bscott Posted November 12, 2007 Share #1 Posted November 12, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any comments on characteristics between these two lens other that the f stop? I need a 35mm lens but I'm not sure which one of the these would be best for me. I usually photo nature and landscapes with my R equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 12, 2007 Posted November 12, 2007 Hi bscott, Take a look here Summicron 35R 2.0 vs Elmarit 35R 2.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Motivfindender Posted November 12, 2007 Share #2 Posted November 12, 2007 I own the 2/35 since 20 years now and do mostly landscape Photography. and I never had any single reason to complain about the 2/35. From a tripod at f4 or 5,6 it is a enormous sharp glass with wonderful colour rendition, particuarly with a Pol-Filter. And it is stable like a tank. Together with Kodachrome 25 film, it is a phantastic combination. You shurely will not regret if you purchase it. But I cannot tell you about the difference between the 2 and 2,8/35. Dirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 12, 2007 Share #3 Posted November 12, 2007 I have the older 35/2 Summicron which I have been really pleased with, only recently I noticed oil on the blades and haven't used it since - it needs a CLA. I've been thinking of just selling it as is and buying a later version or the 35/70 f4 but I'd miss the f2 I'm sure - it's nice having a wide shot with OOF backgrounds. I'm not sure which lens is the W Mandler design, the early or later lens???? Having said all that, I think the Elmarit will be as good a performer, if you don't think you want f2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted November 12, 2007 Share #4 Posted November 12, 2007 Any comments on characteristics between these two lens other that the f stop? I need a 35mm lens but I'm not sure which one of the these would be best for me. I usually photo nature and landscapes with my R equipment. Many years ago I had a 35mm f/2.8R and I remember it as a very nice lens indeed, and its very cheap nowadays! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4X5B&W Posted November 13, 2007 Share #5 Posted November 13, 2007 I currently own the 35 Elmarit (55 mm filter version) and it is truely a superb lens, sharp, contrasty, and nice OOF image. The lens is very compact and fits the hand just right on my R6. Mine is not going anywhere......it's a keeper. I have also shot with 35 Crons, and while I always liked the images they produced, I think the 35 Elmarit is probably just a shade better overall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando_b Posted November 13, 2007 Share #6 Posted November 13, 2007 Relatively to last versions of both. The Elmarit has higher MTF curves at all apertures (except f/2 of course), and is more uniform on the field. This doesn't mean the Summicron is bad! It is very good indeed. Also it extremely resistant to flare. If you need the extra f-stop get it, otherwise the elmarit should be cheaper (second hand, it is no more produced). Fernando. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivar B Posted November 13, 2007 Share #7 Posted November 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have owned both, and clearly prefer the 2.8/35. The 2/35 is also a very good lens, but you need to stop down to f4 or so to get the real Leica "bite". The M 2.0/35 asph sibling is a much better lens, at least at wider f stops. I found the 2.8/35 giving more brilliant images, but obviously the difference is not great. If you look for either version, try to find the ones with built in lens hood and 55mm filter thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.