Which 35mm lens? Summaron vs W-Nikkor vs Color-Skopar

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I have an interest in architectural photography, and I want to have a 35mm lens that has minimal distortion. I've never found a satisfactory 35mm lens in the Nikon F system. Though I still use a 35mm f/1.4 AIS, all of the SLR Nikkors have barrel distortion.<br>

So, now I'm trying out a Leica IIf (DAG overhauled) with a Jupiter-12 35mm lens which has been CLA'd and shimmed to work with Leica by FEDKA. This is an inexpensive, sharp lens. The main problem for me is that there is visible pincushion distortion. This is most noticable with doors, windows, building outlines. Yes, distortion is correctable in software after scanning the film. However, if I project the slide, it's still visible.<br>

What are the alternatives? Ken Rockwell has acclaim for the Leitz Summaron 35 f/2.8 as well as the W-Nikkor 35 2.5. The latter is usually a Nikon RF mount lens, but it is available in LTM. Bjorn Rorslett (well known Nikkor reviewer) on the other hand gave only middling marks to the W-Nikkor. Then there's the limited production Hexanon 35 f/2 in LTM, which is supposedly based on the W-Nikkor 35 1.8. The only problem is that all of these lenses are tremendously expensive - 10X or more than what I paid for the Jupiter!<br>

Cosina Voigtlander has a Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 that is still available from Steven Gandy's site, although it has been discontinued. Has anyone compared this lens to the Summaron / W-Nikkor / Hexanons?<br>

Is the Cosina flare-resistant and visibly distortion free?<br>

The main motivation of course is that the Cosina costs about half the cost of a CLA'd W-Nikkor 35 2.5. However, if these other lenses do have some significant reason for the higher price besides collector's premium, then perhaps I'll have to pay the high prices.</p>

[vahe_sahakian]

<p >I have 35/2.8 Summaron in M3 goggled configuration, if you do not need speed this lens will be your best option and as Ken states in his review this lens is probably sharper than most other high priced Leica 35’s stopped down to about F/5.6 and its distortion is awfully low.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The bad news is the LTM version, they are very expensive, if you can find one.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Vahe</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>all of the SLR Nikkors have barrel distortion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might try a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8; it's made for architectural work and I've never noticed any barrel distortion (or pincushion either, for that matter) in pictures with lots of straight lines in them. Non-AI versions are cheaper. There's also a 28mm version. The different versions are discussed at <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/PC_Nikkor/index.htm">link</a>.</p>

<p>How you'd fit that to a Leica, is something you'd know, I guess, since you introduce Nikon F lenses into the discussion.</p>

[tedms gallery]

<p>I'd highly recommend getting an M mount, and a Summicron, or Summilux lens.<br>

There are some special edition Summicron 35s in ltm, but they would be much more expensive than just getting an M-body.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Hi JDM,<br>

I do have the 28 f/3.5 PC Nikkor. Yes, it's a heavy and bulky beast, but it works well. Best when I know I will be photographing architecture and I will bring along a tripod and the works.<br>

My main intention was to have a small walkaround lens that I can carry around and take pictures of architecture as I come across it.<br>

Re: M mount. Sure, it would probably be the ultimate solution, but I'm already in sticker shock from moving from the FED and Russian lenses to Leica thread mount. Going to an M solution seems very Rolls Royce in price and quality.<br>

Nobody votes for the Voigtlander or the W-Nikkor?</p>

[graham_line]

<p>There are many photos made with the Color Skopar 35/2.5 at http://www.flickr.com/groups/cv35cs/<br>

You can pick out the architecturals and judge for yourself but, being a 35, it's going to take some care to keep angles squared up. Any amount of tilt or swing is going to emphasize the perspective change. A wide angle on a rangefinder is always going to be educated guessing and a compromise at best.<br>

I use the Nikkor 35/1.4 and don't notice much in the way of barrel distortion at distances of more than 5 meters and in the middle of the f/stop range. The 35/2 would probably be better but haven't used one in some time.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>You want a lens that's symmetric, any retrofocus lens will have a hard time being free of geometric distortion. There's lots of moderate speed 35mm LTM lenses with symmetric double-gauss design. For instance, the Summaron 35/3.5 and 35/2.8, and the Canon 35/3.2 and 35/2.8. I haven't done any tests about distortion on these lenses, however. But it gives you something to search for.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>Look for a LTM Summaron. You won't be disappointed. It may take a bit of searching to find one but they are well built and very sharp.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Another vote for the 35/2.8 PC Nikkor. I have never seen any distortion with my copy of this lens. Ditto for the 28mm PC-Nikkor.</p>

[gadge]

<p>How about a Voigtlander Ultron 35mm 1.7 - That is a screw fit and a fine lens at a good price. Has some flare but less if you use an alternative hood to the narrow one that comes with it.<br>

Bit large (in RF terms) but if you are going to be using an external finder I cant see that matters much<br>

Try and get a late model in chrome as paint goes fast on the black model making it look shabby.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>I would go for the Color-Skopar, particularly the classic and not pancake model, which one reviewer (Mike Johnston) remarked about 5 year ago in one of the photo magazines as being a very good lens. I haven't made any comparisons with mine and other lenses (nothaving them, exceotfor a modern Leica summicron) but I think that buying an older lens always brings with it the risk of age, of haze or other degradation on the glass elements, or of worn focussing helicals. Not sure if Erwin Puts has tested this particular Voigtlander lens or compared itwith Leica lenses, but you might try Googling his name and Voigtlander lens. You can also find his test of the old Summaron, although I don't know if he measured distortion.</p>

[astral]

<p>I too suggest a late version Summaron 35mm, with the f2.8 being the best choice - though it is quite scarce and pricey. The Leica Pocket Book (based partly, if not largely, on Erwin Puts' information) says that the 35mm Summarons are free from distortion. I can attest to that, and to their excellent quality, both image-wise and in construction.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>I've decided to go with the Voigtlander. It costs 1/2 the price of a CLA'd W-Nikkor C, and 1/3 the price of a Summaron that will probably need some servicing after 5o years. As for image quality, I'll soon find out when it arrives.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>If you are into architectural photography in a serious way, you shouldn't be using a 35mm camera. Nowadays you can get a full 4x5 large format camera system for a good price (for about the cost of a nice 35mm 2.8 Summaron). The 4x5 will give you nearly infinite control over perspective, both horizontal and vertical, and give you more resolution than anything else on film or digital. If you checked out Ken Rockwell's site, you should have read about his experiences with large format photography.</p>