35 mm lens purchase opinions needed

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Same here Steve, I get consistently good results with the Skopar, it seems very resistant to flare (and the LTM version has a metal hood attached, and the focus tab). I actually bought it after Sean Reid recommended it to me, if I recall correctly he said he actually preferred it in use to the Summicron, although technically the Summicron is probably better in the corners etc.

 

It's interesting that Sean Reid uses the CV 35mm Skopar, alongside the 35mm Summicron, to test with the new Leica SL. Whether it, or the Summicron, works or not on the SL is the debate, but it was clearly one of the first lenses he thought of as a datum point , and I wont give out his conclusion, but just putting it into that category is a clue. 

 

Steve

[tobenama]

I bought two lenses on promise that I can send one of the two (or even both) back after 2 week testing. The 1st lens is Leica 35 mm F1.4 Summilux pre-Asph. and the other is Leica 35 mm F2.0 Summicron V4 (also pre-Asph.). I have been using both, but I really like the Summicron more, even though it's the more expensive one (the Summilux has an air bubble in glass and a small mold damage that was left on the coating even after CLA). Both lenses are very small, but the Summicron is easier to focus and focuses closer. I also compared the two to my Voigtländer Nokton 35 mm F1.2 Asph. II and I noticed that the Voigtländer lacks contrast when compared to the Leicas. It's still an excellent lens, but to my eye the Summicron is so much better. There is also a huge problem with bright lights casting odd ghosting there and there with the Voigtländer whereas neither of the Leicas had this problem. I know I won't keep the Summilux since the Summicron is sharper and better and for low light I can use the Voigtländer, which is almost as good at F1.4. If only the Voigtländer did not have that ghosting problem and the contrast would be a little better, it'd be a winner. I wouldn't mind the size that much then, but now I can see its flaws whereas before I was not aware of any problems with the lens and was shooting happily.

Now what I'd be interested to see if there is any sense in buying the Asph. version of the Summicron instead of the "King of Bokeh" IV version I now have. I've been told the Asph. is sharper wide open and the bokeh is a matter of taste, so it gets difficult. I really like the IV version of Summicron and I'd say it's the perfect 35 mm for the Leica M9 if I didn't know any better.

[Ronazle]

I would argue that CV and particularly Zeiss lenses are sometimes up to Leica quality. However, I cannot imagine a 35mm better than the aspheric Summicron - it is my favorite lens for general use. Regards, Ron

[james.liam]

I bought two lenses on promise that I can send one of the two (or even both) back after 2 week testing. The 1st lens is Leica 35 mm F1.4 Summilux pre-Asph. and the other is Leica 35 mm F2.0 Summicron V4 (also pre-Asph.). I have been using both, but I really like the Summicron more, even though it's the more expensive one (the Summilux has an air bubble in glass and a small mold damage that was left on the coating even after CLA). Both lenses are very small, but the Summicron is easier to focus and focuses closer. I also compared the two to my Voigtländer Nokton 35 mm F1.2 Asph. II and I noticed that the Voigtländer lacks contrast when compared to the Leicas. It's still an excellent lens, but to my eye the Summicron is so much better. There is also a huge problem with bright lights casting odd ghosting there and there with the Voigtländer whereas neither of the Leicas had this problem....Now what I'd be interested to see if there is any sense in buying the Asph. version of the Summicron instead of the "King of Bokeh" IV version I now have. I've been told the Asph. is sharper wide open and the bokeh is a matter of taste, so it gets difficult. I really like the IV version of Summicron and I'd say it's the perfect 35 mm for the Leica M9 if I didn't know any better.

 

-Is it the 1st or 2nd version of the CV 1,2/35? The v.2 purportedly has improved coatings which ought to handle ghosting & flare better. 

 

-Then stick with v.4; it's tiny and handles color so very nicely. 'King of Bokeh'...a load of BS coined but a reviewer some years back and adopted by every eBay seller trying to juice up the banged-up copy they're trying to pawn off. Examine the evolution of the 35 Summicron line and it is self-evident that every iteration improves upon center sharpness wide-open and that's what you get with the ASPH. I find the focus shift on the latter to be an annoying intrusion and tend to stick to ƒ/2 and ƒ5.6 and smaller. 

[tobenama]

-Is it the 1st or 2nd version of the CV 1,2/35? The v.2 purportedly has improved coatings which ought to handle ghosting & flare better. 

 

-Then stick with v.4; it's tiny and handles color so very nicely. 'King of Bokeh'...a load of BS coined but a reviewer some years back and adopted by every eBay seller trying to juice up the banged-up copy they're trying to pawn off. Examine the evolution of the 35 Summicron line and it is self-evident that every iteration improves upon center sharpness wide-open and that's what you get with the ASPH. I find the focus shift on the latter to be an annoying intrusion and tend to stick to ƒ/2 and ƒ5.6 and smaller. 

 

The Voigtländer is v2. I managed to solve some of the ghosting issues by ditching the Hoya UV-shield (or more correctly front element protector). But the Leica contrast is still not there and the lens is 3x larger.

 

Now I'm pondering between the v4 version of Summicron I already have or the Asph. version I could have also from the same seller. They are in the same price category, so it's a matter of best lens wins. I haven't seen the Asph. version in action, but at least the v4 is quite good for being such a tiny lens.

[250swb]

But the Leica contrast is still not there and the lens is 3x larger.

You don't need to go mad buying a lens just because it has more (or less) contrast, almost any modern era lens is in the ballpark and contrast can be adjusted in post processing or in the darkroom (a simple skill that photographers have always used).

 

Steve

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They are in the same price category, so it's a matter of best lens wins. I haven't seen the Asph. version in action, but at least the v4 is quite good for being such a tiny lens.

 

'Best' is relative here, so don't get so caught up in this. All the ASPH will provide is improved central sharpness and less spherical aberration at ƒ/2 but at the cost of extra weight and size. By ƒ/5.8 and 8, you will be hard pressed to see a great difference, though the color from v.4 is really nice.

 

Horses for course.

[Tony Mac]

I think it just depends on the look you're going for. I love my 35mm Cron ASPH, paired with my M6 and film, the images it renders is a bit of the old with the new. Crazy sharp at f/2, but the grain from the film helps to soften that look a bit. On your M9, it being digital, might look a bit too clinical and boring. When shot the with the M9 for a short period, I quite enjoyed using the older lenses that bloom in the highlights a bit more, it gave a more unique look on a digital body.

[tobenama]

I think it just depends on the look you're going for. I love my 35mm Cron ASPH, paired with my M6 and film, the images it renders is a bit of the old with the new. Crazy sharp at f/2, but the grain from the film helps to soften that look a bit. On your M9, it being digital, might look a bit too clinical and boring. When shot the with the M9 for a short period, I quite enjoyed using the older lenses that bloom in the highlights a bit more, it gave a more unique look on a digital body.

That's true. I really do like how the pre-Asph. Summicron renders images on my M9. I don't have the Asph. version to compare to, but at least the current lens is plenty sharp in the center and the bokeh is nice, not king-like they claim, just plain very nice. I'm sending the 35 mm Summilux back since it looks worse to me than the Summicron and it's not as easy to handle, because the focus ring is very tight. Also the minimum focusing distance of 1 m (I guess) is a major downside compared to the Summicron. I'm not sure if I should just get my money back or test either the Asph. version of the Summicron or a 28 mm lens of some sort (they have Elmarit II, III and the very pricey Summicron Asph. 6-bit). I don't have any 28 mm lenses and I feel it might be a bit odd when framing your photo since you see only what's in the final image (like with an SLR camera), not anything outside the frame.

[james.liam]

 I'm not sure if I should just get my money back or test either the Asph. version of the Summicron or a 28 mm lens of some sort (they have Elmarit II, III and the very pricey Summicron Asph. 6-bit). I don't have any 28 mm lenses and I feel it might be a bit odd when framing your photo since you see only what's in the final image (like with an SLR camera), not anything outside the frame.

 

28mm frame lines are the widest on a .72 or .68 VF that can be visualized through the rangefinder window. 

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Summaron 35/2.8 but you seem to like high contrast so the Zeiss 35/2.8 will over exceed your contrast expectations

 

If it's a Leica lens you want, then the current 35/2ASPH is a great choice

 

The Zeiss 35/1.4 looks big and bulky - big it is but bulky not. The performance is superlative and the price is on par with the Leica 35/2ASPH.

[friedeye]

In considering a fast, small 35 for the M9, I wouldn't overlook the Nokton 40 1.4, which - when the flange is filed to bring up the 35mm lines - fits those lines absolutely perfectly. Unlike the Nokton 35, it exhibits little or no focus shift, and very little barrel distortion. Wide open, it's soft in the corners, but hardens up at f2 and peaks at f8.  I find it to be my favorite everyday lens (and I have an assortment of 35s).

[Adam]

 35 cron ASPH is an excellent compact lens. I read that Zeiss 1.4 is better at corner sharpness and distortion, the Leica is better in the center. I considered the Zeiss, but decided to stick with the cron. It is an older lens, but smaller and performs beautifully. It constantly amazes me how good it is. Not sure what you need the extra stop for. I use mine on an MP240 and low light is not such a problem. DOF and subject separation are great at f2 for majority of my purposes, but your might be different.  

[lct]

I have no experience with ZM 35/2 but ZM 35/2.8 is my best "slow" 35 ever when i need contrasty results.

No experience with CV 35/1.2 either but my SC version of CV 35/1.4 has too much focus shift to be usable above f/2.8 digitally.

As far as Leica is concerned, if you need a small 35/2 the current 35/2 asph is the better. Not that 35/2 v4 is a poor lens, it was the very best when i bought it 30 years ago, but it has more flare and more focus shift than the asph while the latter is significantly sharper at f/2. 

[tobey bilek]

I bought two lenses on promise that I can send one of the two (or even both) back after 2 week testing. The 1st lens is Leica 35 mm F1.4 Summilux pre-Asph. and the other is Leica 35 mm F2.0 Summicron V4 (also pre-Asph.). I have been using both, but I really like the Summicron more, even though it's the more expensive one (the Summilux has an air bubble in glass and a small mold damage that was left on the coating even after CLA). Both lenses are very small, but the Summicron is easier to focus and focuses closer. I also compared the two to my Voigtländer Nokton 35 mm F1.2 Asph. II and I noticed that the Voigtländer lacks contrast when compared to the Leicas. It's still an excellent lens, but to my eye the Summicron is so much better. There is also a huge problem with bright lights casting odd ghosting there and there with the Voigtländer whereas neither of the Leicas had this problem. I know I won't keep the Summilux since the Summicron is sharper and better and for low light I can use the Voigtländer, which is almost as good at F1.4. If only the Voigtländer did not have that ghosting problem and the contrast would be a little better, it'd be a winner. I wouldn't mind the size that much then, but now I can see its flaws whereas before I was not aware of any problems with the lens and was shooting happily.

 

Now what I'd be interested to see if there is any sense in buying the Asph. version of the Summicron instead of the "King of Bokeh" IV version I now have. I've been told the Asph. is sharper wide open and the bokeh is a matter of taste, so it gets difficult. I really like the IV version of Summicron and I'd say it's the perfect 35 mm for the Leica M9 if I didn't know any better.

 

I do some landscapes and corners are important to me.   I bought a Summicron ASPH for the M9 and kept the V4 for my M8.  The corners are better on the ASPH.  On the M8, makes no difference. 

 

Zeiss lenses have too many issues mechanically, so I stick to Leica.   Google Zeiss wobble.  

 

On Rangefinder Forum,  Chris Crawford uses a 2.8 biogon.  Technically he is VERY proficient and he likes the lens.  He never complained about excessive contrast.  All kinds of internet myths get started that are not true.  Perhaps the starter used an old lens and modern rendition is not the same.   

[exile]

I traded in my version 1 Nokton 1.2 towards a used Summilux ASPH (non-FLE). Could not be happier. I also have a 40mm summicron that I use if I'm going on a hike and want minimum weight with faultless performance from f/2.8 onwards. However, the Lux ASPH was purchased after the 40 cron, and in reality if I had bought the Lux first I doubt I would've even looked at the cron. Both are great lenses. I was never happy with the Nokton until f/2, and it's a ridiculous weight to carry around for preferred use at f/2.

[tobenama]

I traded in my version 1 Nokton 1.2 towards a used Summilux ASPH (non-FLE). Could not be happier. I also have a 40mm summicron that I use if I'm going on a hike and want minimum weight with faultless performance from f/2.8 onwards. However, the Lux ASPH was purchased after the 40 cron, and in reality if I had bought the Lux first I doubt I would've even looked at the cron. Both are great lenses. I was never happy with the Nokton until f/2, and it's a ridiculous weight to carry around for preferred use at f/2.

I bought a 3rd lens today: Summilux 35 f/1.4 ASPH. and I can honestly say that it blows the previous two (Summicron v4, Summilux pre-Asph) plus the Voigtländer 35 F1.2 I have away easily. It's a very, very good lens. Easy to get results that look awesome. So most likely I'm going to keep the non-FLE Summilux since it's absolutely stunning lens. I also remembered that I have a Minolta M-Rokkor 40 mm F2.0 here somewhere which I should also try just because I already have it. It might have different uses than the Summilux I now have.

[jdlaing]

I bought a 3rd lens today: Summilux 35 f/1.4 ASPH. and I can honestly say that it blows the previous two (Summicron v4, Summilux pre-Asph) plus the Voigtländer 35 F1.2 I have away easily. It's a very, very good lens. Easy to get results that look awesome. So most likely I'm going to keep the non-FLE Summilux since it's absolutely stunning lens. I also remembered that I have a Minolta M-Rokkor 40 mm F2.0 here somewhere which I should also try just because I already have it. It might have different uses than the Summilux I now have.

I handled and tried both the FLE and the previous version and opted for the pre FLE. Wouldn't be without it now.

[John Perkins]

Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 C Biogon if on a budget and/or want something very small. Leica 35mm Summilux ASPH FLE as the be-all-end-all 35mm. It is small enough to where the size doesn't bother me. If I had bought the Leica lens first, I would not have felt the need to own another. It is probably the best lens I have ever owned on any system. It is amazingly sharp but has a very appealing rendering... at all apertures, not just 1.4 through 2.0 where it is obviously gorgeous. It is one lens I have that looks noticeably better at f/5.6 than other lenses I've owned (I mean at an aperture that small you still have to look with a highly critical eye to notice, but it does have something special about it).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Antonio Russell]

Whatever you do don't fall for the King of Bokeh hype, the lens is pretty average, particularly compared to the later ASPH version V. I couldn't believe the difference when I traded up from a MK IV to a MK V.