35mm - This is the way!

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today, I use 21,28,35,50 focal lengths for my M10. I don't need more than two (or even three) lenses for each FL. But I know for sure that I will want, soon or sooner, more 35s. I'm lucky to have a few 35s, and I enjoy and pick each of them for different purposes, and it feels so good, especially in an 0.72x OVF. Honestly, until five years ago, I didn't think I would have more than one lens of each FL... No way. Why? ... But then I found the Leica M-system, and it changed everything. Thankfully!  I know I can use all my 35s for daily snapshots, editorial and storytelling work, and personal projects, so it's a win-win. I just want to start adding another 35mm to my collection, but only if there is a reason (not necessary optically). Only if the lens adds something new to the family. No duplicate or very similar lenses, please. It's not GAS here. I have the privilege to own the following 35s:  

• Summicron Asph I 
• CV 1.2 III 
• Biogon 2.8 ZM 
• CV 1.4 II MC 

Soon to arrive in the family, probably: 

• CV Ultron II 

I don't want to collect; I want to use them and shoot a lot. I don't like big lenses; my Summicron is my perfect size. My 35/1.2 III has to be the biggest (or so). I prefer much more small or medium-size lenses. If I get a massive 35, the choice now would be between CV 35 APO and the Distagon ZM, I guess. For example, having already a 35 cron v5, I'm sure I don't need a v6 (current). I heard and read are optically very similar. So I stay with my Asph I. I know they are different, but not so different, as they are my current 35s between them, very different.

For last, but not less important. I don't want to spend more than $2,500 for a used or new lens. My more expensive option right now for a brand new lens is the Distagon. Apart from the faster aperture, do you think it is similar to the Biogon? Brand new lenses up to $1,200 there are many Zeiss and Voigtlander options. For used lenses, with $2.5k, I guess I can forget about all versions of Summilux and the first four Summicron, right? I don't know anything about the Summaron or Summarit. Or other brands that are not ZM or CV… Maybe an old worthy lens with an adapter…

Please share your opinion. It's gonna be an essential thread for me. Do you have some 35 in mind? Something like … "Dennis, being a pro and 35mm avid shooter, you need to get sooner or later this 35, you have to" ….. This is the alias thread title, lol.

Thank you!

CV 35/1.2 III

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

2.8/35 ZM

CV 35/1.4 II MC

Leica 35mm Summicron Asph I

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Dennis

[pippy]

I can only talk about the lenses I own, Dennis, and all of them render on the 'Vintage' side of things so not sure what use this all might be but, FWIW...

I have three 35s and in use they are all different animals. Chronologically the first is a non goggled f3.5 Summaron-M. The second is a '74 (i.e. v2) Summilux and the third is a 2021 Light Lens Lab 'reverse engineered' replication of the original "8 Element" (1958-'69?) Summicron.

I dislike large lenses and these three are all tiny. In terms of 'projection from body' the length of the Summaron is 25mm. The other two measure 28mm. I do (or so it would seem) like my 35s to have some character and both the 8 Element and the Summilux have character in spades; especially when shot wide-open (as I know you like to do). Stopped-down all three are as sharp as I could ever wish for from a 35mm lens.

There are threads discussing the v2 Summilux with many dozens of wonderful photographs showing how these lenses render. There is also an excellent thread which compares the LLL 8 Element with the illustrious  original from the 1960s. The Summaron is less-well known and this is a crying shame because a good, clean example can be a lovely performer. Far more neutral than either of the others.

I'd try to describe how they render but you really would be better-off skimming through the links I will post at the bottom of this post. Be Warned! Before I read through these two threads myself I owned only the Summaron............

As far as price goes all three of these can be had within your budget. I picked up the Summilux in November, from a well-known London dealership, in "Exc+" cosmetic condition and with perfect optics for the equivalent of $2,400. The LLL was bought (ex-demo?) for 2/3rds that sum and the Summaron would probably be even lower than that.

The only thing I would say regarding my choices is that had I the cash 40 years ago to be able to afford an f2.8 Summaron I would have done so.

Summilux thread;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/288041-35mm-14-summilux-pre-asph/

Summicron / LLL "8 Element" review / comparison thread;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/326477-summicron-352-8-element-vs-light-lens-lab-352-a-direct-comparison/

Have fun in your 35 lens hunt!

Philip.

Edited February 5, 2022 by pippy

[giannis]

The f/1.4 Distagon is the optically best f/1.4 35mm lens you can get on M-mount. However it is big. Personally, I don't justify diminishing returns in sharpness or vignetting or whatever when they bring huge penalties in size and weight - even if price is no issue. I have no doubt the results you'll get out of the Distagon will impress you at first, but once that novelty wears off and you start shooting in the real world (where there's usually small amounts camera shake, motion blur, non-perfect focus, etc.), those perfect lab results won't materialise much and you won't enjoy using it daily due to its bulk and weight. Honestly, if I were you I'd keep/use just the f/1.4 Nokton and the f/2.8 Biogon and call it a day. They're small, light and compliment each other perfectly: the f/1.4 Nokton is fast and light so great for low light and when you need some subject separation; the f/2.8 Biogon is light and very sharp and an absolute beast for lack of distortion, so great for shooting at smaller apertures (like street, sunny days, etc.) and amazing for architecture. 

[Dennis]

16 minutes ago, pippy said:

As far as price goes all three of these can be had within your budget. I picked up the Summilux in November, from a well-known London dealership, in "Exc+" cosmetic condition and with perfect optics for the equivalent of $2,400. The LLL was bought (ex-demo?) for 2/3rds that sum and the Summaron would probably be even lower than that.

The only thing I would say regarding my choices is that had I the cash 40 years ago to be able to afford an f2.8 Summaron I would have done so.

Summilux thread;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/288041-35mm-14-summilux-pre-asph/

Summicron / LLL "8 Element" review / comparison thread;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/326477-summicron-352-8-element-vs-light-lens-lab-352-a-direct-comparison/

Have fun in your 35 lens hunt!

 

Thank you for your reply Philip. The Summilux pre-asph is w/o doubt an interesting lens and I thought it was out of my budget. Also because, for some users, it has a similar render to the CV 35/1.4 II, that's why I didn't look for more information. Should I? 🤔

.

About the LLL. Never heard until a few weeks thanks to the thread you shared, but didn't read all thread. I will. I guess it could be a very different performer, with affordable price. Where can be found online to purchase? On photorumors? No idea.

 

[Dennis]

11 minutes ago, giannis said:

The f/1.4 Distagon is the optically best f/1.4 35mm lens you can get on M-mount. However it is big. Personally, I don't justify diminishing returns in sharpness or vignetting or whatever when they bring huge penalties in size and weight - even if price is no issue. I have no doubt the results you'll get out of the Distagon will impress you at first, but once that novelty wears off and you start shooting in the real world (where there's usually small amounts camera shake, motion blur, non-perfect focus, etc.), those perfect lab results won't materialise much and you won't enjoy using it daily due to its bulk and weight. Honestly, if I were you I'd keep/use just the f/1.4 Nokton and the f/2.8 Biogon and call it a day. They're small, light and compliment each other perfectly: the f/1.4 Nokton is fast and light so great for low light and when you need some subject separation; the f/2.8 Biogon is light and very sharp and an absolute beast for lack of distortion, so great for shooting at smaller apertures (like street, sunny days, etc.) and amazing for architecture. 

I agree with you! I know it's a stellar lens, but one has to live with size and weight. And having already the Biogon, I'm not sure it would add a lot. I use it at f4 and f8 and it never disappoint me. As you say, almost lack of distortion and very flare resistance.

 

[pippy]

3 minutes ago, Dennis said:

🤔Thank you for your reply Philip. The Summilux pre-asph is w/o doubt an interesting lens and I thought it was out of my budget. Also because, for some users, it has a similar render to the CV 35/1.4 II, that's why I didn't look for more information. Should I?

About the LLL. Never heard until a few weeks thanks to the thread you shared, but didn't read all thread. I will. I guess it could be a very different performer, with affordable price. Where can be found online to purchase? On photorumors? No idea.

Hmmm......Tricky. I'll try to answer your questions in as useful a way as I can.

I've never owned either version of the 35mm Nokton but have owned the 40mm Nokton for eight years and for the vast majority of that time (as I think you know) it was my #1 lens. The Summilux is the lens which has taken its place. Used stopped-down it performs superbly well and 'normal' but at f1.4 and, to a lesser extent, at f2 it renders in a way which is pretty much unique IMX. It's not easy to describe how it paints an image; the subject-matter is not 'soft' but due to a few inherent optical aberrations there is a surrounding softness to the subject which will either appeal quite strongly or....well...quite the opposite! I find it to be rather wonderful.

When designing the 35mm Nokton v2 Voigtlander (as I understand it) concentrated their efforts - successfully - in correcting a couple of flaws which were a notorious feature of the earlier design; i.e. focus-shift and pronounced barrel-distortion. I believe the v2 lens renders in rather a 'modern way' without being too clinical. From, say, f4 down it might well render in a manner similar to the Summilux - I simply don't know - but, then again, from f4 down so does pretty much anything else form a high-quality manufacturer. The 'magic' (if you will) of the Summilux happens wide-open or thereabouts.

The LLL is a funny old fish; it's very new to the market (pre-production examples apart) and I'm not even sure they are readily available yet anywhere including in their country of origin (China). Mine came up for sale through the same London dealer from whom I bought my ex-demo M-D Typ-262 and the LLL might also have been an ex-demo / pre-prod. example. I've never seen one for sale anywhere else in the UK. Wide-open it's as interesting as the Summilux but in a different manner (as can be seen in the relevant thread). Stopped-down? As before; it behaves 'normally'.

You would most likely find it interesting to read-up about these two lenses;  they are both (AFAIK) unlike any of the lenses you already use and, as such, might allow you to bring something different to your own photographic style.

On a personal level I consider buying them both to be just about the wisest "photo-kit" decision I've made since buying the M-D. I can't offer higher praise than that.

Philip.

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pippy said:

The Summilux is the lens which has taken its place. Used stopped-down it performs superbly well and 'normal' but at f1.4 and, to a lesser extent, at f2 it renders in a way which is pretty much unique IMX. It's not easy to describe how it paints an image; the subject-matter is not 'soft' but due to a few inherent optical aberrations there is a surrounding softness to the subject which will either appeal quite strongly or....well...quite the opposite! I find it to be rather wonderful.

Well, your description make me more interested on find out! I know it's not easy to describe, and I'm sure in the above mentioned thread, there will be many words to tell me more about it.

1 hour ago, pippy said:

You would most likely find it interesting to read-up about these two lenses;  they are both (AFAIK) unlike any of the lenses you already use and, as such, might allow you to bring something different to your own photographic style.

 That's why your detailed answer is helpful 🙏 In the end, there are many 35s out there. But I'm looking for that uniqueness that makes them special. I would really love to have more options to choose from. And for a lifetime, I guess. Not like in 2005, you got a DX lens to use with an APS-C camera, but then, years later, you get a FF camera and bye-bye DX lenses, haha. I would want more 35s because I'm sure that I can use them forever in one way or another. The question is... which 35 I will use for my last picture? 😅

 

[mon10a]

I agree with the advice @pippy gave you. The smaller lenses are best and the Summilux pre-asph has a look wide open (and at 1.7 and 2.0) that is unlike any other lens I've used. It’s my favorite 35 (I have v1, but it’s not that different than v2).

Having said that, your CV 1.4 v2 probably comes close (I have the SC version). In addition, it can take a while to learn to control the Summilux because it flares so easily. The posts by @steven were the most helpful to me when I was considering the pre-asph Summilux. 

The 8 element won't fall within your budget. But I found a 2.8 Summaron for less than $2k about a year ago. Really nice lens.

Good luck!

m

[Dennis]

3 minutes ago, mon10a said:

I agree with the advice @pippy gave you. The smaller lenses are best and the Summilux pre-asph has a look wide open (and at 1.7 and 2.0) that is unlike any other lens I've used. It’s my favorite 35 (I have v1, but it’s not that different than v2).

Great! One more for the Lux v2. Thank you! I think I go to immerse myself in the lux thread 🙂

4 minutes ago, mon10a said:

But I found a 2.8 Summaron for less than $2k about a year ago. Really nice lens.

What you most like about it?

[mon10a]

10 minutes ago, Dennis said:

What you most like about it?

I like the colors and the consistency of rendering from f2.8 to f8. (Of course, you would not want this lens if you are seeking the most interesting out-of-focus rendering.) Also, this is the smallest of my 35s and feels like a small jewel to use, even though it’s the oldest (1960).

Edited February 5, 2022 by mon10a

[grahamc]

Great shots Dennis

I’m also going to mention the 35:1.4 v2 just for the record despite it being out of the budget mentioned, as it really is such a beautiful lens .

I count my Minolta Rokkor (CLE version) 40:2 as a “35” in my collection, same optical formula as the Leica 40:2 but with more common 40.5mm filter thread and updated coatings as it was released a few years later. The identical optics were a legacy of the Minolta-Leica partnership for the earlier CL camera  

These gems can be picked up for a song, maybe 400USD and I much prefer my version to my third 35 (the 35:2 v4)

The little extra compression gives the images a really nice feel and 40mm is such a versatile FL.   Regarding frame lines, on Leica’s this lens will bring up 50mm framelines, or you can modify the mount by filing a mm or so off the mount (instructions available on Google) and then it brings up 35mm lines.

This lens is tiny and a must-have IMO . It is very sharp and no focus shift the whole way through the aperture range  I did side by sides with the 35:1.4 v2 and the 35:2 v4 and the results were pretty astonishing in terms of sharpness, the 40:2 didn’t miss a beat and the lens has lovely character also. 

BTW as @Al Brown has pointed out in the past, this 40:2 optical formula is shared with the 35:2 v2 (and I think v3 also) which is the subject of an appreciation thread recently. Again I believe the touch of extra compression may make the 40:2 even nicer . 

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by grahamc

[Dennis]

15 minutes ago, grahamc said:

The little extra compression gives the images a really nice feel and 40mm is such a versatile FL.   Regarding frame lines, on Leica’s this lens will bring up 50mm framelines, or you can modify the mount by filing a mm or so off the mount (instructions available on Google) and then it brings up 35mm lines

Thank you, glad to know. I didn't dive myself into the 40mm, yet. I'm afraid it could be a great match. The only reason I didn't pull the trigger yet is the 50mm frame lines. I love 50mm. For my work, I use a lot the Nikkor 58. But on my M10, I really dislike the 50 frame line combined with the 75. I would love to mask-taping the 75mm FL of my M10 and take it out of my way. I would shoot more with the 50, I'm pretty sure.
So, I won't buy a 40mm unless I plan to make it work soon with the 35 FL. I recently saw a copy of the 40 CLE, but the condition was ugly, with some haze. I will put my eyes on this lens. Glad to know it has an excellent render for an affordable price.

21 minutes ago, grahamc said:

I did side by sides with the 35:1.4 v2 and the 35:2 v4 and the results were pretty astonishing in terms of sharpness, the 40:2 didn’t miss a beat and the lens has lovely character also. 

BTW as AI Brown has pointed out in the past, this 40:2 optical formula is shared with the 35:2 v2 (and I think v3 also) which is the subject of an appreciation thread recently. Again I believe the touch of extra compression may make the 40:2 even nicer . 

Yes, I know. $2,500 is not the proper budget for any Summilux or SummiCron (I to IV). At the moment, I prefer to use the lenses I have and save $$ for another M digital (color) body. Who knows when. I'm also interested in a Cron v4... I don't care for the joke fame of KOB, lol. I just love my Summicron asph I, and I think the pre-asph version would be an incredible addition to the family.

 

 

[grahamc]

4 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Thank you, glad to know. I didn't dive myself into the 40mm, yet. I'm afraid it could be a great match. The only reason I didn't pull the trigger yet is the 50mm frame lines. I love 50mm. For my work, I use a lot the Nikkor 58. But on my M10, I really dislike the 50 frame line combined with the 75. I would love to mask-taping the 75mm FL of my M10 and take it out of my way. I would shoot more with the 50, I'm pretty sure.
So, I won't buy a 40mm unless I plan to make it work soon with the 35 FL. I recently saw a copy of the 40 CLE, but the condition was ugly, with some haze. I will put my eyes on this lens. Glad to know it has an excellent render for an affordable price.

Yes, I know. $2,500 is not the proper budget for any Summilux or SummiCron (I to IV). At the moment, I prefer to use the lenses I have and save $$ for another M digital (color) body. Who knows when. I'm also interested in a Cron v4... I don't care for the joke fame of KOB, lol. I just love my Summicron asph I, and I think the pre-asph version would be an incredible addition to the family.

 

 

Thanks. If you like 50mm then I think even more that you would like 40mm. Closer to 35 (obviously !) than 50 in terms of practical use and perspective but really combines them both. 
 

The 50mm frame line issue can easily be corrected in the way mentioned.  
 

it would be interesting to hear what you think if you do get one. I ‘like’ my 35:2v4 but I ‘love’ my 40:2 rokkor  

[Dennis]

2 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Thanks. If you like 50mm then I think even more that you would like 40mm. Closer to 35 (obviously !) than 50 in terms of practical use and perspective but really combines them both. 

 Actually, it makes me very curious to try the 40 focal lengths. Cause the diagonal of a 24x36 FF sensor should be 43mm (the normal) where more or less, these 7mm gives us the 35 and 50 wonders. My description and my English are terrible, but you get my point. Hopefully, maybe the 40FL is the best balance of both worlds. And @pippy knows it 🤣

6 minutes ago, grahamc said:

The 50mm frame line issue can easily be corrected in the way mentioned.  

It's just complicated. And maybe expensive. Send the camera for months maybe. I can do it if I have another body to play with, I can't stay w/o a Leica M 

10 minutes ago, grahamc said:

I ‘like’ my 35:2v4 but I ‘love’ my 40:2 rokkor

Perfect resume!!!

[grahamc]

12 minutes ago, Dennis said:

 Actually, it makes me very curious to try the 40 focal lengths. Cause the diagonal of a 24x36 FF sensor should be 43mm (the normal) where more or less, these 7mm gives us the 35 and 50 wonders. My description and my English are terrible, but you get my point. Hopefully, maybe the 40FL is the best balance of both worlds. And @pippy knows it 🤣

It's just complicated. And maybe expensive. Send the camera for months maybe. I can do it if I have another body to play with, I can't stay w/o a Leica M 

Perfect resume!!!

😁 actually the modification to show 35 frame lines is very easy and you can do yourself with a nail file to ‘remove’ 1mm of the mount in a certain place.  I’ll find the link of instruction and post it here .

I agree the 40mm is in some ways the perfect compromise of 35 and 50. I love 35 and 50 But I far prefer 35mm perspective for street photography than 50mm - which is why I think I often find myself taking 40mm ... it really sits so nicely between the 2.  Almost as close to 35 that I don’t ‘miss’ 35 perspective when I take 40mm, but with a little compression that I like from 50’s.   Really nice !

[IkarusJohn]

Try a 28mm lens (Summaron?) on a CL or TL2 - 42mm field of view!

Edited February 5, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Dennis]

10 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Try a 28mm lens (Summaron?) on a CL or TL2 - 42mm field of view!

One vote for the CL ...

[Dennis]

27 minutes ago, grahamc said:

I agree the 40mm is in some ways the perfect compromise of 35 and 50. I love 35 and 50 But I far prefer 35mm perspective for street photography than 50mm - which is why I think I often find myself taking 40mm ... it really sits so nicely between the 2.  Almost as close to 35 that I don’t ‘miss’ 35 perspective when I take 40mm, but with a little compression that I like from 50’s.   Really nice !

Yes, correct.

I never had any 40mm FL, so can't be sure. But I think I would stick with 35: it's my perfect size window to appreciate the world. And you know, Leica need witnesses ... So, let's shoot 😎 

27 minutes ago, grahamc said:

😁 actually the modification to show 35 frame lines is very easy and you can do yourself with a nail file to ‘remove’ 1mm of the mount in a certain place.  I’ll find the link of instruction and post it here .

Ok, I thought I needed to change the flange... No bad

Edited February 5, 2022 by Dennis

[a.noctilux]

😉 43mm

I dreamed of this ideal 43mm lenses for long and I've found in Pentax Limited lens line.

( I had opportunity to buy the Limited Pentax lenses 31/43/77 odd focal lengths, many years back) .

In use, I did not realize my dreamed field of view.

 

FA 43mm

I have also 40mm in M mount * since I purchased Minolta CLE in the 1980's, nothing special if only 40mm is NOT 35mm nor 50mm.

In the end, I prefer (now) 35mm lenses or 50mm lenses, maybe because these have frame lines (not 100% accurate of course) in M viewfinder 😄

 

* My last Rokkor-M 40mm has been (not by me) adapted to show 35mm frame lines.

Edited February 5, 2022 by a.noctilux

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dennis]

5 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

* My last Rokkor-M 40mm has been (not by me) adapted to show 35mm frame lines.

A pleasure to use it, I guess.

5 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

In the end, I prefer (now) 35mm lenses or 50mm lenses, maybe because these have frame lines (not 100% accurate of course) in M viewfinder 😄

Agree. The lack of 40mm frame lines makes the real difference. Well, for most people. I guess.

.

Can you imagine a modern digital M where, according to the mounted focal length, the single frame line can be manually selected? A paradise for composition and cleanness.