35mm; rendering, bokeh and aberations

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>Now that I have taken the plunge into the M mount (M6 - but not out of the water yet, all sorts of issues if you have read my other posts. Has been sent for estimate), I need to start thinking about lens. I already have a 50mm Rigid Summicron. I'll be shooting this lens exclusively for the next 6 months, possibly a year (one lens, one camera, one emulsion, one developer).</p>

<p>This being said, I'll soon want to add a 35mm. I can't afford any of the Leica 35mm lens, and would like at least F2 speed. I'm not looking for which lens is better or worst, just the rendering characteristics of the various options in the 35mm focal length.</p>

<p>1. Voigtlander glass; the F1.4 would be nice.<br>

2. Zeiss glass (I have the F1.4 Planar for Nikon mount - are the ZM similar in "look"?); They seem a bit big?<br>

3. Other options? (I don't know what other lens can mount to the M mount. I've heard some Canon LTM?)</p>

<p>Between Zeiss and Voigtlander, is there a clear winner in terms of minimal aberations? What are the overall differences between the two if you were to summarize?</p>

<p>Again, I believe all of the above options are excellent lenses, and I'm more interested in their characteristics. I'm looking for something small and compact as well. The Summicron 50 looks neat, but it's quite long, and is seen in the VF of the M6 (not that it bothers me as it's out of the 50mm framelines).</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your thoughts and opinions,</p>

<p>J</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I am not familar with the fast 35mm lenses other than my aspherical f2 Leica, but I use the very compact VC classic 35mm f2.5, for both its beautiful black and white qualities and (for me) its excellent bo-ke (see attached image). For me, it is the best in terms of Q/P ratio. </p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Julien<br />I have Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss glass for my M camera's, i have taken hundred's of comparison pics just to show me the character and sharpness and quality.<br />There are minor differences when analysed closely, Leica wins in all catagories, Zeiss second and Voiglander third for edge sharpness.<br />All of them are sharp in the center, differences are only noticed at large aperatures at edges.<br />I have found by f5.6 all lenses are sharp across the whole pic.<br />As an example my Leica 35mm f3.5 Elmar 1937 lens, is just as sharp as my new lenses in the center.<br />It all depends on your style of photography, if you want sharp detail edge to edge shot wide open, then buy Leica.<br />If you shoot portraits of people or things then any lens will produce excellent pics, because edge sharpness is not a concern or vignetting.<br />The example pic is with a Voigtlander 35mm Nokton @ F1.4 Tmax 100, i tested my other lenses shooting same subject which included Leica and Zeiss new and old, and you can not tell the difference.<br />The other pics is the Zeiss 50mm Sonnar @1.5<br />But if i took a pic of a brighter lit subject it would appear unsharp and low contrast with the same lens at F1.4.<br />All depends on lighting, subject and style.<br />I love all my Leica glass but the others can produce excellent pics in the right conditions.<br />I recently purchased a Zeiss Sonnar 50 f1.5, although not as sharp wide open as the summilux, but thats not what it was designed for, i bought it for the dreamy bokeh that it produces wide open.<br />Ray</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Now the Zeiss</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Well, i might as well show you the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton @ F1.1</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>If we could see a few of your photos, an analysis of their characteristics would leave us better able to suggest a lens whose rendering characteristics might make it the most suitable.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Julien - it seems you are looking at new glass while ignoring some of the wonderful old glass. One of my favorites in the last 40 years, was the Leica 35/2.8 Summaron, which I foolishly sold about 10 years ago for a good deal on a more modern 35. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but delivered wonderful rendering for a lot of landscape and some portrait work. The 2.8 seems to be highly valued these days and its current prices high (IMHO), but the older 3.5, or the goggled version (you can remove the goggles) works quite well.</p>

[josh_carr]

<p>I have a 30" x 20" print - beyond normal limits for 35mm - taken on the Summaron 35/3.5 at f/8, which should be pretty much in its sweet spot. The centre is as good as you'd want but the edges are definitely going soft. It's fairly low in contrast too (single-coated, I think) but reasonable for the price.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>As Stephen mentioned look at old glass also including screw mount lenses, all you need is a cheap adapter.<br>

I use the 35 elmar 3.5, 35 summaron 3.5 and a Russian Jupiter 12 F2.8, all screw mount and all take perfect pictures, i did a comparison recently with those and the 35 summicron asph, and the nokton, and decided all are very capable lenses for sharp excellent pictures.<br>

Ray</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>It is a bit wishful thinking to expect our older lenses to be as sharp in the field (edge) or even in regard to microcontrast as a top modern lens, say, the 35mm ASPH, but then they can be puchased today at 1/10thor less the price of the Summicron. And that is what it cost me for a VC 35 f2.5, which is also a modern lens and great performer, not an aspherical Leica lens, but not that far off.</p>

[john_boyle3]

<p>As mentioned by others, the 2.8 Summaron is an excellent lens. I've had mine for over 40 years and have produced excellent results with it. The build quality is superb and I doubt that you would notice any difference in the sharpness of prints made with this lens and those made with the newer or more expensive 35s. If you can find one at a good price - grab it.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>My favorite lens is a 35mm summicron on a Leica M body. My second choice would be a 35mm Canon F2 LTM ( screwmount) The canon is very close in performance to the version IV 35mm summicron.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Wow,</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great replies! I have some time to reasearch into this. Ideally, I would LOVE to have a Leica Summicron - but I have a 50 Summicron, and spent any money I had (and sold Nikon gear) on my M6 and lens.</p>

<p>I always thought that Leica made better glass in the past, but I'm hearing a lot about the Canon LTM glass - were they better than Nikkon's rangefinder glass as well? There must be a history there? From most users, Leica glass probably rates higher than canon today - but was this always the case? I'm not a brand loyalist, so I'm open.</p>

<p>I do love vintage gear, and hoping to get a LTM to M adapter for some older lens - that's part of the appeal of Leica for me, and the M mount proves quite versatile when an adapter is added.</p>

<p>What attracts me to the CV 35 is that it's quite small. The ZM seems a bit big?</p>

<p>Not sure what to expect from my 50mm Summicron as I sent it along with my M6 for repairs. All I know is that the glass is Mint, and it's a Rigid from 65.</p>

<p>J</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Here's another vote for the Leica 35mm Summaron f2.8. It's a stellar performer and matches the materials and build quality of your Summicron rigged 50mm f2. At f5.6 it is absolutely amazing.</p>

<p>Sherry Krauter says it's Leica's best bang-for-the-buck in the 35mm focal range.</p>

[ray_dicecca]

<p>Yes, what Robert and others said re: the 35 Summaron-M f2.8. I also own a ver. IV 35 Summicron and like the character of the Summaron above the former. These are from my 1st roll shot with an M2 on Kodak BW400CN.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5211706051_9434853033_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="735" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5212305240_08ed59caa2_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="735" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5211705711_c0f23534b4_b.jpg" alt="" width="583" height="988" /></p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ray: Fine and dramatic shots, but lighter backgrounds possibly with bright point (light) sources are much better if you want to communicate the bo-ke effects of the Summaron. The version IV is hard to beat for smooth bo-ke, devoid of donut or double line bo-ke effects. I wish I had kept mine, even if its corner resolution at wide apertures doesn't approach that of the aspherical Summicron.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>I will look for a Summaron. I love the idea of old vintage glass if they can be found in good condition, but the question is where to find them in this day and age.</p>

<p>Also very interested in the possibilities of LTM lens, even Canons, Nikkors, etc. Cameraquest.com has a lot of good info on these lens and their history.</p>

<p>I'm curious to know why people generally consider Leica glass to be superior, or is this only when comparing Leica RF glass to Nikkor and Canon SLR glass?</p>

<p>J</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"I'm curious to know why people generally consider Leica glass to be superior"</em></p>

<p>As most of us don't (cannot) test exhaustively the lenses we use, this consideration of superiority is often obtained from a familiarisation with more expert reviews in such magazines as "Popular Photography" (especially the very old editions of this and the extinct "Modern Photography" when tests were done more completely), "Chasseur d'Images", Réponses Photo" (two very fine reviews), some issues of "Photo Techniques", and others (Italian, German, etc.). You pay for the quality of Leica, although some of the modern Nikon, Voigtlander, Cosina, Sigma and other optics are hot on the heals of Leica, Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock (and Mamiya in MF).</p>

<p>Don't be misled to think that old Leica glass is the best. It may have some subjective qualities due to aberrations that could not as easily be designed out of the lens as they can today (whole rooms of people were then doing ray tracing to develop a lens over a year or two, as opposed to computer simulations that take only hours today and go out to tame 2nd and third order aberrations - it then really becomes a question of whether the plant can economically manufacture the lens or not), but for overall performance you cannot usually beat a modern lens from a reputable designer and manufacturer.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>As much as I enjoy old glass, and hope to end up with some nice samples down the road, for now I will chose between the Zeiss and Voigtlander offerings. I like the Zeiss lens, I have one for my Nikon, but they seem to be quite larger than the Voigtlander F1.4?</p>

<p>Between the two, are there any major differences in rendering? Does one stand out in contrast? I enjoyed the micro contrast of my ZF F1.4 50mm on my Nikon - textures really came out beautifully.</p>

<p>J</p>

[pc_b]

<p>Wouldn't a secondhand 1.7/35mm Voigtlander cure your G.A.S.? – It's even screwmount! (afaik)</p>

<p> </p>