Best 35mm compact lens for Leica film M

[hmzimelka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, shirubadanieru said:

50mm frame lines work great for a 40mm and they are quite close since Leica 50mm frame lines are a bit wider than actual 50mm.

On my M11, the 50mm frame lines are spot on for my 52.2mm Summicron 50mm. A little Narrow for my ZM Planar 50mm, and my CV 40mm falls pretty much in between the frame lines for 35mm and 50mm. Unfortunately I don't have any there digital M to compare it to.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ouroboros]

I don't really understand why anyone needs to specify "....for film..." to questions like this, a good or bad lens will be a good or bad lens on film or digital.

Anyway, after you've spent hours listening to any number of geeks and clowns on YouTube who will happily bend over backwards aid your decision, the choices really come down to whether personal preference is for Leica lenses or other manufacturer's lenses and personal budget. 

Then you can consider maximum aperture, lens construction (asph or not, lens/groups configuration, mc/sc etc), perceived 'character' and all the other stuff that never meant anything much to anyone when the only things photographers had were magazines to read and their own personal experience.

When you've scoured Google and YouTube 'reviews', asked the same question on forums and Social Media again and again and finally think you've found the answer to your question as to which is the best 35mm lens for film, you can be certain you've found the Holy Grail and you'll never need to buy any another 35mm lens.  

Yeah, right.....

Either summicron or Summilux to start with, btw, but expect others to disagree. 

Good luck.

  

[Ouroboros]

4 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Did you have a bad day or is putting everyone down a new thing?

Did I miss anyone?

[KarimelKrunch]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

I don't really understand why anyone needs to specify "....for film..." to questions like this, a good or bad lens will be a good or bad lens on film or digital.

 

Not exactly, it depends on the film user and their process. Since shooting with film, a fixed ISO can be limiting, so a lens that is fast enough can be important to a film user. As are other things, like a lens that lacks distortion or a lack heavy vignetting, as these are easy to correct in digital post-processing, not so on film. So, ”for film” is actually a perfectly reasonable specification from the OP.

Edited December 8, 2022 by KarimelKrunch

[Dbrass]

2 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

I don't really understand why anyone needs to specify "....for film..." to questions like this, a good or bad lens will be a good or bad lens on film or digital.

Anyway, after you've spent hours listening to any number of geeks and clowns on YouTube who will happily bend over backwards aid your decision, the choices really come down to whether personal preference is for Leica lenses or other manufacturer's lenses and personal budget. 

Then you can consider maximum aperture, lens construction (asph or not, lens/groups configuration, mc/sc etc), perceived 'character' and all the other stuff that never meant anything much to anyone when the only things photographers had were magazines to read and their own personal experience.

When you've scoured Google and YouTube 'reviews', asked the same question on forums and Social Media again and again and finally think you've found the answer to your question as to which is the best 35mm lens for film, you can be certain you've found the Holy Grail and you'll never need to buy any another 35mm lens.  

Yeah, right.....

Either summicron or Summilux to start with, btw, but expect others to disagree. 

Good luck.

  

It makes a big difference whether a lens is being use for film or digital. As someone already mentioned not only aperture speed for fixed iso but also vignetting and distortion acts very differently. 
I’m trying to avoid spending as much as a summicron. 
 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Dbrass

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, KarimelKrunch said:

......Since shooting with film, a fixed ISO can be limiting

For many film users including myself that is a creative decision, rarely a limiting option.

 

1 hour ago, KarimelKrunch said:

....As are other things, like a lens that lacks distortion or a lack heavy vignetting, as these are easy to correct in digital post-processing, not so on film. 

These can also be easily corrected in a hybrid film workflow, which is what I assumed the OP was concerned with.  I will agree that it's more difficult and often not possible to correct some lens characteristics such as more extreme and complex distortions and chromatic aberrations etc, but in the absence of technical requirements the question still doesn't need the 'film' qualification, imo.  As I said, there are good and bad lenses.  

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

 
.....I’m trying to avoid spending as much as a summicron. 
 

 

Since cost appears to be your main consideration then, you can probably also rule out the summarits and stick to your original list of 3 Voigtlander options.  Of those, the new 35mm f1.5 might seem to be the better of the three on paper.  You'll only know if you can try them all before you buy.

[Dbrass]

32 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Since cost appears to be your main consideration then, you can probably also rule out the summarits and stick to your original list of 3 Voigtlander options.  Of those, the new 35mm f1.5 might seem to be the better of the three on paper.  You'll only know if you can try them all before you buy.

Cost isn’t the main consideration, however why pay more when you might not need to.

Given that the original post already mentioned “bang for buck” and listed lenses in a budget price bracket I thought it would be clear.

I can rule out summarits, why? They are half the price of the Summicron and 1/4 the price of a summilux.

Again, why? would the new Nokton 1.5 be “better” on paper?

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Dbrass

[Dbrass]

37 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

For many film users including myself that is a creative decision, rarely a limiting option.

 

These can also be easily corrected in a hybrid film workflow, which is what I assumed the OP was concerned with.  I will agree that it's more difficult and often not possible to correct some lens characteristics such as more extreme and complex distortions and chromatic aberrations etc, but in the absence of technical requirements the question still doesn't need the 'film' qualification, imo.  As I said, there are good and bad lenses.  

By hybrid I assume you mean digitalisation of the neg and fixed in post. Sure that can be done, you can fix most things in post but that’s not the point here.

[Ouroboros]

25 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

Cost isn’t the main consideration, however why pay more when you might not need to.

 

You listed three Voigtlander lenses as your choices, so it's fair to assume cost is a consideration for you.

 

27 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

 

Given that the original post already mentioned “bang for buck” and listed lenses in a budget price bracket I thought it would be clear.

 

Which underlines the fact that cost is a consideration for you.

 

28 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

 

I can rule out summarits, why? 

 

The cost of a used summarit will be closer to a used summicron which is considerably more than any new or used Voigtlander in your list of three.  Since cost is clearly an important factor for you, you can rule the summarits out.

 

30 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

By hybrid I assume you mean digitalisation of the neg and fixed in post. Sure that can be done, you can fix most things in post but that’s not the point here.

What is your 'point' then?

 

30 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

 

Again, why? would the new Nokton 1.5 be “better” on paper?

 

Compare the output (your words: 'bang for buck') of the new 35mm f1.5 with the other two Voigtlander lenses on your list. On paper at least it would seem to perform well enough.  For the cost.

 

[Dbrass]

56 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

You listed three Voigtlander lenses as your choices, so it's fair to assume cost is a consideration for you.

 

Which underlines the fact that cost is a consideration for you.

 

The cost of a used summarit will be closer to a used summicron which is considerably more than any new or used Voigtlander in your list of three.  Since cost is clearly an important factor for you, you can rule the summarits out.

 

What is your 'point' then?

 

Compare the output (your words: 'bang for buck') of the new 35mm f1.5 with the other two Voigtlander lenses on your list. On paper at least it would seem to perform well enough.  For the cost.

 

You haven’t helped or contributed positively with the purpose of this post. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Dbrass

[Fotoklaus]

Am 6.12.2022 um 20:11 schrieb Dbrass:

Trying to nail a good quality, well priced fairly compact 35mm lens for my first film M (MP), I don’t want to buy another 35mm later, I prefer to buy once, use and keep using.
Voigtlander seems to be the best bang for buck. Generally I hate vignetting and understand reading reports that vignetting occurs differently depending on whether you’re on a digital or film body. Here are my choices 

Ultron f2.0 

Nokton f1.4 ii

New release f1.5 

I like a sharp lens but mainly what is important is less vignetting and less distortion.

Look forward to hearing your feedback and thoughts.

I´d go for the Ultron. Modern 8 lens aspherical design, compact and not too much weight. Hard to beat that for the price.

[Ouroboros]

13 minutes ago, Dbrass said:

You’re haven’t helped or contributed positively with the purpose of this post. 

 

You've had several recommendations to your question, including three from me; summicron, summilux or the new Voigtlander 35mm f1.5 

You obviously missed that.

 

[Keith (M)]

My two-pennies worth regarding a 35mm lens for film use - Summaron f2.8.  Small, compact, beautifully constructed and capable of excellent results on colour & b&w.  My go-to choice for film in preference to my Biogon f2 and Nokton III f1.2.

If it is of any use a quick search  of my Flickr page reveals quite a few examples with M7 & MP .

[KuboZ]

5 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

I don't really understand why anyone needs to specify "....for film..." to questions like this, a good or bad lens will be a good or bad lens on film or digital.

Anyway, after you've spent hours listening to any number of geeks and clowns on YouTube who will happily bend over backwards aid your decision, the choices really come down to whether personal preference is for Leica lenses or other manufacturer's lenses and personal budget. 

Then you can consider maximum aperture, lens construction (asph or not, lens/groups configuration, mc/sc etc), perceived 'character' and all the other stuff that never meant anything much to anyone when the only things photographers had were magazines to read and their own personal experience.

When you've scoured Google and YouTube 'reviews', asked the same question on forums and Social Media again and again and finally think you've found the answer to your question as to which is the best 35mm lens for film, you can be certain you've found the Holy Grail and you'll never need to buy any another 35mm lens.  

Yeah, right.....

Either summicron or Summilux to start with, btw, but expect others to disagree. 

Good luck.

  

Speed is the answer

[KarimelKrunch]

In addition to the 3 Voigtlander lenses you have listed I would also recommend the Summaron F2.8, as Keith suggested, especially if you're a B&W shooter. The 3 Voigtlander lenses will all show some vignetting, so you'll have to live with that. The Nokton 1.4 will exhibit some barrel distortion as well, but will give you the extra stop. The new Nokton 1.5 looks to be more well corrected and Fred Miranda has completed a review of this lens that you should look up. In it, FM also compares the 1.4 and 1.5 Noktons head to head, so it's worth a read. Between the two, you could think of them as a choice between the 1.4 as a Vintage/Character lens vs the more modern 1.5. So, modern or classic rendering? Will the new 1.5 Nokton be compact enough for you? Do you want the extra stop? Otherwise, I would recommend the Ultron F2 II. It has a modern rendering and is the most compact of the 3 (but all 3 are compact) but I personally don't like shooting it wide open in Nature, as it shows a lot of optical vignetting, therefore you get that swirly bokeh. In urban environments it's just fine though and has a more classic rendering wide open. I'm personally going to check out the new Nokton and feel it in the hand before I decide upon switching my Ultron for the new Nokton. I hope this helps. 

Nokton Classic II 1.4 189g, 28.5mm Length

Nokton "Vintage" 1.5 asph 284g brass, 186g alu; 36mm length

Ultron F2 asph II 210g 28mm length

 

 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

My two 35mm are a Zeiss f2.8, several reviews have said this is the third best 35 for Leica. The two that beat it out were the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and the Summilux FLE. My second is a Summilux pre asph Canada. I can't decide which I like better. But for a budget I would go for the Zeiss f2.8 wonderful images, not too contrasty but very sharp. I also have the Voigtlander 40 f1.4 a nice lens but I like a 35 better, my least used lens. I am sure a Voigtlander 35f 1.4 will be fine.  

[bags27]

1 hour ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

My two 35mm are a Zeiss f2.8, several reviews have said this is the third best 35 for Leica. The two that beat it out were the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 and the Summilux FLE. My second is a Summilux pre asph Canada. I can't decide which I like better. But for a budget I would go for the Zeiss f2.8 wonderful images, not too contrasty but very sharp. I also have the Voigtlander 40 f1.4 a nice lens but I like a 35 better, my least used lens. I am sure a Voigtlander 35f 1.4 will be fine.  

Sean Reid reviewed the Zeiss f/2.8 along with the M f/2 APO and the VC f/2 APO and found it was pretty similar in image quality. Of course the Zeiss costs many times less than the Leica and several times less than the VC.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dbrass]

5 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

My two-pennies worth regarding a 35mm lens for film use - Summaron f2.8.  Small, compact, beautifully constructed and capable of excellent results on colour & b&w.  My go-to choice for film in preference to my Biogon f2 and Nokton III f1.2.

If it is of any use a quick search  of my Flickr page reveals quite a few examples with M7 & MP .

thanks Keith, sounds ideal, but I do want a black lens and can see that it only appears to come in silver!

 

[S Maclean]

i have expereinced nothing but perfection from the Summicron 2.  it's light, precise and renders beatifully.  I am eager, although scared due to all the issues, to get the lux fle2.

Also, the CV Nokton 1.2 has given me incredible results.

 

Here are some examples taken with the Cron.  At F2 max aperture you can still get great results on low light and great 3d rendering and out of focus areas.  

 

 

And a few images with the Nokton 1.2.  Lens is a little bulkier but not badly balanced on the M11.  Great performer.  Sharp where it needs to be and pure silk on the out of focus areas.  It renders like a 50 or 75 at 35mm.  It is less than 1g in the US to buy.  No hood, but you can get a compatible on for about 40 bucks.

First 5 images are Cron.  The rest (starting with the car engine) are CV Nokton 1.2

 

 

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!

Edited December 8, 2022 by S Maclean