35mm Lens for M9

[Edwin Ho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only lens I have now is a 28mm Elmarit f/2.8 ASPH. 

I once had a Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 which I gave to my nephew; it was a good lens for the price.

I am now considering a 35mm lens again; my choice is either one of the two:

• Leica 35mm Elmarit f/2.4 ASPH, or
• Carl Zeiss C Biogon T* f/2.8 35mm

Note:  A 35mm fits better within the frame lines of the viewfinder of the M9 than 28mm; I wear glasses. Also I am attracted by the compactness of the above two lenses.

Obviously the CZ is much affordable in Australia. I am motivated towards 35mm for street photography as well as a one-lens combo when I travel.

At a stretch I may fork out the difference  just to keep an all-Leica combo!

FYI I plan to keep the 28mm which I will use for landscape or street photography. 

Comments on my choice are more most welcome, thank you.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Ray Vonn]

I haven’t seen one bad word about the Biogon, only praise, and they’ll be no finder blockage at all.

[Charadis]

Couldn't find any info on the 35mm Elmarit you listed, but I have a Summarit M 35mm f/2.4 ASPH that has become my main lens (and currently only lens) for my M9. For the price (picked up used), it is an amazing lens, as you'd expect from Leica, and I recommend considering 

[Edwin Ho]

Sorry, I meant the 35mm Summarit f2.4.

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Edwin Ho

[Shameetman]

It depends on your preference, in my experience:

• Summarit, colorfull soft rendering
• Biogon, much more crisp / clarity and a bit cooler

My own preference for landscape would be de Summarit. I love the Zeiss when shot in B&W, together with the M9 it creates really film-like pictures. 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Shameetman
wrong name

[Guest]

I would prefer the summarit.
 if you got any troubles ( fokuscalibration) Leica will fix it, 
like they did with my cron35/v4 which is the best choice, imo   😉 

[Edwin Ho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, Shameetman said:

My own preference for landscape would be de Elmarit. I love the Zeiss when shot in B&W, together with the M9 it creates really film-like pictures. 

I tend to prefer cooler colours too. Glad you mentioned this as I have check out images and like the colour of CZ.

I am pulling towards CZ for the lower price too and I have never own a CZ lens. 

Thank you, and I meant the 35mm Summarit and not 35mm Elmarit in my post (my mistake).

[darylgo]

Aside from the IQ, the 35 Summarit, now that it is discontinued may become a more sought after lens.  Up until now the Summarit line has been relegated second class.  In reality, the lenses are quite good optically, not state of the art, and the 35mm Summarit gets high praise often.  

[Edwin Ho]

1 hour ago, darylgo said:

Aside from the IQ, the 35 Summarit, now that it is discontinued may become a more sought after lens.  Up until now the Summarit line has been relegated second class.  In reality, the lenses are quite good optically, not state of the art, and the 35mm Summarit gets high praise often.  

The Summarit f/2.4 still available in Perth, Western Australia and I am aware how good it is for the price of a Leica lens and certainly suffice for my needs. In my opinion it is not "2nd class" at all.  However the price difference is quite substantial = AUD 1200.00 and for this reason and others, I am gravitating towards the CZ. I hope I will not change my mind in the next few days. 

But thank you Daryl for your input, much appreciated.

[ianman]

Why not a 35mm Summaron f/2.8? They are still relatively cheap and a lot of people say it's as good as the very "in" and thus expensive 8 element Summicron.

Edited April 2, 2020 by ianman

[Edwin Ho]

14 minutes ago, ianman said:

Why not a 35mm Summaron f/2.8? They are still relatively cheap and a lot of people say it's as good as the very "in" and thus expensive 8 element Summicron.

I don't know much about this lens, but will check it out, thank you for the suggestion.

 

[ianman]

10 minutes ago, Edwin Ho said:

I don't know much about this lens, but will check it out, thank you for the suggestion.

There are different versions, so if you go down that road make sure you get the right one. There are screw mount, M mount, goggled and dual mount versions. There are a few discussions around about this so make sure to do a search. Here's one from the collectors & historica section:

 

[Ko.Fe.]

35 frame-lines are still close to the frame edge with M9 VF. It might still not be much helpful with glasses.

 

Aslo, M9 35 frame-lines are inaccurate. They show narrower FOV. As result images will show more than it was visible in 35 frame-lines.

I get used to it, emotionally , but framing is more accurate with 40mm lens with focus lug filed for "35"mm frame-lines on M9.

I used Rokkor 40/2 M latest CLE version. It was absolutely fine, very tiny lens with just slightly odd bokeh wide open, sometimes. 

I sold it because, despite M9 "35" frame-lines showing 40mm FOV, I prefer actual 35mm FOV. But your case could be different, because you have 28mm in use and you might want accurate framing with 40mm lens. Here is good, not huge 40 1.2 VM (latest version).

 

If you are strictly bright light shooter or don't mind not crystal clear images after ISO 640, slower lenses are fine.

Old lenses like 35 2.8 Summaron will give different look comparing to modern 28 you have. It will be still sharp, but color rendering and contrast are different. Some are into it, some are not.

 

Did you have ZM lenses before? If not, think about odd focus tab and 1/3 aperture clicks.  Here is also Zeiss wobble. Usually comes with plenty of use, not from having lens just because and using less. 

 

I had Color Skopar 35 2.5 on M8 mostly, but it was just fine on M-E. I also have Russian Biogon on M-E and it just like old Summarons, but more quirky. If it must be Leica lens then I have Summarit-M 35 2.5 (asph) and it just fine, except it is just slow lens on low ISO camera.

 

I added Nokton 35 1.4 II and it is giving some crazy sort of images wide open (while still better than pre Lux) and after f2 it is just sharp modern lens. I might keep it on M-E as only lens, because it allows me to get more clear images under low light. Summarit-M 35 2.5 (asph) is good lens on C-41 film and one of the best lenses I ever tried on bw darkroom prints.  I like it on M4-2 most.

 

[analog-digital]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Edwin Ho:

The only lens I have now is a 28mm Elmarit f/2.8 ASPH. 

I once had a Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 which I gave to my nephew; it was a good lens for the price.

I am now considering a 35mm lens again; my choice is either one of the two:

• Leica 35mm Elmarit f/2.4 ASPH, or
• Carl Zeiss C Biogon T* f/2.8 35mm

Note:  A 35mm fits better within the frame lines of the viewfinder of the M9 than 28mm; I wear glasses. Also I am attracted by the compactness of the above two lenses.

Obviously the CZ is much affordable in Australia. I am motivated towards 35mm for street photography as well as a one-lens combo when I travel.

At a stretch I may fork out the difference  just to keep an all-Leica combo!

FYI I plan to keep the 28mm which I will use for landscape or street photography. 

Comments on my choice are more most welcome, thank you.

 

 

7Artisans

Voigtländer Color Skopar

Edited April 2, 2020 by analog-digital

[jdlaing]

Leica
7artisans 

TT Artisans

Voigtlaander

Zeiss

[Edwin Ho]

6 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

35 frame-lines are still close to the frame edge with M9 VF. It might still not be much helpful with glasses.

 

Aslo, M9 35 frame-lines are inaccurate. They show narrower FOV. As result images will show more than it was visible in 35 frame-lines.

I get used to it, emotionally , but framing is more accurate with 40mm lens with focus lug filed for "35"mm frame-lines on M9.

I used Rokkor 40/2 M latest CLE version. It was absolutely fine, very tiny lens with just slightly odd bokeh wide open, sometimes. 

I sold it because, despite M9 "35" frame-lines showing 40mm FOV, I prefer actual 35mm FOV. But your case could be different, because you have 28mm in use and you might want accurate framing with 40mm lens. Here is good, not huge 40 1.2 VM (latest version).

 

If you are strictly bright light shooter or don't mind not crystal clear images after ISO 640, slower lenses are fine.

Old lenses like 35 2.8 Summaron will give different look comparing to modern 28 you have. It will be still sharp, but color rendering and contrast are different. Some are into it, some are not.

 

Did you have ZM lenses before? If not, think about odd focus tab and 1/3 aperture clicks.  Here is also Zeiss wobble. Usually comes with plenty of use, not from having lens just because and using less. 

 

I had Color Skopar 35 2.5 on M8 mostly, but it was just fine on M-E. I also have Russian Biogon on M-E and it just like old Summarons, but more quirky. If it must be Leica lens then I have Summarit-M 35 2.5 (asph) and it just fine, except it is just slow lens on low ISO camera.

 

I added Nokton 35 1.4 II and it is giving some crazy sort of images wide open (while still better than pre Lux) and after f2 it is just sharp modern lens. I might keep it on M-E as only lens, because it allows me to get more clear images under low light. Summarit-M 35 2.5 (asph) is good lens on C-41 film and one of the best lenses I ever tried on bw darkroom prints.  I like it on M4-2 most.

 

You have provide a heap of related information and thank you for your enthusiasm. It is always a challenge in deciding on the purchase of the next lens and I am certain many others had similar experiences.

I have done some research the past few days and have narrowed my choice to the two lenses I mentioned. While trying to exercise prudence in gravitating towards the CZ,  I am prepared to "stretch" my budget for the Summarit to keep it an all-Leica combo. Meanwhile I am going to give further thoughts on this matter as I have the 28mm Elmarit ASPH as an alternative lens. I am a bright light shooter (to borrow your expression).

It boils down to meeting personal needs and wants and I sometimes I see grey between the two. I do appreciate all inputs from forum members, regardless.

 

[Edwin Ho]

I am nearing a decision after revisiting this link again.

https://au.pcmag.com/lenses-1/38873/leica-summarit-m-35mm-f24-asph

 

[a.noctilux]

Why not the older model 2.5/35mm Summarit-M ?

I have a bunch of 35mm lenses, and this is my last good surprise 35mm lens.

As good as can be from wide open f/2.5.

Very compact and light, I prefer this old f/2.5 to the new f/2.4 for it's E39 filter as I use on Monochrom some colored filters.

Less flarey in contre-jour (maybe thanks to it's tiny front lens) than other older Summilux/Summicron/Summaron/etc. that I used to.

In my decades of Leitz/Leica lenses, the Summarit-M family is my late best choice with three ( 2.5/35/50/75 ) which complete well my other all around 28mm,

like your Elmarit-M 28mm asph.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Edwin Ho]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

Why not the older model 2.5/35mm Summarit-M ?

I shall keep an open mind about this if I opt for Leica instead of CZ, thank you.

[Shameetman]

36 minutes ago, Edwin Ho said:

I shall keep an open mind about this if I opt for Leica instead of CZ, thank you.

I heard some rumors that both summarit lenses are optically the same. So there would be no difference between the 2.4 and 2.5 , just marketing. But they're rumors..

Edited April 3, 2020 by Shameetman