35mm lens comparison

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

Memberlist

Profile

35mm lens comparison

Home Manual Focus Lenses

View previous topic :: View next topic

Based on my shots and perhaps your experience which one is the winner in your eyes?

Leica Summicron-R 2/35

20%

[ 9 ]

CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35

38%

[ 17 ]

Steinheil Auto-D-Quinaron 2.8/35

[ 3 ]

MIR-24N 2/35

[ 3 ]

Asahi S-M-C Takumar 3.5/35

25%

[ 11 ]

Porst WW 1.8/35

[ 0 ]

Vivitar Auto 1.9/35

[ 1 ]

Total Votes : 44

Author

Message

Pancolart

Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 3705
Location: Slovenia, EU

Supporting Member

Expire: 2013-11-18

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject:

Pancolart wrote: Splendid test. You made a great job with that side by side page design. If i made similar test i'd like to send photos to you to put them online like that - what do you say? Otherwise for 1:1.8 PORST is very sharp wide-open. I hope i could get such sample as yours. Otherwise i enjoy Pentax-M SMC 2/35mm a lot but if a need that 10cm to object distance Flektogon 1:2.4 is a must. _________________ --------------------------------- The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS

poilu

Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece

Supporting Member

Expire: 2019-08-29

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject:

poilu wrote:

Carsten wrote:

No, on the other hand a fast lens only makes sense if it performs well when wide open. So it need to be at least closely good at f/2 as a slower lens at f/2.8

it is not possible, slower lenses are easier to correct
the distagon 35:2.8 is better than the distagon 35:1.4
but I would not switch my 1.4 for a 2.8, even after reading a test
_________________
T*

visualopsins

Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11012
Location: California

Supporting Member

Expire: 2025-04-11

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject:

visualopsins wrote: I don't know if 3.5/35 S-M-C Takumar is in the same class as those other lenses; my favorite (I have no Zeiss!), the 2/35 S-M-C Takumar, would compare much more favorably imho. No Nikkor? I also like the 2/35 non-AI _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4 Lenses: M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55 M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35 Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5 Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5 Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH) Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)

LucisPictor

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)

Supporting Member

Expire: 2013-12-03

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:24 am Post subject:

LucisPictor wrote:

poilu wrote:

Carsten wrote:

No, on the other hand a fast lens only makes sense if it performs well when wide open. So it need to be at least closely good at f/2 as a slower lens at f/2.8

it is not possible, slower lenses are easier to correct
the distagon 35:2.8 is better than the distagon 35:1.4
but I would not switch my 1.4 for a 2.8, even after reading a test

That generally true, of course. But f/2 and f/2.8 is not too much of a difference and f/2 is not very fast. So f/2 lenses can be highly corrected. We are not talking about borderline cases such a f/1.4 or even f/1.2.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!

Carsten, former Moderator

Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html

My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/

Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de

LucisPictor

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)

Supporting Member

Expire: 2013-12-03

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:26 am Post subject:

LucisPictor wrote:

siriusdogstar wrote:

I don't know if 3.5/35 S-M-C Takumar is in the same class as those other lenses; my favorite (I have no Zeiss!), the 2/35 S-M-C Takumar, would compare much more favorably imho.

No Nikkor? I also like the 2/35 non-AI

I only have got the 3.5/35 and it shows nicely that slower lenses do, of course, not show that high a vignetting which many people tend to forget.

Unfortunately, I have sold my Nikkor 2/35. This is something I really regret.
But you can see some kind of comparison with a Nikkor if you follow the first link.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!

Carsten, former Moderator

djmike

Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 930
Location: Taiwan

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:42 pm Post subject:

djmike wrote:

LucisPictor wrote:

vulko wrote:

LucisPictor,
well ok. Then Mir is my favourite Smile

Flectogon is also nice, but 2.4 version is way expensive. The others are just a waste of money.

I agree. The Flek is great but too expensive at the moment, esp. because you can easily get a bad copy.
The MIR is fantastic (if you don't need the top sharpness that some other lenses offer).
My fav is the Steinheil. Wink

An open question... what if cost is a factor in this survey?
_________________

DSLR: Canon 400D
SLR: Nikon FM2 + Canon A-1 + Canon AE1-P + Praktica MTL-5B + Pentax Spotmatic F + Fujica ST801 + Voigtlander Bassematic + Voigtlander Vito + Rollei 35S + Rolleiflex SL35 ME + Canon QL17 GIII + Olympus Pen EE-3
Lenses
M42: CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 + CZJ Flektogon Zebra 35/2.8 + CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 + CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 + CZJ Tessar 50/2.8 Chrome + Pentacon 135/2.8 + Pentacon 50/1.8 + SMC Takumar 50/1.4 + SMC Takumar 55/2 + SMC Takumar 135/3.5 + Fujinon 55/1.8 + Jupiter-9 85/2 + Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 + Helios 44-6 58/2
Nikor: Nikkor 50/1.4 + Nikkor 28/3.5 + Nikkor 35-105 Zoom + 36-72 Series E Zoom
Canon: Canon FD + 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + Canon 35-105 Macro Zoom
Other: Rollei Planar HFT 50/1.8

LucisPictor

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)

Supporting Member

Expire: 2013-12-03

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject:

LucisPictor wrote:

djmike wrote:

... what if cost is a factor in this survey?

That's a good question.
I guess the MIR is pretty good if value is an important factor.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!

Carsten, former Moderator

metallaro1980

Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 385
Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy

Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:52 pm Post subject:

metallaro1980 wrote: flektogon 2.4/35 I have sex with it!!!!! _________________ Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4 Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax) Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8 M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0 Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30 http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses....

Arkku

Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:16 pm Post subject:

Arkku wrote:

metallaro1980 wrote:

flektogon 2.4/35

I have sex with it!!!!!

Umm, I hope bokeh is the only creamy thing coming from your Flektogon. =)

(Edit: Added smiley.)

Last edited by Arkku on Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

metallaro1980

Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 385
Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy

Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject:

metallaro1980 wrote:

Arkku wrote:

metallaro1980 wrote:

flektogon 2.4/35

I have sex with it!!!!!

Umm, I hope bokeh is the only creamy thing coming from your Flektogon.

yes I was joking.... i like the bokeh of my flektogon...and also for me it is a sharp lens...
_________________

Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan
Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4
Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE
Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax)
Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT
Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8
M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0
Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30

http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses....

IAZA

Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 2587
Location: Indonesia

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:57 am Post subject:

IAZA wrote:

Excalibur wrote:

....the Canon FD 35mm f2 is supposed to be excellent, but it looks like only film users and a few digital cameras can enjoy it.....I have the 35mm f2.8 and it is really very good and cheap to buy.

I had =Flektogon 35/2.8, and FD 35/2 white nose, I sold my flek and keep the FD for my EOS digital. I really enjoy it, recently I have Reflexogon 35/3.5, good performer too
My friend have Nikon 35/1.4, its amazing.
_________________
nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~

bogolisk

Level 2

Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 448

Supporting Member

Expire: 2011-11-18

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:53 pm Post subject:

bogolisk wrote: anyone has a Mir for sale at a friendly price? _________________ When I try to be a photographer I manage to add an f to art.

spleenone

Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Posts: 1130
Location: Slovakia

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:09 pm Post subject:

spleenone wrote:

death wrote:

Excalibur wrote:

....the Canon FD 35mm f2 is supposed to be excellent, but it looks like only film users and a few digital cameras can enjoy it.....I have the 35mm f2.8 and it is really very good and cheap to buy.

I would gladly see some pics coming out from that FD 35/2. =)
That nikkor 35/1.4 must be, yes, exceedigly terrific. I'd love to have old n.c. =/
_________________
Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9

Carpe diem!

LucisPictor

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)

Supporting Member

Expire: 2013-12-03

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject:

LucisPictor wrote:

spleenone wrote:

...
That nikkor 35/1.4 must be, yes, exceedigly terrific. I'd love to have old n.c. =/

Oh yes! That would be my 35mm dream lens.
I once had the chance to get one for about €350,- but hesitated and was too late. Sad

_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!

Carsten, former Moderator

kopimorning

Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 97
Location: Jakarta-Bali

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject:

kopimorning wrote: speaking of which, where's nikkor 35mm lens on the comparison? I would love to see where would it be positioned at _________________ http://www.flickr.com/photos/41597826@N04

Display posts from previous:

Home Manual Focus Lenses

Goto page Previous 1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum