Which screw-mount 35mm lens?

I am looking for a 35 lens for a IIIf and am finding a few choices. Interested
in a lens of modest size and weight for general use. Price is not a big issue,
and while it doesn't need to be the absolute optically best lens available, I'm
not interested in a Russian lens or something of equally inconsistent quality.

So far I have seen a Summaron f3.5, a Canon Serenar f3.5, and a Canon f2.8, and
wonder how they compare.

Please let me know your comments or suggestions.

 

The Russian LTM 35mm/f2.8 lens actually has a good reputation for quality. It is the Russian 50mm/f1.5 and the Russian 85mm lens that are known for problems.

 

Since "price is not a big issue," go for a 35mm Summicron -- they're still the best.

 

You will have a hard time finding a screw mount Type 1 Summicron. And they are pricey. Same for the screw mount Summicron Asph. If you want good quality, look for a Canon 35mm f2 black, or try out the 35mm VC Ultron.

In the second tier, the Canon 35mm f1.8 has a very nice glow and is sharp enough, but one man's glow is another man's flare. The Canon Serenars are sharp, but low contrast and they have what I call a watercolor-like look to their color rendition which can be very nice and arty, but you've got to want it. I've never used a Summaron f3.5.

 

Simply look in this very recent thread.

 

look for a Canon 35mm f2 black
While there is no Canon 35/2 that isn't black, there are two designs that are black. The older one's flarey when wide open.
The stunningly obvious choice for a good, small 35mm lens is the VC 35/2.5.
Once you skip the monster Angénieux at the top, these may appeal to you. You'll need to be in Japan, though.

 

I inherited an old 35 f3.5 Summaron that needed a complete CLA. Sherry Krauter did a nice job and it is now mounted on my IIIg for general use. I don't use it wide open. Stopped down using ASA 200 color it works just fine. I use a Leica hood and that seems to help the contrast. I can't speak to the other two lenses.

 

The sharpest 35mm lens I used on my Leica III was the 3.5 Elmar - as sharp as my 35mm Summicron on my M6. The trouble is the aperure is small so you need a fast film. I tended to use it in bright weather at F6.3 - as sharp as a scalpel at that aperture.

 

Thanks to all for your thoughts and suggestions, especially for the link to the recent thread. I should have searched before asking.

 

Nikon 35mm F3.5 , or the Canon 35mm F1.8.

 

Voigtlander 35/2.5 Color Skopar.

 

I agree with the recommendations for the Canon 35mm f/2 in LTM. I own one and have used it extensively. It offers excellent optical quality, excellent handling, small size and light weight. The Canon 35mm f/1.8 in LTM is also a good lens and worth your consideration, but I have both and prefer the f/2. Skip the Canon 35 mm f/1.5 unless you do a great deal of shooting under dim available light conditions, or are a collector. Like Canon's 50 mm f/1.2, this was introduced during the 1950s, when lens manufacturers competed for fastest lenses as a matter of prestige, and it sacrificed optical quality in the interests of maximum speed. The f/1.5 is usable, but the f/2 is definitely a better lens in all but the dimmest light.

 

I have a 35mm summaron with the older build style. It is nice and compact and solidily built. I even found one of the old hoods for it. Together they make a nice set.

 

I too have the old Summaron. It has the same profile as my ver. 1 'cron, and a similar "character" to the photos.