Nokton, which was an attempt to emulate the original tiny 35 Summilux. Even new it is under $650, and is available single-coated, which may flare more than the multicoated version I have. (Don't confuse it with the 35 f1.2 Nokton, which is huge.)

Voigtlander also has a 35 f2.5 Skopar which is even smaller and only about $410 new, and is a fine performer.

[earleygallery]

And since I am shooting film, sharpness is not at all important.

 

Oh yes, fuzzy wuzzy film, useless for sharp images isn't it!

[gniquil]

I guess sharpness doesn't matter is a bit of hyperbole. However, if you look around the reviews, notice even the cheap lenses, as long as they are not completely terrible, they are plenty sharp by about F2.8 to F4 (almost every thing out there). For example, look at Reid's review of the 35 skopar (as mentioned by one of the previous posts):

 

- (sharpness) it's actually really competent against the cron's and planar. The ones that don't do well in reviews (pixel peeping), it's more of focusing problem. If one uses slightly larger f-stop, DOF takes care of that (hence the 28 Ultron looks so freaking great in Reid's review pictures other than the test shots).

 

But other than sharpness, there are so many other qualities that contribute to the signature of a lens:

 

- (contrast) It's got lower contrast (so good for day time, harsh shadows)

- (distortion) yes cheaper lenses tend to have these but it's irrelevant since one can't really tell in street or portrait

- (flare) yay, more character

 

The only thing you don't get (actually you still get plenty in the 35 format):

 

- (bokeh) (this word always makes me cringe), if your subject is close enough, a 35 lens should still have just enough of this if you are relatively close to the foreground subject. Plus, i think what we are looking for is not creamy bokeh, but subject isolation. the notilux kind of bokeh is really border-line silly because it takes subject out of context. (One might as well bring a portal screen the photograph subjects in front of the screen )

 

While at it, for my kind of photography (street, landscape, portrait), small aperture (cheap) lens really offers enough:

 

- (Street) To cope with constant changing environment and getting the "moment", I really need something instantaneous. Therefore i generally only shoot during the day now. I crank up the f-stop to about F4-5.6 and preset the focus and start from there. Only rarely do I isolate my subjects using F-stop since that just means I have a weaker image that I will toss out later (subject being not strong enough to stand against a clear background that I have resort to tricks to blur them out). Some may question this approach, but I think this is the only way that works for me in the streets, as otherwise things are too slow and I miss too many shots.

 

- (Portrait) going with a longer lens is much better than having a large aperture as long makes people skinnier (less distortion) and bokeh is cheap.

 

- (Landscape) one probably uses tripod, iso 100 film, and F8+. So again large aperture is silly.

 

The bottom line is, the longer I play around with Leica, the more I feel Leica (in its modern form as a company) is trying to rip us off with crazy expensive lenses and cameras. For the absurd perfection at the last 1-2 stops (F2 and below), we literally pay 10x (35 skopar vs summilux FLE).

 

I wish Leica rather than focusing on being a luxury brand,

 

- focus more on modernizing the rangefinder system

- on the digital side, provide super high iso sensor--more street photography

- more advanced view finder--imagine fixed frameline but different magnifications for different lenses and other useful information

- address their supply chain issues (VP of Leica Supply Chain/Mfg should be fired, or would've been fired if Leica was a Silicon Valley company)

 

Anyway, enough rant. I am probably gonna give the 35 skopar a try, and maybe even the Jupiter 3. Anyone else has anymore suggestions?

[earleygallery]

Sorry, my point was that film isn't a handicap to making 'sharp' images. I hate the fixation with 'sharpness' on forums, that and bags! But I do like the photos of the pet cats showing the very nice sharp whiskers.

 

The Skopar is a very nice lens, Sean Reid told me that he often uses his in preference to the Summicron. I'm not sure it's right for the look you're after.

 

Maybe try an older LTM Summaron or Elmar?