Sharpest 35mm under $1000

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Nokton is a low contrast lens wide open, with a very similar character to the Noctilux v1.

Not as sharp as the Summilux FLE at f/1.4, but quite sharp after some contrast pp.

 

At f/2, the CV is visibly better than the ZM, and most people will have a hard time telling the difference between it and the FLE.

 

The biggest downside of the ZM is the overcorrection for spherical aberration, causing a disappointing bokeh at f/2 that often looks like soap bubbles.

 

The CV has the best bokeh, so smooth and creamy.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the ZM comes without hood. Add that, and you will pay about as much as the CV for a technically inferior lens, that has the only advantage of size and weight.

I have both lenses. Sorry you are high. I love them both, but the ZM kills the CV at the edges for all apertures.

 

Used they can be found easily for 650USD.

 

Not mention the weight of the CV turns your M into an anchor

[MarkP]

 than those I've seen taken from a Biogon C (too contrasty).

 

Exactly, and that is what put me off the lens (I only mentioned it in my previous post because you had earlier specified 'sharp', but subsequently redefined what you're really looking for).  It's easy to add contrast in PP but harder to remove.

 

 

Since then I've looked at photos taken with the lenses that have been suggested and think that I actually don't mind something that's a little soft, has vignetting, or is "flawed" in other ways. In fact, I don't even mind a 40mm lens -- the pictures I've seen of the 40 Summicron personally speak to me 

 

Can you stretch another $500 or so for a second-hand just- 2.5/35 Summarit (ASPH in disguise) or the 2.0/35 Biogon (albeit a larger lens) ? After reading your comments about the 2.0/40 Summicron I think it would probably suit you perfectly. 

 

 

As an aside, I was blown away by the sharpness of the ZM 1,4/35. If I ever decide to switch to a more modern lens, this would probably be it. Thank you @james.liam for putting it on my radar.

 

But it's a really big and heavy lens.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bernie.lcf]

At the end of the day, the decision is probably whether f2.5 is enough.

 

If the answer is yes, the Voigtländer Color Skopar 35/2.5 P-Type II at USD 409,- (new) is hard to beat. The Summaron 35/2.8 will not be better and the Summarit 35/2.5 is at least twice as expensive even used.

 

The Voigtländer 35/2.5 also happens to be the smallest lens

 

 

If f1.4 or better is required, the options were all laid out. They will all be a stretch financially or barely within the budget when bought second hand.

[algrove]

Get the 40/2.0. Lovely lens and well under budget.

[CheshireCat]

I have both lenses. Sorry you are high. I love them both, but the ZM kills the CV at the edges for all apertures.

 

I have both lenses too.

 

At f/2, my CV is much better than my ZM.

 

The "poor" edge performance you see is probably just field curvature on the CV. If you mainly shoot brick walls, then I agree this could be a problem 

[MarkP]

Hi cartierbresson,

 

I've just sent you a pm.

 

Mark

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both lenses too.

 

At f/2, my CV is much better than my ZM.

 

The "poor" edge performance you see is probably just field curvature on the CV. If you mainly shoot brick walls, then I agree this could be a problem 

I can think of another explanation. CV lenses have quite a bit of sample variation.

[CheshireCat]

I can think of another explanation. CV lenses have quite a bit of sample variation.

 

Uhm... humans have a much higher "sample variation"

[Guest]

2.5 Summarit 2nd hand from a dealer. No alternatives imo

[jaapv]

Uhm... humans have a much higher "sample variation"

You're telling me... I moderate this forum, remember.

[rodluvan]

[..]  It's easy to add contrast in PP but harder to remove.

 

this has got to be the strangest thing I've read in a long while. for ages opticians have struggled to reduce loss in contrast due to e.g. internal reflection and transmit as much of the contrast present in a scene as possible. a lens can hardly create contrast that is not present in a scene. a good lens (e.g. biogon-c) can however distinguish and transmit even the smallest of differences present. a worse lens can not (i.e a low contrast lens). 

 

also, in post, you can _always_ reduce contrast (i.e. lose distinction between shades), but an increase in contrast is always _fake_; you do not add any information, you're stretching out thinly what has been transmitted by the lens (and more importantly; what hasn't). spread out far enough you'll lose the smooth luminance transition and areas of visibly different shades appear 

[250swb]

this has got to be the strangest thing I've read in a long while. for ages opticians have struggled to reduce loss in contrast due to e.g. internal reflection and transmit as much of the contrast present in a scene as possible. a lens can hardly create contrast that is not present in a scene. a good lens (e.g. biogon-c) can however distinguish and transmit even the smallest of differences present. a worse lens can not (i.e a low contrast lens). 

 

also, in post, you can _always_ reduce contrast (i.e. lose distinction between shades), but an increase in contrast is always _fake_; you do not add any information, you're stretching out thinly what has been transmitted by the lens (and more importantly; what hasn't). spread out far enough you'll lose the smooth luminance transition and areas of visibly different shades appear 

 

There is a tool in digital photography called a 'histogram' which if you knew about it would explain your misconception. Increasing contrast bunches up the information held in the file, it does not 'stretch it out'. And lowering contrast does not 'lose distinction between shades', this does indeed 'stretch' the information in the file out and done to it's extreme creates gaps where new information cannot be invented to fill those gaps. Attempting to lower contrast in a very high contrast photograph can cause a posterization effect which is where the image has no information to fill the gap between say a highlight and a mid-tone. So it can be better to start with a low contrast image full of all the most subtle tones and know that contrast can be added later without fragmenting the image. The problem in modern lenses however is that contrast is seen as desirable because it also makes the image look sharper to the untrained eye, edge effects of higher contrast are mistaken for resolution. Contrast for instance gives Zeiss lenses a 'pop' while Leica lenses usually have a softer contrast and it is the true resolution you are seeing.

 

Steve

Edited May 22, 2015 by 250swb

[pgk]

this has got to be the strangest thing I've read in a long while. for ages opticians have struggled to reduce loss in contrast due to e.g. internal reflection and transmit as much of the contrast present in a scene as possible. a lens can hardly create contrast that is not present in a scene. a good lens (e.g. biogon-c) can however distinguish and transmit even the smallest of differences present. a worse lens can not (i.e a low contrast lens). 

 

also, in post, you can _always_ reduce contrast (i.e. lose distinction between shades), but an increase in contrast is always _fake_; you do not add any information, you're stretching out thinly what has been transmitted by the lens (and more importantly; what hasn't). spread out far enough you'll lose the smooth luminance transition and areas of visibly different shades appear 

Whilst I would broadly agree, its worth saying that if you shoot RAW and accurately expose, the resulting files are surprisingly flexible and tolerant. I find adding or reducing contrast are equally straightforward myself but both can easily 'fail' with areas of 'unnatural' tonality if overdone. But low contrast lenses fail to differentiate shadow detail due to veiling flare, that higher contrast lenses can, if that is, exposure is pitched to retain the same levels of highlight detail.

Edited May 22, 2015 by pgk

[lct]

[...] it can be better to start with a low contrast image full of all the most subtle tones and know that contrast can be added later without fragmenting the image [...]

+1 but you reason as a raw shooter (so do i). Jpeg shooters may prefer getting directly the results they're after and Zeiss lenses can hardly be beaten there.

[MarkP]

Back here a bit late but thanks Steve,  you've explained it in a clearer and more concise manner than I would/could have.

 

I stand by my original comment.  

 

 

Well rodluvan, you may not agree (because you're wrong  ) but where have you been living if it's the strangest thing you've read in a long while? Yours is the greatest hyperbole I've read in a long while  .

Edited May 22, 2015 by MarkP

[rodluvan]

There is a tool in digital photography called a 'histogram' which if you knew about it would explain your misconception. Increasing contrast bunches up the information held in the file, it does not 'stretch it out'. And lowering contrast does not 'lose distinction between shades', this does indeed 'stretch' the information in the file out and done to it's extreme creates gaps where new information cannot be invented to fill those gaps. Attempting to lower contrast in a very high contrast photograph can cause a posterization effect which is where the image has no information to fill the gap between say a highlight and a mid-tone. So it can be better to start with a low contrast image full of all the most subtle tones and know that contrast can be added later without fragmenting the image. The problem in modern lenses however is that contrast is seen as desirable because it also makes the image look sharper to the untrained eye, edge effects of higher contrast are mistaken for resolution. Contrast for instance gives Zeiss lenses a 'pop' while Leica lenses usually have a softer contrast and it is the true resolution you are seeing.

 

Steve

 

speaking of histogram:

 

to contrast: differentiate between things, in this case different levels of luminosity. 

high contrast: big difference

low contrast: small difference

 

1. a lens with 'high contrast' (colloquially meant difference at low spatial frequencies) transmits a big difference between different levels of luminosity, ie the receiving medium will record very dark shadows and very bright highlights : the histogram will be stretched out and all the intermediate levels will fit inside without being "bunched up" i.e. information is maintained.

 

2. a lens with 'low contrast' does not transmit a big difference between levels of luminosity, i.e. the receiving medium will record shadows that aren't very dark and highlights that aren't very bright: the histogram will be compressed and information will be "bunched up". i.e. information will be lost due to the inevitable shortcomings of the recording medium (sensor/film).  

 

in case 2, if you want to produce a pleasantly looking print or file you'll need to 'artificially' produce dark shadows and bright highlights by defining black and white points in the existing data, thus stretching out the histogram and risk causing posterization.

 

now, obviously, a high contrast lens will run a higher risk of causing blowing highlights and clipped shadows, but this is a shortcoming of the recording medium and possibly chosen exposure, not the lens. this is why we ask for sensors with larger dynamic range and use flashes to eliminate dark shadows etc

[250swb]

speaking of histogram:

 

to contrast: differentiate between things, in this case different levels of luminosity. 

high contrast: big difference

low contrast: small difference

 

1. a lens with 'high contrast' (colloquially meant difference at low spatial frequencies) transmits a big difference between different levels of luminosity, ie the receiving medium will record very dark shadows and very bright highlights : the histogram will be stretched out and all the intermediate levels will fit inside without being "bunched up" i.e. information is maintained.

 

2. a lens with 'low contrast' does not transmit a big difference between levels of luminosity, i.e. the receiving medium will record shadows that aren't very dark and highlights that aren't very bright: the histogram will be compressed and information will be "bunched up". i.e. information will be lost due to the inevitable shortcomings of the recording medium (sensor/film).  

 

in case 2, if you want to produce a pleasantly looking print or file you'll need to 'artificially' produce dark shadows and bright highlights by defining black and white points in the existing data, thus stretching out the histogram and risk causing posterization.

 

now, obviously, a high contrast lens will run a higher risk of causing blowing highlights and clipped shadows, but this is a shortcoming of the recording medium and possibly chosen exposure, not the lens. this is why we ask for sensors with larger dynamic range and use flashes to eliminate dark shadows etc

 

'Lens contrast' has nothing to do with the overall type of light a photographic lens transmits to the recording medium, lens contrast refers to the separation in the micro contrast between detail and tones. For instance the contrast of lenses went up when lens coatings were invented as it was a way to control diffusion. So a coated Summitar is more contrasty than an un-coated Summitar, but being the same design they both transmit the same light and record the same shadow and highlight values. A low contrast lens does not filter out blacks and whites leaving just mid-tones, that is absurd.

 

Steve

[henning]

'Contrast' is almost as vague a term as 'sharpness'. Until someone defines what type of contrast is meant, discussions on whether it is good or bad or can/should be corrected in PP has little meaning. In the above discussions, even though they are arguing against each other, most posters are correct, only about different aspects of 'contrast'.

[asiafish]

Used Summarit.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CheshireCat]

'Lens contrast' has nothing to do with the overall type of light a photographic lens transmits to the recording medium, lens contrast refers to the separation in the micro contrast between detail and tones.

You are talking about micro-contrast.

But lens global-contrast is what is being discussed.