Re: [Leica] How About Some 3rd Party Lenses? RE: [Leica] 35/2 ASPH vs. 35/1.4 ASPH

[Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>]

Gary

In my opinion it is the finest lens made under the Summicron name.

Jerry

Gary Williams wrote:

> 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

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html