35mm ltm lens for my iiif - HELP!
Old 1 Week Ago   #1
cavcha1
Registered User
 
cavcha1's Avatar
 
cavcha1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 8
Smile 35mm ltm lens for my iiif - HELP!

Guys,

I'm going to purchase a mid-price ltm 35mm (and viewfinder) for my iiif. I want something small, discrete, doesn't need to be super fast - will be shooting f5.6 - f11 on the street 95% of the time.

My thinking:

Voigtlander Colour Skopar

Or

Canon f2

I have no problem putting modern glass on a 50's body, by the way. It's just going to boil down to a lens that is reliable, neat, and delivers a lovely sharp black and white image with a bit of character. The only other lens I use is a 50mm collapsible Summicron, and I love it. For consistency in my work, I would love a lens that, despite focal length, won't give me images that look TOTALLY different from work shot with my 50.

Help me decide!? Or throw something else into the mix!? I can't afford £1000+ Leica....

Thanks a million!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #2
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,936
I think you can't really go wrong with either the Canon or the Skopar 35. I have been using a Skopar for a few years and just recently got the Canon. In the short time I've had the Canon, it seems very similar in rendering to the Skopar.
Something like a Summaron 35/3.5 might be more similar in rendering to the collapsible Summicron.
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #3
mteresko
Registered User
 
mteresko is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 44
+1 for the Skopar. It's a great and very compact lens. Works very nicely on my IIIf. I've been on the lookout for a deal on a Canon 35/2, but have not tried one yet. I have used the Canon 50/2 and 50/1.4, and they are both excellent, though I've kept the 1.4 and sold the 2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #4
Gerry M
Gerry
 
Gerry M is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Medford, Oregon, U. S.
Posts: 918
For value, I think the 35/2.5 ltm Color Skopar may be hard to beat. Maybe consider the very short focus throw model. 43mm filter thread. About 90' rotation from close (.9 m) to infinity. When mounted, it extends ~1" from the body. Some like it, others not so much. I think it is a great street lens.
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #5
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,027
Here is an inexpensive and super light but big view viewfinder from a repurposed Canon:

https://www.shapeways.com/product/UR...iewfinder-base
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #6
cavcha1
Registered User
 
cavcha1's Avatar
 
cavcha1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry M View Post
For value, I think the 35/2.5 ltm Color Skopar may be hard to beat. Maybe consider the very short focus throw model. 43mm filter thread. About 90' rotation from close (.9 m) to infinity. When mounted, it extends ~1" from the body. Some like it, others not so much. I think it is a great street lens.
Insight appreciated! Any idea how that particular version of the lens is commonly known? The only thing I don't like about SOME skopars is the little....nipple...focussing aid. I'd be looking for a version without.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #7
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift1 View Post
I think you can't really go wrong with either the Canon or the Skopar 35. I have been using a Skopar for a few years and just recently got the Canon. In the short time I've had the Canon, it seems very similar in rendering to the Skopar.
Something like a Summaron 35/3.5 might be more similar in rendering to the collapsible Summicron.
What Colton said... The skopar, Canon 35/2.0, or Summaron 35/3.5 are all great lenses and work perfectly with a Barnack Leica. I use a Summaron on my IIIc a lot.

There are other Canon 35s out there worth considering too: the 35/1.8, 35/2.8. And there are Nikkor 35s in LTM mount as well (never used any of those).

In short, you have a lot of choices.

One final consideration: flare resistance. There, the Color Skopar and Canon 35/2.0 are probably your best bets. The skopar has modern coatings; you really don't need to use a hood with it (other than the little round one that comes with the lens). The Canon 35/2.0 has a deeply recessed from element; I don't use a hood on mine.
__________________
Steve

FS: Zeiss-ZM Planar 50 plus hood, Pentax MX, Voigtlander Ultron 40/2.0 SLII in Pentax K-mount, Takumar 100/2.8 and 35/3.5 lenses: See my ads in Classifieds

M3, M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS

My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #8
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,822
I have a Canon Serenar 35mm f3.5 form the early fifties. I wouldn't recommend it because of the tendency to haze. I de-haze mine before every use, it takes less than 8 minutes. But Canon made some later models that might suit you. The Senenar is very small almost pancake and it is very, very well made. So I'm sure the later models are the same.

Here is mine., I think I paid about $40-50:

https://www.ebay.com/i/372816629629?...yABEgJ3d_D_BwE

Here is a wide open shot:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carter...-pVSBA1-h4rWAF
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #9
Gerry M
Gerry
 
Gerry M is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Medford, Oregon, U. S.
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavcha1 View Post
Insight appreciated! Any idea how that particular version of the lens is commonly known? The only thing I don't like about SOME skopars is the little....nipple...focussing aid. I'd be looking for a version without.
No focusing stem on this model. It has a scalloped ring.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg _B030002 CV 35.jpg (34.3 KB, 28 views)
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #10
Brianmc86
Registered User
 
Brianmc86 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
Here is an inexpensive and super light but big view viewfinder from a repurposed Canon:

https://www.shapeways.com/product/UR...iewfinder-base

I actually just bought one of these. Overall I love the cheap price and its size. The thing that bugs me is that for some reason the top section of my viewfinder doesn't sit flush with bottom section, and as a result I have a gap in either the front or back of the viewfinder which lets dust in. I think the middle slot of the top plate needs to be recessed a little bit more to accommodate for the middle glass height, but I won't complain since this is still much more affordable than most finders.

Now I just need a 35 LTM lens to go with it...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #11
B-9
Devin Bro
 
B-9's Avatar
 
B-9 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,280
Jupiter-12 absolute banger for chips.
__________________
Made in Michigan

RangefinderGuy @ Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #12
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 168
I have the Canon 35mm f2, the Color Skopar 35mm f2.5 (classic) and the Shapeways 35mm viewfinder. The Skopar definitely flares if shooting against the light so it needs its dedicated hood (LH-2) if you shoot this way. This hood does not intrude into the view of an external finder. For the Canon I used an old Voigtlander 42mm push-on hood designed for 35mm lenses. It works superbly, I think slightly better than the Skopar hood. I really like the Canon lens so I have not given the Skopar the attention it no doubt deserves. I have the impression that the Skopar contrast can be 'hard' but the Canon is 'just right'. Both are very fine lenses. The problem I have with the Shapeways finder is that the back-reflected framelines can be a bit faint. The reason is that there is not much mirror surface to do the back-reflecting. I purchased the Zeiss-Sony 35mm viewfinder for the RX-1 digital camera. It has a much larger back-reflecting mirror surface so the framelines are extremely well defined but, if you wear glasses (I do) you slightly get the impression that you are looking through a tunnel. You have to look around a bit to take in the scene. That said, I'm absolutely sold on the Zeiss viewfinder. Once you get used to it, it is superb. The optics is -1 diopters and I'm afraid my old eyes are unable to accommodate this so I need a +1 diopter correction. Fortunately the Zeiss viewfinder takes standard 19mm OD screw in dioptre correction lenses e.g. those for the Nikon SLR system. I also tried the Voigtlander 35mm viewfinder but it did not have enough eye relief for me (and it also has -1 dioptre optics but does not accept correction lenses). So I would recommend the Canon 35mm f2 with the Zeiss viewfinder...but you will not go wrong with the Skopar either.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #13
cavcha1
Registered User
 
cavcha1's Avatar
 
cavcha1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcb4718 View Post
I have the Canon 35mm f2, the Color Skopar 35mm f2.5 (classic) and the Shapeways 35mm viewfinder. The Skopar definitely flares if shooting against the light so it needs its dedicated hood (LH-2) if you shoot this way. This hood does not intrude into the view of an external finder. For the Canon I used an old Voigtlander 42mm push-on hood designed for 35mm lenses. It works superbly, I think slightly better than the Skopar hood. I really like the Canon lens so I have not given the Skopar the attention it no doubt deserves. I have the impression that the Skopar contrast can be 'hard' but the Canon is 'just right'. Both are very fine lenses. The problem I have with the Shapeways finder is that the back-reflected framelines can be a bit faint. The reason is that there is not much mirror surface to do the back-reflecting. I purchased the Zeiss-Sony 35mm viewfinder for the RX-1 digital camera. It has a much larger back-reflecting mirror surface so the framelines are extremely well defined but, if you wear glasses (I do) you slightly get the impression that you are looking through a tunnel. You have to look around a bit to take in the scene. That said, I'm absolutely sold on the Zeiss viewfinder. Once you get used to it, it is superb. The optics is -1 diopters and I'm afraid my old eyes are unable to accommodate this so I need a +1 diopter correction. Fortunately the Zeiss viewfinder takes standard 19mm OD screw in dioptre correction lenses e.g. those for the Nikon SLR system. I also tried the Voigtlander 35mm viewfinder but it did not have enough eye relief for me (and it also has -1 dioptre optics but does not accept correction lenses). So I would recommend the Canon 35mm f2 with the Zeiss viewfinder...but you will not go wrong with the Skopar either.
Unless I'm looking at the wrong thing...that viewfinder is £400! I really appreciate your insight into the lenses. I actually found a Canon f2 in London the other day but the aperture ring was stiff as molasses. It feels like if I'm going to find a good one, it will come from Japan....and with that comes risk as I can't touch it before, and import charges. The Voigtlander I expect I could find at very worst within Europe, second-hand.

Much to mull over!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #14
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,510
Color Skopar has no character on bw film, print. I had it three times, all three versions.
I was not happy with it every time I print in the darkroom.
It is named as Color for very obvious reason.
Canon 35/2 should give more. Or Ultron 35 1.7 ltm. Watch for fogged copies of both.

Quote:
the little....nipple...focussing aid
allows you to focus before you have camera to your eye. Or while you are bringing camera to your eye. Works even if it is dark and you can't see focus scale.
Booth lenses I have mentioned could had the focus tab easelly added.

My 35 fv is build from crapped out Olympus XA2. I use ebay hotshoe cover to keep it in coldshoe and XA2 parts to hold its VF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #15
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 168
Ah! On ebay more like £150 if you are patient. Not much more than other viewfinders... On receipt (from Japan!) my Canon 35mm f2 had a stiff aperture ring and a slightly wobbly focus. The aperture ring I loosened up completely with a tiny drop of watchmakers lubricating oil. The focus looseness is caused by not enough lubricating grease in the helicoils. I guess it happens to all lenses sooner or later. The Canon lens is simple to take apart and very well engineered. Its a simple job to apply the grease and reassemble. I have also re-greased my Skopar. The engineering seemed more 'lightweight' but I have no reason to suppose it is not adequate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #16
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,667
Is there a reason the 3.5cm Elmar wouldn't be a candidate? Definitely small and the few images I've made with one seemed sharp enough. A Schneider 35mm Xenogon f/2.8 I tried also struck me as being quite sharp, and is well made and whilst not as compact as a Elmar, not particularly large.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #17
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,875
I would suggest the Canon 35mm f2.8 the old style all chrome ones..a nice lens and very available and sell for much less than a Nikkor 3.5cm f2.5 lens and both lenses have very similar signature on the image.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #18
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,027
I’m partial to the Nikkor 35/2.5 but it has a filter size that is unobtanium. However it works with A36 filters if you’ve got those.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #19
cavcha1
Registered User
 
cavcha1's Avatar
 
cavcha1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 8
Hey guys, I just went for a Canon f2 in really good (hopefully) condition. Will report back. Thanks for all the advice!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #20
helenhill
Mod chasing Shadows Light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,640
Well to me there are only 2 choices in LTM
35 Summaron 3.5
35 Canon f2

Yum to Both !

Though there is something special about that little color Skopar
Okay , three choices
Can’t go wrong with any of them
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
To the question "what are you after"
I respond: The Moment...The Memory of what Once was
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #21
mystichobo
Registered User
 
mystichobo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 10
I'm going to throw something wild into the air and suggest an early (pre-early 1960s) Jupiter 12. I pretty much use mine on my iif more than any other lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #22
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,309
Elmar 3.5cm f/3.5 and Jupiter J-12. I have a later J-12 in black, great little lens and just at the moment mounted on my II (D).


__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #23
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
Well to me there are only 2 choices in LTM
35 Summaron 3.5
35 Canon f2

Yum to Both !

Though there is something special about that little color Skopar
Okay , three choices
Canít go wrong with any of them
I have the first two lenses, but I am unable to create images as you do, Helen !
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #24
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,028
If you're planning on using it between f5.6 and f11, also look at the Canon 35mm f1.8. It's a bit smaller than the f2 version, and not as sharp wide open, but just as good when stopped down to f4 or f5.6.

Best,
-Tim
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #25
d.dulin
Registered User
 
d.dulin's Avatar
 
d.dulin is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 105
Color skopar 35 is really a fantastic lens in ltm. i have the "classic" version and have always loved the way it looks and shoots, too bad the summicron has taken its place on my M2
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #26
cavcha1
Registered User
 
cavcha1's Avatar
 
cavcha1 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcb4718 View Post
Ah! On ebay more like £150 if you are patient. Not much more than other viewfinders... On receipt (from Japan!) my Canon 35mm f2 had a stiff aperture ring and a slightly wobbly focus. The aperture ring I loosened up completely with a tiny drop of watchmakers lubricating oil. The focus looseness is caused by not enough lubricating grease in the helicoils. I guess it happens to all lenses sooner or later. The Canon lens is simple to take apart and very well engineered. Its a simple job to apply the grease and reassemble. I have also re-greased my Skopar. The engineering seemed more 'lightweight' but I have no reason to suppose it is not adequate.
Do you happen to have a photo of your Zeiss finder on your camera? I'm interested to see how it looks I worry it might seem a bit massive on my iiif.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #27
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,227
The Zeiss finder is the same size as all the other ones Zeiss makes. It is large for a IIIf, but not obnoxiously so. I haven't put mine on my IIIc recently, so going by old-age memory, it does hang over the shutter speed dial a bit. It doesn't interfere with the dial but does make it more difficult to set. The one made by Cosina/Voightlander - the mini finder no longer manufactured - is ideal but you would pay more for the finder than you did the for the lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #28
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 168
Here is a photo of my IIIC with my Canon 35mm f2 and the old Voigtlander 35mm push on hood. Its true the finder can obscure the shutter dial. If the dial is the large OD type this can make the shutter speed a bit difficult to read but as you see, my dial is the small OD type and I have not found this to be a problem. The plastic Leica viewfinders have an offset shoe and so allow the most unobstructed view of the shutter setting. The Voigtlander hood is very effective and does not vignette at all. I'm only interested in utility and find this set up works well. It allows me to take photos contre-jour with confidence. The attached photo is perhaps on the limit of what I can get away with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #29
helenhill
Mod chasing Shadows Light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
I have the first two lenses, but I am unable to create images as you do, Helen !
Hah, I have seen some Wonderful images You created Raid with the ‘Japanese summicron’, loved them.

Very kind Raid, Thank You !
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
To the question "what are you after"
I respond: The Moment...The Memory of what Once was
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #30
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 168
I thought you might like to see my other 35mm set up, Cavcha1, so you could compare. The camera is a Leica II and the lens is a 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar. It definitely needs a hood if you are shooting contre-jour so it is fitted with its dedicated hood. The Leica viewfinder seems designed for the Leica II for two reasons. Firstly, it is offset so even though the Leica II has a large OD shutter dial, it can still be seen. Secondly, the Leica II has a rather crude cold shoe. It's simply a slot with no means to grip an accessory. The Leica viewfinder has a clamping lever so it can be secured. In contrast the Zeiss viewfinder would be a little loose. With both arrangements the hood does not intrude into the viewfinder view, its just below the bottom frameline. If I fit the Leica viewfinder on the Leica IIIC the old Voigtlander hood does slightly intrude into the bottom of the view. The Leica viewfinder optics are 0 dioptre so no correction lens is needed; the Zeiss is -1 dioptre and my old eyes cannot accomodate that now so I need a +1 dioptre correction lens. Fortunately the Zeiss takes common 19mm OD correction lenses (e.g. Nikon SLR correction lenses). Both viewfinders are really good. The Leica offers a more complete view because its magnification is a little less (maybe 0.5-0.55 vs. 0.58). The Zeiss presents more of a tunnel vision if you wear glasses (because the surrounding mirror that back reflects the framelines is bigger). On the other hand the framelines are fantastically bright and this does aid composition. The viewfinders are both good, just different. I have two set ups because I wanted to compare them. I started with the Canon lens and to be honest I have been using it more than I thought I would and have not got on to using the Color Skopar extensively. If I were not interested in making a comparison and just had the Canon lens set up I would not think of changing it. Hope this helps.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #31
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,028
Here's a comparison of the two fast Canon lenses from back in the day, the Canon 35mm f2 (Japanese Summicron) on the left and the Canon 35mm f1.8 on the right.



Also, the Voightlander 35mm viewfinder on the left and the Nikon 3.5cm viewfinder on the right.



One nice thing about the little Canon lenses is that the front element is recessed far enough into the lens that there really isn't a need for a lens hood in most shooting situations.

Best,
-Tim
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #32
jcb4718
Registered User
 
jcb4718 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 168
Very nice cameras, Tim. I think the big dividing line with external viewfinders is whether or not you wear glasses. External viewfinder with a peep holes are not suitable for glasses wearers, I have found. It seems the larger the viewfinder entrance pupil the better. Image magnification is also a factor, smaller magnification having more eye relief. For these reasons the (black plastic) Leica and Zeiss finders work for me. As for the question 'to hood or not to hood?' I think the point is that sunlight falling directly on the lens will cause problems. The Canon lens is recessed and that helps. A hood helps even more, obviously. I point the camera where I want to take the photo and sometimes that is towards the sun. With the hood on only very occasionally do I have a problem with unwanted reflections on the negative.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #33
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,606
The Elmar 35mm f/3.5 is perhaps the tiniest of them all, but is a great lens.

Erik.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:41.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.