Sharpest 35mm under $1000

[cartierbresson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although I recommended the Zeiss 2.8, I have the VC 35 1.4, Zeiss 35 f2.0, and Summarit 35 2.5. My VC 1.4 is fairly sharp in most pictures, and handles well - like a copy of the old Summilux 35 - but its sharpness varies across the field. (Center is good) I find the Zeiss 35 f2.0 and the Summarit 2.5 about equal in performance, but the Summarit handling is better for me. Overall I like the Summarit best, but a good copy used is a bit more than $1K

 

I just got outbid on a 9/10 Summarit 2.5 on eBay at $860. That was probably a hell of a bargain -- prices seem to hover around $1100 for most in that condition.

[james.liam]

The Zeiss 35 2.8 is so sharp that it creates artefacts on my M9,  but it is amazing on the MM. The Cron 4 handles better but it is over your budget.  The Zeiss is also extraordinary at infinity. All around a remarkable lens.  Also no distortion that I can see.  Cheshire Cat has a good question.  I always shoot at 5.6-8,  where lense are at their best.  I think Bokeh is the biggest myth in the game.  I hope Leica paid off Michael Johnson for creating both the term  and the idea  that the Cron 4 is the Bokeh king.  All nonsense. 

 

 

Cheshire Cat's point is worth following up. At ƒ/5.6, all the optics mentioned are stellar, perhaps with the exception of the the CV 1,4/35. For the price range mentioned, the choices are pretty distinct.

The Summaron 35/2.8 can be found for the price range specified, and because it was the cheaper, hobbyist's choice (over the pricey Summicron 8-element, favorite of photojournalists) they have tended to survive in better shape; renders with perhaps a hair more contrast than the Summicron but classical 50's Leica character and really great on the Monochrome--it is a bespoke, handmade gem of a bygone time and an experience to handle; worth seeking out for that reason alone. 

The CV 2,5/35, though lower in contrast at wider apertures, cleans up nicely stopped down, is crazy small, renders in a lovely fashion but doesn't quite sharpen up in the far corners as well as the others by ƒ/5.6.

The ZM 35C is every bit as high-resolution as its f/2 Biogon sister; smaller, insane sharpness already at ƒ/2.8 and the highest contrast of them all. Very modern look.

 

If you want really sharp, save up your pennies for the ZM 1,4/35. New, they're already below $2000 so if you have some patience, used copies should begin to appear for ~$1500-1600 soon enough. 

[cartierbresson]

Cheshire Cat's point is worth following up. At ƒ/5.6, all the optics mentioned are stellar, perhaps with the exception of the the CV 1,4/35. For the price range mentioned, the choices are pretty distinct.

The Summaron 35/2.8 can be found for the price range specified, and because it was the cheaper, hobbyist's choice (over the pricey Summicron 8-element, favorite of photojournalists) they have tended to survive in better shape; renders with perhaps a hair more contrast than the Summicron but classical 50's Leica character and really great on the Monochrome--it is a bespoke, handmade gem of a bygone time and an experience to handle; worth seeking out for that reason alone. 

The CV 2,5/35, though lower in contrast at wider apertures, cleans up nicely stopped down, is crazy small, renders in a lovely fashion but doesn't quite sharpen up in the far corners as well as the others by ƒ/5.6.

The ZM 35C is every bit as high-resolution as its f/2 Biogon sister; smaller, insane sharpness already at ƒ/2.8 and the highest contrast of them all. Very modern look.

 

If you want really sharp, save up your pennies for the ZM 1,4/35. New, they're already below $2000 so if you have some patience, used copies should begin to appear for ~$1500-1600 soon enough. 

 

Thanks james.liam! That's very useful information.

[lct]

[...] sometimes I step out at night and with my Tamron at 2.8 it can be slow, even on high ISO. 

 

I would try a CV 35/1.4 then. My SC version is rather soft at full aperture and has a lot of focus shift at f/2/8 and f/4 but it is less visible on film i've been told. The lens is sharp at f/2.8 and on, w/o reaching the heaths of the Biogon 35/2.8, but the CV flares a lot i must say. The MC version is probably better from this viewpoint.

[bernie.lcf]

Thanks for all your responses. Regarding aperture, I typically shoot on the street at f/8, but sometimes I step out at night and with my Tamron at 2.8 it can be slow, even on high ISO. 

 

I think that these requirements change a lot. The typical Leica shooter will shoot his/her lens at maximum aperture.

 

If your primary "range" is f8 then, to be perfectly honest, it doesn't really matter which lens you choose. My photography teacher used to say: at f8 you should be able to mount a coca cola bottle on the camera for ok results. 

 

Focus shift will not be a huge issue as this primarily happens somewhere slightly below max aperture and around medium aperture (f2.8 - f5.6). In other words: a focus shifting lens should be sharp wide open. By the time you reach f8, depth of field will eliminate most of the focus shift issues for you. This basically puts the Voigtländer 35/1.4 back on the table. 

 

Since you only have the occasional requirement to shoot wide open (in low light situations), that wide open aperture probably does not need to be excellent, just good enough. This puts the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 and the Voigtländer 35/1.2 on the table. Both are visibly less sharp wide open (to use Put's words: the Biogon design is slightly overwhelmed by the f2 aperture). The rather expensive Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 is much sharper at f2.0 than the Biogon 35/2 for example. All other lenses are quite alright wide open, but of course wide open in their case means f2.5 or f2.8 

 

In summary: shooting f8 basically qualifies all choices for you and they'll all be quite good at this aperture. The choice of lens then depends on how important the max. aperture is for you and how wide open that needs to be.

If you need affordable Summilux-like aperture and are willing to sacrifice wide open performance: Voigtländer 35/1.4, Voigtländer 35/1.2 (prefer version II if possible), Zeiss Biogon 35/2 (not Summilux-like, only f2, but that's still more than f2.8)

If you need great performance wide open and are willing to sacrifice max. aperture: Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8, Leica Summarit 35/2.5, Voigtländer 35/2.5 P-Type II

If you need the smallest possible 35mm lens: Voigtländer 35/2.5 P-Type II

 

Between the different brands, these are the key "features":

Voigtländer 35/2.5: classical rendering similar to older Leica lenses with less contrast

Voigtländer 35/1.4: two versions SC and MC, SC usually prefered for black and white

Zeiss: max. contrast, very little distortion

Summarit 35/2.5: very similar to the Summicron 35 in rendering except for the slightly smaller max. aperture

Between Zeiss and the rest, the Zeiss handle flare a little better

 

The choice will depend on how you use your lens: e.g. in bright sunlight, the max. contrast lenses (Zeiss) might be a bit harsh

[madNbad]

The 35 2.8 Summarons in M mount continue to climb in price.  Finding a decent copy for less than a thousand USD is challenging.  Nice 3.5 Summarons in both M and LTM can be found for around three hundred to five hundred USD.  Not quite in the same league as many of the other lenses mentioned for sharpness but a decent performer at mid apatures.  The older LTM's are tiny and make for a nice wandering around lens.  It's hard to go wrong with any of the 35's.  Welcome to the forum and don't be surprised if you eventually end up with two or three (or more) lenses in the same focal length because of the individual character each one offers.

[cartierbresson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

The typical Leica shooter will shoot his/her lens at maximum aperture.

 

Why?

[wattsy]

<US$1,000? I don't think so.

 

$1000 is about £650-£700 – a bit more than the going rate for a nice used Summarit 35 I would have thought (I will find out because I will be putting mine up for sale in the classifieds here shortly).

[lct]

Why?

 

Because dear Henri and his favorite f/5.6 or f/6.3 aperture is not typical anymore i guess.

[TomB_tx]

Why?

I don't think most Leica shooters shoot only wide open, but Leica has lenses that have a special look to them at wide apertures, and the RF can be focused accurately enough at close / mid distances in dim light to use that to advantage. There are still a lot of Leica users shooting film, where limited ISO range means fast glass is more useful than on digital. But I see the main reason is more "faddish" for an extremely shallow depth of field look.

I've used Leica since 1968 and tend to shoot wide open only when needed for really dim "unavailable light." I do think most Leica users avoid flash, so faster lenses fit that style. That is why I added the CV 35 f1.4 - to use for dim indoor shooting, where it does quite well, and is inexpensive enough to be a special purpose lens. So even though I have sharper 35s I still use it quite a bit. 

[colonel]

I'm in the market for a sharp 35mm lens for my M6 under $1000 (new/used). Any suggestions? I've only started reading about lenses and it sounds like Leica Summicron and Summilix lenses are generally recommended, but those are well above $1000. Is there an older model of those lenses that you'd recommend that may be in my budget? Should I drop the idea of a Leica and pick a Zeiss/Voigtlander instead?

 

Voightlander 35mm f1.2 ii

Heavier then others but you get f1.2

IMHO this is one of the best 35mm lenses for the M mount period

[pgk]

Thanks for all your responses. Regarding aperture, I typically shoot on the street at f/8, but sometimes I step out at night and with my Tamron at 2.8 it can be slow, even on high ISO. 

At f/8 you will probably struggle to find a poor 35mm M lens! If f/2.8 is slow then you are looking at f/1.4 or f/2 as your best options. I'd second the 'compromise' suggestion for a 40mm f/2 Summicron, as this lens offers excellent value and high quality images and, if bought reasonably priced, will lose little if you resell or eventually trade up.

[jmahto]

I am surprised that only Jaap mentioned 40mm summicron-c f/2. It can be had for $400 in ebay but I do see that some are going for $700+. This is underrated lens and prices will go up as 1) people slowly realize how good it is or 2) someone writes a positive review. I do see the following pros/cons:

 

Pros:

- lightest Leica lens ever. I doubt there will be lighter one in future.

- Sharp all over FF at f5.6-f8. Yes, I have done pixel peeping.

- Very little flair. Yes, I have shot into sun. OK sunstar.

- Cheap (still)

 

Cons:

- Hood hard to find due to odd filter thread. I found one on ebay though.

- Filter issue due to odd thread. There are some solutions though. Search internet. People are creative.

- It is odd focal length and brings up 50mm line. You will get "bit more" pic outside 50mm line.

- f/2 is not the sharpest but we are talking about cheapest/lightest Leica.

 

For results just search for "40 summicron-c" on flickr and you will see many pictures. 
My pics from M240+40summicron-c are here. You be the judge (about sharpness etc.)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmahto/sets/72157650768155274/with/15869873432/

[jaapv]

Actually Heavystar sells an series 5.5 -E39 adapter plus hood. However, it is made from Aluminum so it can bind, sometimes quite severely - only use it in combination with a thin film of Silicone grease, and the adapter makes the lens a bit less compact.

[cdh]

The Voigtlander Nokton 35 1.2 Aspherical II is indeed an amazing lens, albeit heavy and big.

The upcomming Voigtländer 35mm f/1.7 Ultron might be worth looking at if it has any common characteristics with its big f/1.2 sister.

Cyrille
 

[Lenshacker]

The Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron Aspheric in LTM ran me under $350 with an M-Mount adapter. The black version seems heavier made than the chrome version, more brass? At F4~F5.6 it was rated at 90LP/mm, more than enough to outresolve my M Monochrom.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/sets/72157649297640325

 

Shooting at F5.6~F8, even my 1949 3.5cm F3.5 Nikkor, Tessar formula lens, is quite good on the M Monochrom.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/sets/72157648365714846/with/15266264719/

 

The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 is the same optical formula as the Summaron, goes in the $300 range in Leica Thread Mount- will need an adapter.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/sets/72157648798151392

 

I have a really, really good Jupiter-12 with 1943 Zeiss optics in it that at F5.6 will give the M9 a run to keep up. It was $60, but needed to be shimmed for optimal performance.

 

For these moderate apertures, go for size, weight, cost. Almost any of the lenses mentioned will be great. At F8- you are giving up performance in a modern lens due to diffraction.

[bernie.lcf]

The Summicron 40 does not get mentioned much because cartierbresson has asked for a 35mm suggestion. 

This lens is a bit of an odd  lens because none of the M bodies ever had frame lines for it, only the CL/CLE for which the lens was made. The Summicron will bring up the 50mm framelins on an M body. This is not ideal - 35mm framelines are also not ideal, but closer. In order to make the M show the 35mm lens, people are mechanically manipulating the lens (i.e filing down the mount).

 

Well, what can I say. This is maybe just me, but no thanks.

 

The Voigtländer 35/1.2 II is really not a bad lens. If you need f1.2 you have no other choice. However, the lens is visibly softer at f1.2 and it will also produce some nasty CA all the way down to f2.8. I'd say: you would get this lens, if you you really need to shoot at f1.2 somehow.

 

In my opinion, you get excellent performance from current Leica lenses (the new ASPH designs) with very good sharpness wide open and higher contrast. Older Leica lenses will have less contrast (by design) and will show less than optimal performance wide open due to design limitation - especially in the old Double Gauss designs. When you compare pre-ASPH to ASPH (i.e. a current Summilux 50 to its predecessor), there is just no competition. The newer ASPH model runs circles around any older model. This is a fact. However, a lot of people will prefer (or claim to prefer) the older design because it is not as sharp and thereby creating more flattering portraits, show Leica glow etc. That may all be true and actually a matter of taste, but the fact remains that the older lenses basically perform worse.

 

I have mixed feelings with Voigtländer lenses because for each one I like there is at least two I hate - I mean lenses I actually bought. Apart from production tolerance (and the difficulty to get this fixed in Europe - far far away from Cosina Japan), the old non ASPH designs basically all have some kind of focus shift. They are all softer wide open. 

Don't get me wrong: they are nice lenses, nice choice of material and I like them better than the average plastic fantastic Canikon. But most of the Voigtländers are not what I call an excellent lens. 

[rodluvan]

sharpest? are you doing some kind of forensic or scientific work?

[jaapv]

Interestingly, with adapted 35 mm framelines the Summicron is better suited to the M8 than a "real" 35 mm lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

sharpest? are you doing some kind of forensic or scientific work?

Sharp is not an optical parameter anyway. Nobody knows what it really means, resolution? Microcontrast? Contrast in general? Defined Bokeh?, etc.

But we all know what the OP is asking, no problem.