35mm lens between Summilux Pre-asph, Summicron v1 8e or Nokton 1.4 II SC, Or another one?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Nokton 35/1.4 v2 in its "SC" version has less contrast than modern asph lenses and can compare to the Summilux 35/1.4 v2 IMHO. A modern variant of the Summilux, so to speak, with less glow at f/1.4 though but also more distortion unfortunately for film users.

Edited January 12 by lct

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

• M11, Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2, f/1.4, no distortion correction

• M11, Nokton 35/1.4 SC v2, f/1.4, digital distortion correction

[fil-m]

I can talk about the Cron 8e and the Lux 35 pre-asph v2. I own both lenses, and each one is magnificent in its own way.

The Cron is the predictable lens I put on my camera and almost forget about. It produces beautiful colors and is subtle in black & white. Its signature isn’t too pronounced, and its larger f/2 aperture helps avoid missed shots. There’s a bit of glow from f/2 to f/2.8, and the sharpness is good (but not excessive), with a gentle contrast. I love it when I want to be disciplined in my approach—focusing more on composition and knowing that the lens will produce beautiful images. I also love how it handles; the aperture ring is extremely satisfying, and overall it feels amazingly solid (knowing that my sample is more than 60 years old).

The Lux 35 is more special—and more challenging. There’s a strong temptation to shoot at f/1.4, so I often find myself thinking about what I can achieve with that large aperture, its glow, and the rainbow flare it can produce under certain lighting conditions. As a result, the lens itself becomes more a part of the equation, which isn’t necessarily good or bad, it just depends on what I want.

For me, the choice comes down to intention. Do you want a more “intrusive” lens that allows you to be even more creative? The Lux is great, and compact too. If you want to concentrate more on the scene and f2 is enough, and you prefer a subtle, not-too-strong signature, then the Cron is an interesting choice.

[cesc]

I am reading this article, I had never thought about this lens, and honestly I am quite intrigue

https://www.f8low.com/a-closer-look/summaron-35mm-f2.8

[BrettWayne]

1 hour ago, cesc said:

I am reading this article, I had never thought about this lens, and honestly I am quite intrigue

https://www.f8low.com/a-closer-look/summaron-35mm-f2.8

2.8 is sharper and has more contrast than the 3.5, if you thought the other lenses were clinical, you might not like this because it’s almost equivalent. I kept 2.8 for m10-m. 

[raizans]

I agree with _tc. If you want the chalk and soot look of those three photographers, the answer lies in film, development, and printing, not really the lens.

[Deeetona]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or try using a well worn LTM lens.

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, _tc said:

there is no lens that you can buy that will make images look like what Brunelli is doing unless you're willing to do the same amount of work he is to his negatives. or the other folks you mentioned.

Precisely the answer no one wants to hear in a lens-centric forum. But you are right, of course.

Edited January 12 by hansvons

[cesc]

17 hours ago, _tc said:

there is no lens that you can buy that will make images look like what Brunelli is doing unless you're willing to do the same amount of work he is to his negatives. or the other folks you mentioned. frankly, if you want to achieve that look and you already have an FLE or cron ASPH just keep it because you don't need to buy a new lens you need to work on your darkroom technique. if you already sold ok sure they wouldn't be my top choices so let me try to be helpful and add commentary to these three choices.

of these three lenses I would recommend the pre-a v2. if you had said LLL 8E I'd probably recommend that instead, as v2 pre-a and leica 8E prices are out of control and hugely disproportionate to how special I personally think these lenses are (which is a lot less than most people). nokton distortion is unacceptable to me on film. for a 35mm lens on a rangefinder that's just not OK unless the lens is modern enough that it's designed for digital use. Might as well use an SLR lens at that point.  

I'm sorry but what?

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!

This is so much contrast you wonder if Brunelli stole it from all the other photographers. This is the most contrast. All of the contrast, even. Literally any lens can look like this because so much of the look comes from the process that any contribution the lens itself makes is sort of like pouring your coffee into the ocean.

I completely agree with you. I don’t currently have a 35mm lens, so I’ve been considering which one to get based on your more experienced thoughts. I also agree that in the darkroom and during film development, I can manipulate and play with the shadows to my liking.

I’ve come across a great deal for a Biogon C 35mm f/2.8 that’s almost new, and I’ve only read positive things about this lens. Alternatively, I have the option to trade my Lux 50 ASPH for an M4 with a Summaron 35mm f/2.8.

 

 

[hansvons]

3 hours ago, cesc said:

I’ve come across a great deal for a Biogon C 35mm f/2.8 that’s almost new, and I’ve only read positive things about this lens. Alternatively, I have the option to trade my Lux 50 ASPH for an M4 with a Summaron 35mm f/2.8.

If I were in the market to buy a 35mm M lens as my first lens, I'd buy an allrounder, a workhorse. Nothing costly with vintage-ish character, but a lens that does it all: light, small, an everyday carry, loveable. The Biogon does have a defining character, albeit more hidden and is with f/2.8 for a 35mm slow. But it's very sharp. And it's super flare-resistant. If I were looking for a compact 35mm landscape lens, that would be it–if I hadn't already the affordable 35mm Summarit. This thread leads to my beloved landscape shooter. It's a real workhorse lens. 

Swapping your Summilux 50 for an M4 and a Summaron 35mm f/2.8 has the great advantage that you will have two film cameras (ideally, they come in pairs!) and the disadvantage that you will own a 35mm lens that is over 50 years old, does have a vintage character with vignetting and all, and is relatively slow as your only lens for two cameras. But swapping your Summilux for a camera remains a good idea, don't get me wrong. Maybe you will get another deal? Also, for a fifty, the classic Summicron v4 (it has a tab and the latest optical formula) is everything you need to own as your first 50mm lens. 

 

 

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, _tc said:

Honestly you'd have to threaten me with physical violence to get me to give up my 50 Lux ASPH. It's not a lens to me it is THE lens.

I have the same feelings about my 35mm Summicron ASPH—it's a definite never-sell. However, both lenses can easily be repurchased.

But when you are at the beginning of your Leica M journey (what a great time in life 😉) and building a kit, maybe the costly 50mm Summilux isn't the best investment to determine whether you are a 35mm guy or a fifty guy. 

That said, I'd start with the classic standard lenses: the 28mm Elmarit ASPH, the 35mm Summicron ASPH, and the 50mm Summicron V4 (because it has the tab). Then, I'd take the purchase-sell game from there. Or maybe, because it's less budget-intensive, go the Voigtlander route, learn my preferences with their lenses and upgrade from there. The aforementioned 35mm Nokton f/1.4 SC V2 doesn't need an upgrade. It's a gem on its own. 

One last thing: the more expensive a lens is, the more it is babied. People start using lens caps and safe camera bags all the time (a huge mistake), are reluctant to shoot in unfavourable conditions and develop camera anxiety. This is bad for creativity. Routine nonchalance in camera and lens handling is mandatory for good pictures. 

 

[cesc]

46 minutes ago, _tc said:

I can't dispute any of that, but the OP already has a 50 lux ASPH and I just see no reason to eat the cost of going to a different lens when you already have the best 50, but YMMV

Just curious about what would you recommend then. I am owning MP + Lux50 asph. But I want something lighter and faster to work with, indoors and outdoors in 35mm focal length. Thanks so much for your help again. Really awesome all the comments and feedback from you.

[pippy]

I have three 35mm lenses in M-mount; a 1954 f3.4 Summaron, a v2 Summilux and the LLL '8-Element' reverse-engineered v1 Summicron clone.

Not much to add where the Summilux and LLL are concerned; they are both superb offerings in their own way when used wide-open and render in a surprisingly similar fashion once stopped-down to, say, f4.0 down.

The f3.5 Summaron is an interesting proposition. Mine was given a thorough CLA several years ago and its performance when it came back was a revelation. It is sharper than might be expected for a lens of its vintage optical design. At f3.5 it is sharp in the centre and softens as it gets to the edges and corners (no surprises there). As such it has a bit of a 'Vintage Look' when used in this fashion. Stop-down, however, and it becomes very sharp indeed across the frame.

I thought the lens lacked something in the Contrast-Transmission department but after its aforementioned CLA it has superb clarity. Colours are rendered neutrally. There is no pin-cushion / barrel distortion worth the mention which is, for me, a huge plus-point; I shoot a lot of architectural-type subject-matter.

Overall, if one can live with the Max. Ap. of f3.5 it is hard to find fault with the lens. It is also something of a bargain in LeicaLand.

I would like to mention one other lens which I don't think has had a mention but is well-worth acquiring; the Soviet-made Jupiter 12 35mm f2.8. These were made to a pre-WWII Zeiss Biogon optical design and behave exactly as one might expect. Like the Summaron it is (very!) sharp in the centre wide-open with quite soft edges. It takes longer to sharpen across the frame than the Leitz lens but it could be argued that this means it retains its 'Vintage Look' for longer!

The J-12 came in LTM-mount (and Contax / Kiev mount) so would need to be used with an LTM-M adaptor but as the lens is so 'reasonably priced' - they can usually be found for under three-figures -  buying one of those is hardly going to break the bank.

Philip.

[raizans]

There are several 35/1.4 lenses coming out soon:

- Funleader Steel Rim

- Artra Labs Similar

- Peace Optics Steel Rim

- Light Lens Lab Double Aspherical

Edited January 13 by raizans

[Lee S]

7 hours ago, _tc said:

there's not a lot to complain about with the c-biogon.

it's slow (which you know already), it's got genuinely horrible haptics (it's too small not to have a tab, my fingers get shredded by the aperture ring jimping/grooves if I'm not careful), the caps and hoods for it (you dont need a hood at all btw) are an affront to all that is holy.

but you do know it's like the most contrasty 35mm lens available in M mount right? it's at the FLE/APO summicron level of global contrast if not even a bit more. again as per my previous post I think it doesnt matter for what you want to do but "too contrasty and too perfect" at least the FLE has some visible field curvature and diminished contrast at f1.4 with the c-biogon it's just gas pedal to the floor all the time always.

Definitely not a lot to complain about with the c-biogon apart from that damn focus nub. It’s tiny and razor sharp with superb contrast.

I’ve actually managed to put an aftermarket rubber focus tab on mine which has improved the haptics. 

[costa43]

I own the 35mm Summilux pre asph v2 and have used it on film a lot over the last few months. It’s relatively low contrast especially at wider apertures and works very well with b&w imo. I love it and will never sell it. 

[raizans]

I love the ZM focus bump. It’s easier to handle when your finger is fully retracted; bigger focus tabs stick out more (duh) and I find they’re less ergonomic at closer focusing distances. There are pros and cons, different styles and personal preferences.

[lct]

Matter of morphology i guess. There are several 35mm lenses shorter than the C-Biogon. Summilux 35/1.4 v2, Summicron 35/2 v4, Ultron 35/2, to name a few, let alone tiny LTM lenses like Elmar 35/3.5 & Summaron 35/3.5.

Edited January 14 by lct

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

20 minutes ago, _tc said:

which one of those that you mentioned does not make use of a focus tab? even if it's the less than ideal infinity lock type.

Ultron 35/2, Biogon 35/2.8, Elmar 35/3.5, Summaron 35/3.5, also Summicron 40/2, Summicron 50/2 v1 & v2, Elmar 50/2.8, etc.

[lct]

1 hour ago, _tc said:

Im convinced you didn't actually read my post.

Every single lens you mentioned in your original list has a focus tab. Of the lens you listed the second time, most of the 35s have tabs. The rest are baffling additions. What are you even saying I'm confused.

Why so aggressive? You asked about focus tab. Lenses i quoted have a focus knob or a focus button.

Edited January 14 by lct