Best Alternative for Leica 35mm summicron

[HK71]

<p>Dear Friends;<br>

I need an other lens which will accompany my 50mm summicron. But I have a limited budget after purchasing a new M6 TTL and 50mm 'cron. So I need your advice for cheaper and high quality option for 35mm 'cron. I think speed will not a problem for me. I can also consider summarit but I don't have any idea about its results and performance. I couldn't find any feedback anywhere. Is it as good as its 'cron brother? I am also considering Voigtlander and Zeiss options(all of them 1,2, 2, 2,5 2,8 versions). If you have any experince about these third party 35mm products for Leica M, please share with me. I am especially wondering these products' performance at different apertures(wide open/close). Which is the best alternative and the best buy in overall performance- as I said, quaility is my priority not speed-certainly in a limited budget.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance<br>

Hakan</p>

 

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<p>There are some great 35mm M mount choices out there for those on a budget, including the ZM 35mm f/2 and the CV 35mm f/1.4 Nokton. The CV is a great choice at one stop faster and nearly half the cost of the ZM.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>Canon 35mm f2 LTm is very good. Check out KEH and Igor's site for used 35mm summicrons, you might be suprised</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>If you want to stick with Leica, your choices are the older 2.8 or 3.5 Summaron, or the late-model 2.5 Summarit. </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>The Zeiss 35/2 Biogon is excellent. The Nokton 35/1.4 (which I use on my M8) is also very good. The Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon is also very good.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

Konica 35/f2, it used to be part of the Konica Hexar line-up for the Hexar rangefinder camera. There are 28, 35, 50 and

90mm lenses. I only have the 35... and won't sell it ever.

 

But then, it's another choice in case Leicas are not within your reach.

[tom_burke3]

<p>Erwin Puts rates the new(ish) Summarit very highly - have a look <a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page83.html">here</a>. I have one these, and I'm perfectly happy with it - among its virtues is the fact that it's very portable and small - but I don't have any other 35mm lenses with which to offer comparisons.<br>

And part of my decision to buy the Summarit was a desire to actually give some money to Leica (having bought a s/h body). The Summarits were the only new Leica lenses I could afford.</p>

 

[jeff_drew4]

<p>There are many choices in the "pre-owned" market and occasionally one can get a minty 35mm Leica M lens with patient shopping. I have owned the CV 35mm f1.7 Ultron and found it very capable and a terrific value. The Zeiss ZM line fills the niche market between CV & Leica. I have a few of the Zeiss line and find them excellent in all ways and do not miss the much more expensive Leica version. The Summarit 35 is an excellent lens as are the ZM f/2 & F/2.8. If this focal length is not your primary lens, saving some investment makes sense. I would check out the ZM choices and then check your budget. If not likely, then CV is an excellent to get. </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The only really "weak" 35mm lenses for Leica rangefinders are the ones with Tessar formula, such as the Elmar 35/3.5, Canon 35/3.5, and Nikkor 35/3.5. Using a Tessar formula to make a wide-angle lens is really stretching things. Very soft in the corners wide open, with lots of light falloff as well. If you want their look, they are interesting lenses, but they aren't up to modern standards for a "sharp" lens.<br>

Just about any other 35mm lens will give you fine results, so long as there isn't a big condition problem. The Summaron 35/3.5 and 35/2.8 are both noted for a strong tendency towards internal haze, which very often cannot be cleaned successfully.<br>

Only other gotcha is to be sure not to buy a goggled lens (for M3) which has had the goggles removed. A Summaron with a 0.65 close focus and no goggles is a certain butcher job -- it will never focus accurately with the rangefinder.<br>

All the M-mount 35mm lenses are at least very good. It's only in LTM lenses that there are some weaker performers.</p>

 

[tim_barker1]

<p>It's unclear what your budget is, so it's tough to really give you a good answer. Also, are you willing to buy used? Or do you need a new lens?<br>

A CV 35/2.5 is a great lens at the lower price range.<br>

You could get an older 35 summicron (version 3) for $800-$900.<br>

My personal favorite now is the 35 UC Hexanon (rare, but they can be found around $1,000 if you get lucky)<br>

Really tons of options out there. But again, you might get better answers if you said how much you want to spend and whether you are willing to go the used route.</p>

<p> </p>

[christopher_m]

<p>I'm a big fan of the Canon 35/2. There is one on eBay now for $250 (search Canon Rangefinder 35mm/f2.0). I'm a big fan of the lens. (some <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28882854@N00/tags/dallas/">Flickr examples</a>) It works very well wide open. If I'm only going to bring one lens, this is normally my choice.</p>

<p>I've also owned the CV 35/2.5, which sells new for $229. Another very good lens (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28882854@N00/tags/cvskopar3525/">Other examples</a>) I prefer the extra half stop of the Canon (I can shoot in normal indoor light with ISO 400, f/2 and 1/30). It's slightly small than the Canon, but both are small enough to fit in your pocket.</p>

<p>I also own the Summaron 35/3.5. It's so tiny, has it's advantages but can be ergonomically challenging. There's no half stop aperature clicks and changing aperatures is a two handed process. It's pretty sharp and has a nice vintage look to the photos, but I usually reach for the Canon instead. (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28882854@N00/tags/summaron3535/">Examples</a>)</p>

<p> </p>

[HK71]

<p>Jeff, thank you for advice about patient shopping on Leica M Lenses. I am still trying my chance on E-bay but it is really hard to find a lens in good condition with a reasonable price.<br>

John, your advice about Tessar formula was really intresting and helpful. I haven't heard that, I will certainly consider that.<br>

Tim my budget is around 500-600 USD. Yes I am considering to buy used lens but only in good condition. Because I would like to keep the chance to trade it if I needed to(for a better lens in the future) </p>

[tim_barker1]

<p>$500-$600 makes it tough to go the Leica route unless you want the 35/3.5 summaron. Personally, I could never accept a 3.5 maximum aperture as adequate.<br>

I'd offer three suggestions.<br>

- Cheapest: CV 35/2.5. You can get one used around $200 or so.<br>

- Fastest but still in budget: CV 35/1.4 nokton. I think these are running around $500 new.<br>

- Most expensive: Zeiss Biogon 35/2. You could probably find a nice one used at the upper end of your range. You'll find many fans of this lens here and elsewhere.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>The Zeiss 35/2 is a great lens. I've had no complaints other than the focal length - ultimately not right for me :D I'm selling mine if you want a used one. That being said, the Zeiss 35/2.8 and the Leica Summarit both look really nice as well.</p>

[02Pete]

<p>I concur with the recommendations for the Canon 35mm f/2 LTM. An excellent lens -- sharp, contrasty, compact, light, handles well, works quite well with a Leica M body. If in good condition, represents excellent value for money at current prices.</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>On a limited budget I'd go for the 35/1.4 CV or the Canon 35/2.0. Good luck. </p>

[horea_feier]

<p>How about the Leica Summarit? Just as good as the Summicron (if not better at middle apertures due to its lack of focus shift), small, "economical", coded?</p>