"Low cost" 35mm lens for M9: your suggestions and opinions

[cwolffensperger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or the cheaper option: the Canon 35/2 ltm. Almost as good as my summaron, smaller (I have a summaron with goggles). Bokeh a lit more crunchy, and as flare resistant I'd say. But both not as nice a my v1 summicron...

[Advertisement]

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

[james.liam]

A case can be made for holding 2 lenses of the same FL.

Sean Reid speaks of keeping a fast optic as well as a compact option for different purposes. An argument can be made for a more modern lens and an older, classic rendering one too--some of these aren't really that expensive.

 

Having said that, the 35 Summarit really brilliantly melds the two styles in one package--exceptional resolution, stellar flare-resistance and restrained 'contrasting' compared with the Zeiss C or Summicron ASPH. Unless shallow DOF is your "thing", the Summarit's speed ought not to be such a concern with the two MM's or M240, considering their clean high-ISO capabilities. 

 

The legacy lenses of the 1950's (Canon, Nikkor and Leica) seem best suited for Monochrome use where low contrast can be better used to manipulate/preserve tonal qualities. These lenses hail from an era when color film was an expensive luxury and glass was optimized for B&W. I'm not that thrilled by the color images from them but this is personal preference. 

[ozkanakman]

I went through several 35mm lenses with my M-E until I decided on keeping 2 35 mm lenses. Originally I used the Zeiss 35 f2.8 as my first M mount lens. This is a very nice lens. Small in size, brilliant color and the 3D pop. I sold it because I was looking for something a bit faster. After reading reviews of the Voigtlander 35 f1.2 I decided to buy it. It is the total opposite in size and weight. The images from the lens were excellent though. It had a very unique draw. Not very sharp wide open, but very nice transitions from focus to out of focus. The bokeh was very smooth. It is huge and does not balance well on the camera. After taking it on a trip it kind of went against the whole going light so I sold it and I decided to go with a Summarit 35 f2.5 due to wanting a Leica lens and its smaller form factor. This was a very nice lens, but again I had the issue with lens not being fast enough for any indoor shooting. Finally sold that one and got a Summilux 35 ASPH. Took it on a trip and found it to be a heavy lens to walk around all day. I did not sell this one though because of the way it renders images. Dreamy, creamy, sharp. Just perfect. This lens is a keeper. I added a Skopar 35 LTM to compliment it as a daily walk around lens. I am very satisfied with the results and this is a keeper as well. Coming to the question of inexpensive 35mm lens for a M9. The 35mm Skopar is super light weight, compact, sharp at every aperture and a extremely inexpensive for under $300 used..

 

Long story short, it is kind of a trial and error thing to find what you need and want.

[Foxie]

Hi Elvis,

 

Four years ago I was in exactly the same boat. I bought the M9 and wanted a good 35mm to go with it. At that moment I was out of funds for a Leica lens.

I bought the Zeiss Biogon 35 2.0 and have used that lens for about two years. It was small, sharp, provided good contrast and the camera was well balanced with this lens attached. Viewfinder blockage was minimal. With the Zeiss hood it looked kinda oldskool too. I used the lens all over the world and published a book with a lot of images shot with this lens.

When i had to do this all again, with the funding I had available, the 2.0 Biogon would be a no-brainer for me.

 

After the M9 I got the M and a year later traded the M for the M-P. And I switched 35mm's…:

 

Two years ago I tried the Voigtlander 35 1.2 (version II) and traded the Biogon for this Nokton. It was a nice lens, but after a few weeks I found this lens too big for a Leica M. The camera was out of balance. I use the neckstrap all the time and when hung from my neck, the camera tilts forward.

I have not had the newer 1.4 Zeiss, but I suspect it is more or less the same size as the Nokton and might have the same weight that tilts the camera forward.

 

I managed to tolerate the big Nokton for another year, but sold it a few months ago. After that I finally got the funds together and bought the Summilux 35 FLE. End of the line now ;-)  (but the Biogon should be your best choice ;-)

 

Cheers!

 

[elvispreasley]

Big thanks to all replied! I guess I will go for Summarit 35mm 2.5, cause got an amazing offer for it. In the end of the day Leica - is Leica, if you understood what I mean) 

[Mornnb]

 

the Summarit's speed ought not to be such a concern with the two MM's or M240, considering their clean high-ISO capabilities. 

 

 

This I would disagree with.

Considering the M240 lacks high ISO abilities of other bodies around today, i.e. usable ISO 6400 and 12800. A fast lens is rather important to be able to shoot cleanly in indoor or night conditions.

Generally a Leica with a Summilux is going to produce results better than your typical DSLR with a 2.8 zoom, you'll have two stops lower ISO.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This I would disagree with.

Considering the M240 lacks high ISO abilities of other bodies around today, i.e. usable ISO 6400 and 12800. A fast lens is rather important to be able to shoot cleanly in indoor or night conditions.

Generally a Leica with a Summilux is going to produce results better than your typical DSLR with a 2.8 zoom, you'll have two stops lower ISO.

 

"ought not to be such a concern". Not meaningless, just less critical compared to an M8 or M9.

 

The thread specifies "low cost", something the splendid 35 Summilux is not.