small/cheap 35mm lens

I'm looking for an inexpensive RF lens to use on my CL.

I want something affordable (<$500), small, and atleast f2.8. I had a 35/2.8 Summaron (on an M3) but I sold it because it was goggled (bulky) and 35mm is a secondary focal length to me.
I don't want a vintage lens (canon/nikon/Leica LTM) because they typically do not focus closer than 1m and 0.7m-0.8m is preferable.

I'm considering a 35/2.5 Skopar, 40/1.4 Nokton or a 40/2 Rokkor (Summicron). The price difference is not substantial. I'm attracted to the Skopar for size and focal length (wider), the Nokton for speed (more versatility), and the Rokkor/Cron because it is balanced.

thoughts?

More specifically, is there a difference in durability between the VC lenses? What about among the other VC lenses? My experience with VC lenses has been positive (50/1.1 and 35/1.2), but the feelings about these lenses are mixed.

If it matters, I typically use my CL with a 50/2.5 skopar. I also have an M3 and the 35/1.2 Nokton (among other 50's).

I used Skopar 35/2.5 - super sharp, small, good build - but I sold it, I am more 50mm lens user.
Why don't you just use 50/2.5 on M3 (M3 with 50mm lens is best combination that there is), and 35/1.2 on CL? Is 35mm nokton too big for CL?

If you have GAS and you want to buy something - then my vote goes to 40mm summicron. Summicron is summicron - others are judged in comparison to summicron, not other way around.

msbarnes said:

I'm looking for an inexpensive RF lens to use on my CL.

I want something affordable (<$500), small, and atleast f2.8. I had a 35/2.8 Summaron (on an M3) but I sold it because it was goggled (bulky) and 35mm is a secondary focal length to me.
I don't want a vintage lens (canon/nikon/Leica LTM) because they typically do not focus closer than 1m and 0.7m-0.8m is preferable.

I'm considering a 35/2.5 Skopar, 40/1.4 Nokton or a 40/2 Rokkor (Summicron). The price difference is not substantial. I'm attracted to the Skopar for size and focal length (wider), the Nokton for speed (more versatility), and the Rokkor/Cron because it is balanced.

thoughts?

More specifically, is there a difference in durability between the VC lenses? What about among the other VC lenses? My experience with VC lenses has been positive (50/1.1 and 35/1.2), but the feelings about these lenses are mixed.

If it matters, I typically use my CL with a 50/2.5 skopar. I also have an M3 and the 35/1.2 Nokton (among other 50's).

Click to expand...

The 35mm /2.5 Cosina is indistinguishable from the 50mm /2.5, (some ways better) it is best to get the LTM version and M adapter cause you have the option of a (the kit) mini hood or the enormous (optional) deeper one, note it is for Barnacks so will (also) clear the CL rfdr.

The 28mm /3.5 is already depressingly rare and the optional bigger hood is big. It is mainly brass so should last for ever.

Both are low penetration and should clear the CL meter arm.

darkosaric said:

I used Skopar 35/2.5 - super sharp, small, good build - but I sold it, I am more 50mm lens user.
Why don't you just use 50/2.5 on M3 (M3 with 50mm lens is best combination that there is), and 35/1.2 on CL? Is 35mm nokton too big for CL?

If you have GAS and you want to buy something - then my vote goes to 40mm summicron. Summicron is summicron - others are judged in comparison to summicron, not other way around.

Click to expand...

I want 35 on a CL simply for variety. I want a small lens because it is easier to carry. I bought the 50/2.5 Skopar to use on my CL for this reason. I have too many lenses to use with my M3.

I would say go for the Skopar 35/2.5, the Cron 40 or Nokton 40 are also fine choices but for me personally they would be too close in FL to the 50s you already have. 40 would be a good FL, though for times when you want to carry only one lens and nothing else and of course it has the proper frame lines in the CL. BTW, can you see "around" the 40mm frame lines in the finder of the CL for using the 35?

The Skopar has very good optics, it compares much better to the competition than the Skopar 50 IMO. So if you are happy with the 50 flavor you will not be disappointed by the 35! If you are lucky, you could snatch up the C-Biogon 35/2.8 for around 500, which is again a step above the Skopar 35, a very very sharp lens and also less distortion than the Skopar, I think. The 1/3 slower max aperture will not matter, the Skopar is in reality more like a f2.8 lens anyhow.

There is also the Nokton 35 for around 500, I am not sure if it can be focused reliably on the CL wide open and in close, (same goes for the the Notkon 40 wide open), and it is bulkier and has weaker optics than the Skopar 35, so it wouldn't make much sense to buy one if you cannot make use of the bigger aperture.

I have personally witnessed some sample variation in quality of the CV lenses. I think it is simply a consequence of the lower price compared to Zeiss or Leica glass. Nothing to freak out about, just make sure you reserve a return right when you buy the lens and check it carefully and you should be fine. A different issue is the question of long term serviceability of these lenses. In Europe it is very difficult to get a CV lens repaired or serviced except maybe for very simple things like a helicoid regrease. This will only get worse in the future and this why I would not spend money on the more expensive (500$ plus) CV lenses. But I wouldn't hesitate to spend 300$ or so on any of the cheaper ones for that reason. I currently use a Skopar 21/4 and a Skopar 25/4. Previously owned a 50/2.5, 35/2.5 PII, 50/1.5 (M39) and 40/1.4

mnemosyne said:

I have personally witnessed some sample variation in quality of the CV lenses. I think it is simply a consequence of the lower price compared to Zeiss or Leica glass.

Click to expand...

The Zeiss (cept for exotics) are made in the same factory by Cosina but Zeiss mark up the $ for the name plate.
Foolishly I tested five of the LTM 35mm /2.5, no detectable difference... Sold four at about 230USD.
The Zeiss and Leica lenses gave me more problems...

mnemosyne said:

A different issue is the question of long term serviceability of these lenses. In Europe it is very difficult to get a CV lens repaired or serviced except maybe for very simple things like a helicoid regrease.

Click to expand...

They come apart with a lens spanner and a screwdriver set, worryingly the Zeiss tend to self dismantle, rattle, and have strange focus ring movement.

The Color Skopar 35/2.5 is really the little lens that could - I prefer the PII (the M version). Ergonomically, compared to the 40/1.4, it is smaller. The 35/1.4 and 40/1.4 share the same outer haptics (43 mm filter etc) while the 35/2.5 has 39 mm filter.

The 40/1.4 could be iffy to get in focus close up and wide open due to the short RF base of the CL.

I would just get the 35 - you really get an excellent lens. And when buying new, you get a warranty. Worst comes to worst, it could be replaced without breaking the bank.

Wow for <500 to be inexpensive. I'm the loser with <100 to be.
I have little Skopar 35 2.5 PII which I have to sell, because I want my Summaron to be 2.8, not 3.5, but I'm fine with goggles.
Skopar 2.5 PII is sharp, contrasty and in same league with 50 2.5 in terms of image character, if any...

The Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 is the same lens as the Leitz Summicron-C, but branded Minolta and a lot cheaper. It's a great lens and relatively affordable for a M mount lens. If you can, get a later production one that was made for the CLE, they are multicoated and shoot wonderfully. I have one for my CL and I love it.

used Zeiss Biogon. I love it.
or the skopar is you want even cheaper.