35mm lens sharp as Summicron?

[k_m20]

<p>Hey guys, I've been considering getting a 35mm lens for the Leica M6 (I'm between a Summicron or a Zeiss Biogon). Most people say don't bother with the Biogon and just fork out the extra cash for the Summicron. Used, in EX+ condition, a Summicron 35mm runs over $1,700.</p>

<p>So, I've been thinking maybe I should just get a 35mm lens for my Nikon F3. Does Nikon have a 35mm lens as good or better than the Summicron, for a fraction of the price? Since just about all Nikon lenses will run much cheaper than Leicas, I figured I'd ask.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Check reviews for the high end Zeiss and Sigma 35mm lenses for the F mount.</p>

[dan_brown4]

I shot a lot of Velvia and Provia through a 35mm Summicron ASPH. Those slides still hold there own to this day. I don't

think any Nikon 35mm can match it. The previous Suumicron is probably not as goos as the Nikkor 35/1.4G, but I haven't

done a side-by-side comparison. The new 35mm/f1.8G might better the older Summicron too.

[Two23]

<p>It really comes down to whether you like working with a precision rangefinder or an SLR. I shoot a fair amount of film myself, and I'm after a vintage b&w film look. I'm certainly not after some sort of ultimate sharpness. I prefer uncoated pre-war lenses myself. To my way of thinking, the difference between using an SLR and a rangefinder are much greater than whatever lens you will put on them.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have heard nothing but good about the Nikkor 35/1.4G but I have no experience with it. I would guess it is excellent but it is not a cheap date either.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Two23]

<p>Maybe a more basic question is whether or not a Nikon 35mm G or the even sharper Sigma 35mm f1.4 will even work on an F3?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[k_m20]

<p>The G lenses don't work on the manual film Nikons (my F3 included), unfortunately.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>In comparison to this just about any lens seems reasonable.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1023840-REG/schneider_09_1077200_xenon_ff_35mm.html<br>

You can rent out Nikon, Sigma and even Rokinon 35mm....and decide.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>The current Zeiss ZF2 35/2 from f/4 onward will give an M-Summicron Asph a good run for it's money, but the Leica lens has way less distortion. <br>

BTW, a friend has the 35 Biogon ZM (using it on an M9) and it's a very nice optic. I wouldn't rule it out without conducting your own comparison.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`m using a Summicron 35 ASPH on a M6 and the 35/1.4AiS on the F3 (I also have other 35s -like the 35/2AiS-, but all of them remain on the closet). Only b&w. I think these are the most interesting in both worlds.</p>

<p>More than "which one is better", I`d ask which system suit you better. These are quite different; the Leica pack is noticeable smaller (by far I prefer the `cron to the `lux), much slower to use (full manual), "better" to focus under certain conditions, and with all the restrictions of a non SLR viewfinder. More than image qualities or subjectivities, many times what really count to me is the scenario and way of working.</p>

<p>Image wise only, it seems to me than the Summicron is a much contrastier lens, probably the most contrasty I have (and I have quite a few). Images are crispier, some call it "high microcontrast", while the Nikons seem to me more "normal" or "natural". The Summicron takes out a bit more of detail, e.g. in the shadows.</p>

<p>What means a "lens as good or better than the Summicron"? Personally, a smaller lens, with a better construction, a better hood, a lower weight, and from a quality system use to seem "better" to my taste (Leica). But if I have to shoot fast, or I need viewfinder accuracy, or a larger range of lenses, Nikon is definitely "better".</p>

<p>Which one for the Nikon? I`d stay with Nikon. As mentioned, I prefer the 35/1.4AiS over the 35/2AiS (which is smaller -not by much-, but also less interesting -image wise- compared to the 35/1.4AiS, as the later enjoy the famous and classic... "Leica Glow!").<br /> On Leica, same idea; I`d buy Leica. I have never used the Biogon, but if you buy Zeiss, you`ll always read from people who say "the Leica version is better", so you may end with an itch...</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As Jose wrote, a lot depends on which specific qualities you are looking for. The mentioned G-lenses all look impeccably sharp, punchy, contrasty and basically deliver optically what most people want (which also explains why they are recommended so often). To me, they are a bit clinical; luckily, there is choice.<br /> I cannot compare to any Leica lenses (yet); but given what's reasonably priced and available on the market today, to me the Zeiss ZF 35 f/2 and Nikon AiS 35 f/1.4 are the most interesting choices (for a F3). Two lenses of pretty different character. After a lot of thinking several years back, I went with the 35 f/1.4 Ais, and never had any regrets (using it on digital and a F3). But it's a lens I like for its flaws (veiled, low contrast moody atmospheric look at f/1.4 and f/2, moving to a very sharp lens at f/4); it's not a "consistent" lens as the Zeiss looks to be (or the Sigma 35 Art and the Nikon 35 f/1.4G for that matter). So, my take, unless you know the specific qualities of the 35 f/1.4 suit you, the Zeiss might make a safer choice.</p>

[vilk_inc]

<p>Oi, stick the 35/1.4 AIS on the F3, dump the M6 and treat yourself to a week in Prague for the profit + savings. Actually, put some balance on that line of credit against future savings--and make that three weeks! :)<br /><br />I gather you are not a "working photographer" so you don't need a "tool." Practicalities thus aside, Nikon peeps and Leica peeps are two different kinds of peeps--which are you? Answer this early and save yourself some grey hair later.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Don't write off Samyang's 35mm f/1.4 from the running either. Just because it's a fraction of the price of Zeissina's ZF2 or cheaper even than a used 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor Ai-S. At least it's fully compatible with the F3 and is a modern aspheric design. Mind you it'll double the weight of the F3 and dwarf the camera body.</p>

<p>The ZF2 is a nice lens, but not <em>that</em> much better than the old Ai-S 35mm f/2 Nikkor. The Samyang easily beats both of them at f/2, and also beats the old 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor wide open. By f/4 the IQ is just about perfect with contrast and colour-rendering being superb.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.2 looked after me pretty well, though not really a cheapy and is quite a hefty lump of glass.</p>

<p>Trying to describe the different ways that Zeiss, Leica and the odd Voigtlander lenses "draw" and then try to compare Nikon with them could occupy passionate minds for a very long time as in the end it get's down to personal taste rather than battles about sharpness. </p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I have been messing around with various 35's the last couple of weeks. I have the Sigma 1.4, and I find that it lives up to the good reputation it has. But it is sort of big and heavy, so I tend to leave it behind when just out for casual walking around with the D600.</p>

<p>I have two of the early '70's vintage 35mm/2 O C Nikkors. The better one of the two does seem to perform very well, and makes for good minimal package with the D600. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>This conversation has taken me back to my Leica days, its even made me notice just how much I've forgotten since moving exclusively into Nikon digital. From the moment you posted this I knew it was the kind of topic that could rage for weeks on the Leica Users forum, and on Photo.nets Leica forum, Erwin Putts, Sean Reid and Thorsten Overgard have probably written so much about Leica 35mms that they would fill books.</p>

<p>35mm has always been the most popular length on Leica M film cameras and it then stands to reason that Leica would make mind blowingly good lenses to satisfy its popularity, so your question isn't really a 35cron or other brand but which of the four film versions of the Summicron - - or should you look at Summilux or Sumaron etc - or do you dare to accept that the Version 3 was made in Canada, is just as much a good Leica as the others but is shunned by purist Leica users.</p>

<p>My guess is that you wont be happy 'til you've got exactly the Summicron you argue is the best.</p>

<p>You should really repost the Leica part of your question on the Leica forum and get real advice - mind you if I was going back to rangefinder film I'd go Mamiya 7 you could probably swap out your Leica gear for a Mamiya kit that is unbeatable.</p>

[philip_wilson]

While I am a Canon shooter who also shoots Leica I would suggest that you will not get the same image from an SLR

lens as a rangefinder lens. Perhaps rather than a Nikon 35 mm lens you should consider an adapter and Sony body for

you Leitz lens. My canon 35 mm lens is a very good lens but it produces a different image from my Leica 35 lux. My 5dii

and 35 F1.4 produce great images but they are different from my M240 and 35 lux. My Contax G 35 F2 gets close to the

Leica but is a rather limited system. I guess what I am saying is than the DSLRs from Canon and Nikon offer very good

35mm lenses but they produce a different look from Leica.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>It doesn't apply to 35mm lenses (at least in this post), but <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7">Lens Rentals</a> have just started comparing rangefinder and SLR lenses. They have results for 50mm; whether they post 35mm resuts as well remains to be seen.<br />

<br />

It's true that wider rangefinder lenses can have a different design from SLR lenses because there is no need to clear the mirror box. The expensive Leicas probably have slightly finer manufacturing tolerances as a result of the time that can be spent on them. Spend enough and the best Leica <i>is</i> slightly better than the best SLR 50mm lens (although, on a D800E, so was the 135mm Zeiss, according to DxO). If anything, I'd expect slightly more advantage in a 35mm lens, though there has been a fair bit of optical innovation there recently.<br />

<br />

I'm interested in the Sigma ART 50mm for its relative lack of LoCA, not for its sharpness. For the money, it gets awfully close to the Leica glass at f/2. But I'm not going to claim it's better. In fact, there's enough data there - draw your own conclusions!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

I had the Summicron for a few months but then moved to the 35mm 1.4 asph for speed reasons and that lens quickly

become my favorite Leica lens out of 5 modern ones. I owned the 5 Leica lenses with 4 bodies specifically for a project on

Kodachrome film, once the project was done I sold almost all of it. One of the reasons why was when I compared my new

Nikon 35mm 1.4G on my then D700 to images from a rented M9 and the Leica 35 1.4, I saw very little difference at all

and at that point, the Nikon system was far more professionally sound and productive than even Leica's current digital

system.

 

I'm not knocking Leica's glass, it is truly great but in a day and age when a nudge of two sliders in Lightroom can make a

lot of modern Nikon glass *look* like Leica glass, I can no longer see the point of dolling out that kind of cash for glass I

no longer shoot chrome with. The 50mm 1.4 Aspheric is another story, it is the only Leica lens I own and it lives on my M3

permanently giving me the best black and white film images in 35mm I could possibly have.