35 to complement the Q?

[microview]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35 crop images from a Q are almost the same size as files from my M9, but having just sold a Summilux FLE I am wondering what to buy to achieve something complementary (but not identical) to the Q's lens rendering. The Zeiss 35 1.4 ZM comes to mind, as this worked well on an M240 I used to own. But it's heavy! Then there's the Summaron 35 2.8 or, of course, the v4 Summicron 35 2.0. Any suggestions would be welcome! I suspect the excellent Zeiss 38 2.8 would look too similar to Q crops.

[a.noctilux]

Summicron 35mm v I (or 8 elements) is the one that has my preference, maybe not yours.

For me it's 159g of pleasure: compact, light, and result second to none with a kind of "gentle rendering".

 

I also use (d) other 35mm for M : some Summilux asph. or not, some Summicron asph. or not, M-Hexanon, Canon LTM, etc.

 

The real history is that I can't just choose only one: each one has something the other one does't .

 

Regards,

 

Arnaud

[lct]

[...] Then there's the Summaron 35 2.8 or, of course, the v4 Summicron 35 2.0. Any suggestions would be welcome! I suspect the excellent Zeiss 38 2.8 would look too similar to Q crops.

 

No idea how a Q crop look like sorry but the rendering of lenses you've quoted is quite different. ZM 35/2.8 is very contrasty, Summaron much less so and Summicron v4 in between. ZM is sharp everywhere, Summaron significantly softer at full aperture and again Summicron v4 in between. Same for flare: ZM has very little of it, Summaron significantly more and Summicron v4 in between. All in all if you like the rendering of modern Leica lenses, go for the ZM. If you prefer softer lenses, especially for portrait, go for the Summaron. And if you're after a compromise, go for the Summicron v4 but the Summarit 35/2.5 is no slouch either. FWIW.