if I can't afford a leica lens for my M6 ...

[paul_cohn]

<p>I've been looking through a lot of these posts to get information on the Nokton or the Biogen and similar lenses, and most of the references are to their performance on an M8 or M9. I'm using an M6 and have Voigtlander Color Skopar f2.5 lenses (35mm and 50mm) and I'm not quite happy - would like something faster and with more contrast. I don't know if the lenses perform the same on film as they do on digital, so I'll ask: Does anyone have recommendations for a good non-Leica 35 and 50 mm lens for a film Leica body? Thank you! </p>

[Rob F.]

<p>If the 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar is not contrasty enough, I wonder if you are losing contrast somewhere else in the photographic process. It is a very contrasty lens, in my experience. Some questions: </p>

<p>What film(s) do you shoot?<br>

Do you process your own film? If, so, How?<br>

Do you get the contrast you want with some other lens or camera?</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>I love my Nokton 50/1.5. It's my go to lens. Since I'm usually photographing people, I use the 50mm a lot. It has a high contrast wide open.<br>

I also have a Canon 35/2. I had a Skopar 35/2.5 but f/2.5 was a little slow. The Canon is tiny. These can be a little hard to find but go for around $350.<br>

Nokton 50/1.5 at f/1.5:<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4516228109_9dc84d1677.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Canon 35/2:<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/3710471881_b94e6b1894.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[starvy]

<p>I find the Color-Skopar lens to be very satisfyingly contrasty. I tend to use a lot of black and white Ilford films though mine but when tested with colour like Velvia 50, it was more than satisfying for my needs. What films are you using?</p>

[SCL]

<p>If you're looking at only new lenses, have you considered good used Leica lenses? I am surprised with your comments on low contrast with your present lens...perhaps the contrast is an issue of your choice of films, apertures, or processing. I've found that in my shooting, the Leica 50/2.8 Elmar (latest version) was exceptionally contrasty, and I eventually settled with a Summicron. On the 35 end, again a matter of preference, my favorite has always been the 35/2.8 Summaron which I foolishly sold after about 20 years for a newer Summicron ASPH....which has razor sharpness. I can't speak for the CV lenses, as I own only one (not in the focal lengths you are seeking info on) except to say as a generalization that they exhibit excellent contrast. From a cost standpoint there are some users who swear by (and at) some of the Soviet era Jupiter lenses, depending on whether one gets a good or poor sample. Although you indicate you want a faster lens than what you have, I might suggest changing up your processing and increasing the ISO to accomplish similar goals, or switching to a faster film and saving some money for relatively nominal increase in lens performance.</p>

[ray .]

Looks like you have some nice work, but it appears at times you do shoot in somewhat flat lighting, and

maybe occasionally not from the optimum direction. You should be able to get some decent prints out of

your lens. Zeiss would tend to give more contrast but most of them aren't fast. Have you thought about a 40mm Rokkor or Summicron C? They

aren't too expensive on the used market, and they're f/2 lenses. The thing is, whatever difference there is in image quality is going to be fairly subtle.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Before this I have heard no one complain that C-V lenses give low contrast. I have a C-V Ultron 35/1.7 which is not lacking in contrast. Do you use hoods? As others have said, processing may be the culprit. Your wish to have faster lenses is of course legitimate. Depending on your budget, Zeiss and C-V would appear to be the options. Older lenses <em>will</em> give lower contrast, and for that reason may not satisfy you.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Paul, as you only have digital camera images in the B&W section of your portfolio, I cannot comment on your VC lens images. Do you do your own film processing or farm it out? That might be the problem if you are not in control of the contrast of the film development. Before condemning the VC lens which is a very fine lens I would check the other parameters. The digital to B&W transfers appear fine and of very good contrast (and subject interest). Most of us do our own film processing as it can affect the results considerably as well as permit (with parallel film exposure) compensation for contrasty and dull light at exposure.</p>

[josh_carr]

<p>You can afford a Leica lens. Get an Elmar 50/3.5 and an adapter.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>If you want a faster lens that is also outstanding go for a Summicron 50/2. Used it is not very expensive. Get that tapped version...</p>

[paul_cohn]

<p>I'm mostly using Ilford HP5 developed in D76 (either full strength for 7 1/2 min or 1:1 for 11 min, or whatever the spec sheet says), and then scanning with an Epson V700. Does anyone use a different processing combination?<br>

It's entirely possible I'm expecting too much, or I'm just not consistently shooting in good light; but it just seems like I have to do a lot of shadow/highlight manipulation or burning and dodging of the scanned negatives in PP in order to get the degree of contrast I want.<br>

Anyway, thanks everyone for their input. I'll keep playing with my shots and see what happens.</p>

[keithdunlop]

<p>I have a Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2.0 ZM permanently attached to my M6 and it's the best 50mm I've ever used.</p>

<p>All of the images in my "Just Film" set on Flickr were taken with this combo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithdunlop/sets/72157625797202675/</p>

[tim_barker1]

<p>I too am a big fan of the 50 Zeiss planar, though I do use it primarily with digital. But I have to agree with others - the 35/2.5 CV is a very good lens.</p>

<p> </p>