Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tom How does the Summicron CL 40mm stack up against the 35mm lenses you mentioned? It's cheaper than the CV 35's. Gary Subject: Re: [Leica] How About Some 3rd Party Lenses? RE: [Leica] 35/2 ASPH vs. 35/1.4 ASPH > David, > I have had some experience with the Non-Leica 35’s. Being an avid prowler of swap-meets I have bought, sold and traded a lot of these “orphans” over the years. > > Here is my take: > > Canon 35/1,5: not a great lens as it traded contrast for flare. Any side-light would opaque out the subject. It was also somewhat soft in its rendition. It was for its time a bit of a “tour de force”, but similar to the 50mm 0,95 and the 50mm 1,2, it was a numbers game rather than a performance game. > > Canon 35/1.8: Not a bad lens, somewhat wild field curvature wide open, but a credible performer otherwise. As most of the 1950’s and early 60’s lenses, it was lower contrast than what we are used to today. > > Canon 35/2: I always liked this lens. It is small and compact and not bad overall. Not as sharp wide-open as a contemporary Summicron 35, but highly usable in the mid f-stop range. Cute too! All of the Canon 35’s that I have tried have suffered from a slightly metallic feel to their aperture rings – almost as if they had some grit in the groove for the little ball that springs in to the aperture ”stops ”. > > Canon 35/2,8: Good and cheap, but a Summaron 35/2,8 runs circles around it. > Nikkor 35/3,5: Very similar performance to a Summaron 35/3,5. Small and neat looking and once you hit f5,6 sharp enough. Surprisingly good contrast for an early 50’s lens. Its appearance is an unabashed copy of the 35/3,5 Summaron. You actually have to look closely to tell which is which! > > Nikkor 35/2,5: This is a really good little 35. Sharp and smooth contrast and fairly freely available too. Only problem is that as with most Japanese lenses, they used strange filter-threads on some of their barrels as well as made hoods that fell off quickly and got lost. > > Nikkor 35/1,8: It was a bit of a sensation when it came out in the late 50’s. It was considerably better than the 1st generation Summilux 35. Unfortunately it has taken on a bit of “mythical” proportion, at least in screw-mount. I have had two of them and although sharp and with a nice contrast, they also do exhibit a tendency to flare. The hood is virtually unobtainable and the lens is quite rare, hence high prices for a lens that today is only mediocre in performance. I now have one in Nikon RF mount and use it on one of my SP’s - it looks cool and if Burt Glinn at Magnum could cover Fidel’s arrival in Havana with it, it is good enough for me. Great lens for shooting “vintage” looking stuff. Tri-X or Plus-X in D-76 and that slight flare transports one back to 1959 quickly. > > Schneider Xenogon 35/2,8: all right lens, but no great shakes as far as I am concerned. I had mine for a short time, lent it to a friend who put it on a M2 and left the package on the front seat of his car. Somebody stole it, thus my frame of reference is short (5-6 rolls). > > Angineux 35/2,5: rare and weird (as most of the Angineux lenses were). Not that sharp either. But admittedly it was also in less than pristine condition. Never seen another one, but I still do not regret trading it off for something else. > > Stable- Lineoxon 35/3,5: Now try to say that fast! This lens is sitting on my Periflex 3, but it will screw on to an adapter and can be used on an M camera. Performance is typical of the 35/3,5’s. Not too bad, but flare and soft wide open. I keep it because of the name! “What did you shoot that with?” Oh, my Lineoxon 35!” and that usually ends the discussion right then and there. > > Voigtlander 35/2,5 Classic and/or Pancake: These are good lenses, sharp and contrasty and fit the Leica very well. Performance wise they are pretty close to the Summicron’s from the 70’s, but 1/3 to ½ the price. The Pancake is a great street shooting lens as it has a large barrel and you can “flick” it from close focus to infinity very quickly. The 35/2,5 Classic looks great on a IIIf and the focusing lever is a bonus too. > > Voigtlander 35/1,7 Aspheric: high end performer and modest price. Great lens for the Bessa R/R2, but I have a problem with the ergonomics of it. It has a large diameter barrel and a steeply tapered front for the aperture ring. I find myself “hunting” for the f-stops with that ring. > > Jupiter 35/2,8: The all time bargain 35 (if you use non-metered M’s, as the deeply protruding rear element blocks the meter) and not a bad lens at all. It is a rather faithful copy of Zeiss 35/2,8 Biogon and if one is copying something, Zeiss lenses are no slouches. It also has the most frightening rear element I know. You don’t “slam” this lens into your M-camera without carefully checking everything beforehand. > > There are other 35’s that I have tried, but these are ones that I can remember. You should also take into context that these lenses are mostly older designs and also in some cases, 50-60 years old and time does tend to accumulate dust, scratches and occasionally fungus on lens surfaces and this does affect performance. Coating technology, aspherical surfaces, improvement in assembly has all taken modern lenses to a level that was unmatched in the 50’s and 60’s. This said, these older lenses have a different signature and “look” to them, and in most cases they are available at modest prices. We should also venture to save these gems and orphans of old. > I wonder how the Staeble-Lineoxon would perform with Tech Pan? > Tom A - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html