Which 35mm to pair with m240

[sanadsaad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was looking at a solid 35mm lens to pair with the m240. I found a well used summarit 2.5 for 575 pounds. The summicron are starting from 1200 and going upwards depending on condition. At that price, would you recommend the elmarit over the summicron? 

Edited July 23, 2019 by sanadsaad

[a.noctilux]

I would recommend the Summarit-M to begin with, after that two choices for you:

- if it meets your requirement, just fine

- if not you may sell it to buy another lens, very little lost in money

 

As side note, I discovered one Summarit-M 2.5/35mm after using for decades some faster/bigger 35mm Summilux-M asph. or not, some Summicron-M and many more 35mm,

and now the most used since I have this is Summarit-M 35mm.

 

[plaidshirts]

The Summarit 35mm is an excellent lens and for the quoted price, should be an easy choice. 

As far as picture IQ is concerned, the Summicron is better, but only if you must pixel peep.

[vanGeist]

If you are on a tight budget you may take a look at the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5. 

[jaeger]

Just to make it more discombobulated, I'd say summilux.  I love that extra speed for low light.  =D

[jdlaing]

35 Summicron

[Maxx71]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a hard time deciding which lens is better--the 35mm Summicron Asph or Voigtlander 35mm f2 Ultron. I suggest starting with the Voigtlander because it's cheaper. if you really like 35mm, go for the Summicron later (If you really want to stick with Leica). Can't go wrong with either as they are both very compact, sharp, contrasty and saturated enough.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Maxx71
add info

[lct]

I like much my Summarit 35/2.5 but i feel that f/2 is a minimum for indoor pics on moving subjects with cameras like the M240. If you're in a budget i can recommend both 7art 35/2 and Ultron 35/2. Both are sharp at all apertures but the Ultron is a bit more compact with a slightly smoother bokeh than the 7art with also less flare than the latter when strong light sources are just outside the frame. I still prefer my Summicron 35/2 asph v1 (no experience with v2) for its smoother bokeh but it is more expensive and a bit more bulky than both 7art and Ultron.

[keenr]

I have been fortunate to own several 35's:  Leica 35 summicron asph (ver 1), Leica 35 summilux fle and recently the Zeiss C Biogon T *2.8,

All of these render remarkably well and have satisfying results on an m240.

For me, considering value for money, size and weight, I'd lean to the zeiss, followed closely by the leica summicron asph (v1). I'm sure the Leica summarit (tho I've not used) is worthy as well..

Edited July 24, 2019 by keenr

[Lelmer]

My favorite, from far, is the summicron 35 V4. Best compromise in weight, size and rendering.

My summilux 35 FLE is pretty much unused

[bayernfan]

35 summicron v4 or v5, voigtlander ultron 35/1.7 v2

 

[brobbins]

Another great relatively inexpensive lens, while not quite a 35mm, is the Leica 40/2 or Rokkor 40/2 originally for the Leica CL and  Leitz Minolta CL. The later Rokkor 40/2 for the Minolta CLE is said by some to be even better. These lenses weigh very little, are very compact, and are capable of producing very fine images.

[sblutter]

On 7/23/2019 at 11:34 AM, vanGeist said:

If you are on a tight budget you may take a look at the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5. 

+1 - nice lens & much lighter in weight than my Summi, which doesn't see much action

[sanadsaad]

Thanks for the advice everyone! I'm debating between the used leica summarit f2.5 vs new zeiss biogon C 2.8. If I go above 1000 pound territory, I'd be looking at the summicrons. I think starting with cheaper 35mm and then going up as needed is the sensible way to go. Especially since I'm fairly new to rangefinder territory. 

[lct]

The C-Biogon 35 2.8 is my favorite "slow" 35 on both my M240 and Sony A7s mod. Only flaw is vignetting but it is a very contrasty lens. More so than the Summarit 35/2.5 which is a bit softer at edges and corners. You will hardly find better lenses than those two ones if you don't need f/2 or f/1.4 right now.

[pedaes]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

The C-Biogon 35 2.8 is my favorite "slow" 35 on both my M240 and Sony A7s mod. Only flaw is vignetting but it is a very contrasty lens. More so than the Summarit 35/2.5 which is a bit softer at edges and corners. You will hardly find better lenses than those two ones if you don't need f/2 or f/1.4 right now.

Fully agree about C-Biogon being a very sharp lens that is often overlooked. Much sharper than Zeiss F2 version according to Sean Reid's tests. Excellent value too. 

 

[sanadsaad]

On 7/25/2019 at 9:16 PM, lct said:

The C-Biogon 35 2.8 is my favorite "slow" 35 on both my M240 and Sony A7s mod. Only flaw is vignetting but it is a very contrasty lens. More so than the Summarit 35/2.5 which is a bit softer at edges and corners. You will hardly find better lenses than those two ones if you don't need f/2 or f/1.4 right now.

I'm not sure if I don't need them. I prefer shooting in natural light but I haven't shot much with the m240 yet. For street photography during the day, it should be fine. For indoor I might struggle with 2.8 depending on light. The other option is to use my S1R with this lens in indoor situations. Im planning on shooting with M240 and 35mm combo everyday to get to know the system better and to practice. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by sanadsaad

[lct]

For indoor pics, f/2 or faster is a must IMHO. Especially with cameras like the M240 that cannot go higher than 3200 iso w/o struggling with NR in PP. 

[Frase]

If you can get the summarit for that price I say go for it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a.noctilux]

F/2 lenses are nice compromise, but ...

In my use, low light currently to about 5 or 6 EV can be handle with f/2.8 or F/2.5 lenses.

As ex-fan of big/fast light gathering lenses ( Noctilux, Summilux on ISO 25 to 100 films ! ), now with 3200 ISO for me it's like bonus to use those small wonders f/2.8 lenses.

 

Let's do math a bit (real life experience), all EV stated here is value for ISO 100 to compare to ISO to be used  :

with ISO 400 and EV 6 (this EV 6 is ISO 100 equivalent room normally lighting) we need 1/30 s , F/2.8 = a bit "slow" or not "comfortable" even mostly usable

but if we increase to 1600 ISO, better with 1/125 s, F/2.8

then if the room is less lit, EV 5, we can use 3200 ISO, still f/2.8 and not that bad shutter 1/60 s.

 

In my experience, this setting is much more "comfortable" than when I used film with f/1.4 lenses ( must care about very thin dof and focus and or subject movings).

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by a.noctilux