zmcm Posted October 9, 2016 Share #1 Posted October 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) hello, I´m thinking about buying a 35mm lens for my M262, I know that he best is (of course) the one of F=1.4 but it is really to much expensive. I´ve read a lot about 35mm lens M mouth in the net, but in fact I don´t have a conclusion. Can anyone give me feedback of the 35mm M lens the market? thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 Hi zmcm, Take a look here Leica lens 35mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
EoinC Posted October 9, 2016 Share #2 Posted October 9, 2016 hello, I´m thinking about buying a 35mm lens for my M262, I know that he best is (of course) the one of F=1.4 but it is really to much expensive. I´ve read a lot about 35mm lens M mouth in the net, but in fact I don´t have a conclusion. Can anyone give me feedback of the 35mm M lens the market? thanks There are many good M-mount 35mm lenses to choose from, and you can also look at the 2nd hand market. In addition to the Leica f/1.4 - 2.4 offerings, take a look at Zeiss and Voigtlander. Have a look on B&H filtering for M-Mount / 35mm under Rangefinder Lenses. There are others, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted October 9, 2016 Share #3 Posted October 9, 2016 It might be helpful to know your rough budget. A nice early Summilux 1.4 is considerably less expensive than a new Summicron f2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted October 9, 2016 Share #4 Posted October 9, 2016 The older Summaron f2.8, some say, is as sharp as the current Summicron Asph. I had both and certainly there wasn't much in it. I also couldn't tell much difference between the Summicron Asph and my Mk4 preasph. In the end I have kept my Mk4 and the Summilux f1.4. To be honest, you shouldn't be disappointed with any Leica/Leitz 35mm. The modern Summarit looks very impressive and is very compact. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kilmister Posted October 9, 2016 Share #5 Posted October 9, 2016 @ moderators: Should this be in the lens section? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 9, 2016 Share #6 Posted October 9, 2016 My two-bits worth is to buy a 35mm lens you can comfortably afford. Make pictures. None of the lenses are so bad you will be disappointed. With experience you might discern subtle differences in their rendering and learn whether or not they make a difference. It might take years to find the differences which only points to the irrelevance of their rendering. No good photo has ever been rejected due to the lens type or brand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted October 10, 2016 Share #7 Posted October 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) My two-bits worth is to buy a 35mm lens you can comfortably afford. Make pictures. None of the lenses are so bad you will be disappointed. With experience you might discern subtle differences in their rendering and learn whether or not they make a difference. It might take years to find the differences which only points to the irrelevance of their rendering. No good photo has ever been rejected due to the lens type or brand. I agree with Pico. Buy the 35 you can afford. Leicas lenses are all excellent, my 50 f2.5 is one of the best lenses i have ever used. Voigtlander and Zeiss have fast lenses for lower cost then Leica, but it may pay to do your research on them. Second hand is also an option - a cared for lens will last a long time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 10, 2016 Share #8 Posted October 10, 2016 Recurrent question.See for instance http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/265136-sharp-35mm-m-lens/?do=findComment&comment=3122353 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeralCoton Posted October 10, 2016 Share #9 Posted October 10, 2016 I enjoy my summicron. Which is lighter than the lux. The lux has great qualities but I'm not sure the weight trade off is there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmcm Posted October 10, 2016 Author Share #10 Posted October 10, 2016 I agree with Pico.Buy the 35 you can afford. Leicas lenses are all excellent, my 50 f2.5 is one of the best lenses i have ever used. Voigtlander and Zeiss have fast lenses for lower cost then Leica, but it may pay to do your research on them. Second hand is also an option - a cared for lens will last a long time[/quote Thank you Enviado do meu iPhone usando o Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duoenboge Posted October 10, 2016 Share #11 Posted October 10, 2016 Hi If not Leica, the next choise for me would be Zeiss. The lenses are excellent in any aspects. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 10, 2016 Share #12 Posted October 10, 2016 Hi If not Leica, the next choise for me would be Zeiss. The lenses are excellent in any aspects. Regards Agreed, but the 2.8/35 ZM is a very high contrast lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted October 10, 2016 Share #13 Posted October 10, 2016 Agreed, but the 2.8/35 ZM is a very high contrast lens. You make that sound like a bad thing. One can always dial it down in post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 10, 2016 Share #14 Posted October 10, 2016 You make that sound like a bad thing. One can always dial it down in post. Have you used the ZM 2.8/35? I like the ergonomics, excellent resolution, nice colours, too contrasty. Easier to dial up than dial down contrast. This does not apply to the ZM 2.0/35, around great lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 10, 2016 Share #15 Posted October 10, 2016 You might also like to consider 40 mm lenses where you have some excellent options quite cheaply: the Leica 40/2 Summicron, the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar HFT, and the Voigtlander 40/1.4 Nokton. The Nokton is not to my taste because its out of focus areas are a little harsh but it might be to your taste and it's small, light, fast, and inexpensive. The other two are excellent lenses that are also available inexpensively (the Rollie is an Leica screw mount lens so a M to LTM adaptor is needed to use it on your M262). Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 10, 2016 Share #16 Posted October 10, 2016 Summicron 35 version IV: lightweight, about 1300€ for a mint one. For half of that price the astounding Summaron 35/2.8: trade in one stop for at least the same IQ as the above. One tiny disadvantage: colors are a bit oldfashioned so to speak, I prefer it for B&W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted October 10, 2016 Share #17 Posted October 10, 2016 Have you used the ZM 2.8/35? I like the ergonomics, excellent resolution, nice colours, too contrasty. Easier to dial up than dial down contrast. This does not apply to the ZM 2.0/35, around great lens. I do, and use it on a Monochrome. Love it, as it's tack sharp from f/2.8. Have dealt with the contrast character without issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 11, 2016 Share #18 Posted October 11, 2016 I have owned a Cron-ASPH and Lux-ASPH, and an f/2.8 Summaron. I currently own Summaron f/3.5 LTM, f/3.5 CV Skopar, and V3 and V4 Summicrons. Those are my favorites in backwards order. The V4 is a tiny, lightweight lens and is the one I use 99% of the time. The V3 is almost identical in properites, but slightly heavier. It's my backup. The CV is a remarkable performer but the little focus handle I find my finger slips off it too easily unless I use my thumb as well. The same is true for the LTM Summaron, which despite its lower contrast, is also quite sharp. I disliked the Summaron f/2.8 because it required pressing a button to unlock it from infinity each time. The CRON and Lux ASPHS were amazing lenses but I didn't feel the advantages worth the money invested, in practical use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 11, 2016 Share #19 Posted October 11, 2016 Oh the unlock button of the Summaron 2.8 is nice to play with on a terrace hunting for subjects Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 11, 2016 Share #20 Posted October 11, 2016 [...] Love it, as it's tack sharp from f/2.8. Have dealt with the contrast character without issue. Ditto here. I don't find the C-Biogon 35/2.8 significantly more contrasty than current Summicron or Summilux 35 personally. It flares a bit less and may give the feeling of higher contrast for this reason i suspect but lighting up shadows in PP is not more difficult with it than with current Leica lenses IMHO. Now the Biogon 35/2.8 is not the better lens for soft results needless to say. For soft portraits, i much prefer another little gem, the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph, or even the cheaper Nokton 35/1.4 SC which works fine on my A7s mod (less so on M240 or M8.2 due to focus shift). Beware that both Summilux pre-asph and Nokton SC flare a lot though. Summicrons 40/2 or 35/2 v4 (no experience with earlier versions) are another good idea but are sharper at f/2 than Summilux pre-asph or Nokton at f/1.4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.