Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Looking for a good 35mm lens.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:46 am    Post subject: Looking for a good 35mm lens. Reply with quote
Helloa!

I always figured I was quite the vintage-lens enthusiast until I came here, where it turned out I'm quite the noob still Smile
Anyway, I'm looking for a nice 35mm lens. That's about my question. It always amazes me that there don't seem to be many good cheap 35mm's around, or at least the reviews I read always seem to say the cheap 35mm they tested wasn't really good (distortion, soft etc.). Opposed to for example 28mm's, 50mm's or 135mm's which can be had for really cheap (<50€) for good copies.

I've heard a lot good (but also bad) things about the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S and the MIR-1B. Those are the ones I've been looking at now, but I'm not quite sure yet. Any other suggestions?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
super takumar or S-M-C takumar 35/3.5


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a preAI?(I'm still trying to sort them out, silver nose) Nikkor 35/2.8 that I really like, so much that I want another, and I also got a 35 shift, I'm sure the AI version will not suck, if you can get one for a good deal, you should be able to sell with out a loss.
Zeiss 35/2 has lots of followers, but is way more than 50€.
I have yet to try the Super-Tak 35/2, I found the 35/3.5 to be uninspiring.
The Rokkor 35/1.8 has a nice rendering, it would need modification to mount on EOS if that's what you're using.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you are ok with the size, I'd suggest you take a look at a Canon FD 35mm f2, concave front element or not (they say the concave front element version has a better rendering and is sharper)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
try olympus OM 35mm/2, because i use it on oly dslr with 2X crop factor ,it gives me 70mm and i my favourite portrait lens right now


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Looking for a good 35mm lens. Reply with quote
TijmenDal wrote:
Helloa!

I always figured I was quite the vintage-lens enthusiast until I came here, where it turned out I'm quite the noob still Smile
Anyway, I'm looking for a nice 35mm lens. That's about my question. It always amazes me that there don't seem to be many good cheap 35mm's around, or at least the reviews I read always seem to say the cheap 35mm they tested wasn't really good (distortion, soft etc.). Opposed to for example 28mm's, 50mm's or 135mm's which can be had for really cheap (<50€) for good copies.

I've heard a lot good (but also bad) things about the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-S and the MIR-1B. Those are the ones I've been looking at now, but I'm not quite sure yet. Any other suggestions?

Hi, what camera are you using or might use in the future, and what is your budget? You'll get lots of advice here from well-meaning folk, but quite possibly it will be completely wrong for your camera mount.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You don't say if you need any particular fitting . . . If you can hang it on your camera, think about a Canon FD 35/2.8. I have one and it is a splendid lens. Projected Kodachrome slides are rich, brilliant and sharp - really, virtually impossible to tell apart from a Leica Summaron. It will go on a MF 4/3 or Nex via an adaptor but not APS-C models. As a bonus, these can still be bought at reasonable prices, certainly under 50 Euros equivalent. Although no doubt that will change.

There's also the older Canon 35/3.5 which some folks say is actually sharper than the 35/2.8 around f8. It may be, but I think you'd be needing a microscope to see the difference. The later 35/2.8 (without the breech-locking ring) is a lot small and lighter.

People run around getting in a sweat for the fast 35s - f2 and wider - in the often unfounded belief that faster = better. This drives up the prices and effectively undervalues the slower ones which are - almost always - just as sharp, if not even sharper around f4 or f5.6. Maybe the current mania for "bokeh" helps the frenzy but you can get the same degree of detail-disolving with a slower 50mm lens at a fraction of the price.

In the past I've also owned and used the 35/2.8 Pentax SMC-M (nice lens), the 35/2.8 MD Minolta (I thought a bit better wide open), an older 35/2.8 Nikkor (pre-AI and a bit warm-toned on slides) and a 35/2.5 Nikon Series E. That seldom gets a brilliant review but there was absolutely nothing wrong with the one I had, a later version with the chrome ring.

My honest opinion is that provided you buy one of the main brands in f2.8 aperture, you'll be happy with whatever 35mm you get.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RTI wrote:
If you are ok with the size, I'd suggest you take a look at a Canon FD 35mm f2, concave front element or not (they say the concave front element version has a better rendering and is sharper)


You're one among others that suggested the Canon FD 35mm, but I'd have to use a glass adapter to use it on an APS-C sized sensor, woudln't I?

peterqd wrote:

Hi, what camera are you using or might use in the future, and what is your budget? You'll get lots of advice here from well-meaning folk, but quite possibly it will be completely wrong for your camera mount.


I'm using the 40D now, and will stay with APS-C sized sensors

ellepi wrote:
super takumar or S-M-C takumar 35/3.5


Ye, heard good things about this one as well!

WolverineX wrote:
try olympus OM 35mm/2, because i use it on oly dslr with 2X crop factor ,it gives me 70mm and i my favourite portrait lens right now


I've thought about this one. I'm a huge fan of Olympus glass, but I reckon it'll be quite much...?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My experiences with the Mir 1b is that it is small, really cheap and nicely built. A bit unusual with the opposite order of the aperture and focus rings. Very good with pre set operation on modern cameras. Colors and contrast are good. But it is very dull in the corners already on APS-C, both from vignetting and lack of sharpness, you must stop it down far or use center crop style of framing shooting.

/T


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Take a look at the Sankor made 35mm
I have one and it is very nice see my review here
http://forum.mflenses.com/seriese-35mm-f2-8-sankor-lens-t43605.html
All images where unprocessed and at the bottom i showed a processed one so you can see the difference.
It comes in many guises and can be very cheap


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got an inexpensive Vivitar 35mm 2.8 that is great value for the money. It's in M42 mount and Tokina made. I've found it to be sharp, it has great natural colour straight out of the camera, and it's close focusing.

Here are a few samples, taken either on a Canon 30D or 50D. These aren't my favourites taken with this lens, but are the ones I happen to have uploaded and can link and they'll give you a rough idea. I noticed I don't have any landscape samples, but it's good for that too. I paid $30 for the lens, including shipping, from the 'bay.






PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ooh! That's a nice lens! Right now I'm just hoarding lenses on the 'Bay, picking up some things. I'll just check out which ones I like and sell the ones I don't.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
heartcat wrote:
I've got an inexpensive Vivitar 35mm 2.8 that is great value for the money. It's in M42 mount and Tokina made. I've found it to be sharp, it has great natural colour straight out of the camera, and it's close focusing.

I have one of those too, under the Bushnell name, I think it was sold under Soligor too and probably a dozen others. It is definitely a great lens for the price, you could probably find one around $20 if you're patient, mine was thrown in on a Mamiya Sekor 60mm macro deal for free because it was considered worthless, even though it was virtually brand new and in its original little fake leather bag.

The Kiron made Vivitar 35mm f2 gets all the attention, but the Tokina made f2.8 lens is definitely worth a look.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the old Tokina 35/2.8, it was also sold in the T4 interchangable mount in Soligor and Vivitar brands.
Not perfectly sharp for pixel-peeping in corners at f/2.8, but more than good enough. As said above, this can go for next to nothing.

The Super Takumar 35/3.5 is as sharp as anyone can use, I think, wide open, corners, etc. on APS-C if what you want is a sharp 35mm lens. The f/3.5 aperture limits out of focus possibilities if thats what you're after. This is one of the cheaper Takumars, and definitely worth getting.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
elliott wrote:
heartcat wrote:
I've got an inexpensive Vivitar 35mm 2.8 that is great value for the money. It's in M42 mount and Tokina made. I've found it to be sharp, it has great natural colour straight out of the camera, and it's close focusing.

I have one of those too, under the Bushnell name, I think it was sold under Soligor too and probably a dozen others. It is definitely a great lens for the price, you could probably find one around $20 if you're patient, mine was thrown in on a Mamiya Sekor 60mm macro deal for free because it was considered worthless, even though it was virtually brand new and in its original little fake leather bag.

The Kiron made Vivitar 35mm f2 gets all the attention, but the Tokina made f2.8 lens is definitely worth a look.


Would this be the one Soligor you're talking about?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TijmenDal wrote:
elliott wrote:
heartcat wrote:
I've got an inexpensive Vivitar 35mm 2.8 that is great value for the money. It's in M42 mount and Tokina made. I've found it to be sharp, it has great natural colour straight out of the camera, and it's close focusing.

I have one of those too, under the Bushnell name, I think it was sold under Soligor too and probably a dozen others. It is definitely a great lens for the price, you could probably find one around $20 if you're patient, mine was thrown in on a Mamiya Sekor 60mm macro deal for free because it was considered worthless, even though it was virtually brand new and in its original little fake leather bag.

The Kiron made Vivitar 35mm f2 gets all the attention, but the Tokina made f2.8 lens is definitely worth a look.


Would this be the one Soligor you're talking about?


According to this list, a serial number beginning in H5 would make it a Komine made lens, H7 is Tokina.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
elliott wrote:
TijmenDal wrote:
elliott wrote:
heartcat wrote:
I've got an inexpensive Vivitar 35mm 2.8 that is great value for the money. It's in M42 mount and Tokina made. I've found it to be sharp, it has great natural colour straight out of the camera, and it's close focusing.

I have one of those too, under the Bushnell name, I think it was sold under Soligor too and probably a dozen others. It is definitely a great lens for the price, you could probably find one around $20 if you're patient, mine was thrown in on a Mamiya Sekor 60mm macro deal for free because it was considered worthless, even though it was virtually brand new and in its original little fake leather bag.

The Kiron made Vivitar 35mm f2 gets all the attention, but the Tokina made f2.8 lens is definitely worth a look.


Would this be the one Soligor you're talking about?


According to this list, a serial number beginning in H5 would make it a Komine made lens, H7 is Tokina.


No-one has managed prove the H code link I'm afraid, and I've found several manufacturer's lenses branded with the same H and number combination Sad


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe its the early Tokina automatic version, not a preset.
Vivitar presets are not usually identifiable by serial number, but the automatics usually are.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
you're one among others that suggested the Canon FD 35mm, but I'd have to use a glass adapter to use it on an APS-C sized sensor, woudln't I?


Just an FYI, any lens with a mount registration bigger than EOS will mount on EOS bodies with adapters with out glass, there are a few issues with some lens/camera combos, lenses with shorter registration distance require an adapter with a glass element to reach infinity, or require a mount conversion(which range from easy to impossible).
Also APS-C sensor only crops the field of view, so your Canon xxD with a 35mm lens will have a similar field of view of a 56mm lens on a full frame sensor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/camera-mounts-and-register-distance-t13170.html

So you can see why the NEX is so popular, it's 18mm can accept just about any lens and still reach infinity.(EOS is 44mm, FD is 42mm)

I hope that this clears any confusion with out adding to it.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Or a mount conversion, it can be done totally non-destructive for APS.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:
Quote:
you're one among others that suggested the Canon FD 35mm, but I'd have to use a glass adapter to use it on an APS-C sized sensor, woudln't I?


Just an FYI, any lens with a mount registration bigger than EOS will mount on EOS bodies with adapters with out glass, there are a few issues with some lens/camera combos, lenses with shorter registration distance require an adapter with a glass element to reach infinity, or require a mount conversion(which range from easy to impossible).
Also APS-C sensor only crops the field of view, so your Canon xxD with a 35mm lens will have a similar field of view of a 56mm lens on a full frame sensor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/camera-mounts-and-register-distance-t13170.html

So you can see why the NEX is so popular, it's 18mm can accept just about any lens and still reach infinity.(EOS is 44mm, FD is 42mm)

I hope that this clears any confusion with out adding to it.


Ok thanks. How hard would it be for the Canon 35mm FD? I've never done a conversion before...


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TijmenDal wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Quote:
you're one among others that suggested the Canon FD 35mm, but I'd have to use a glass adapter to use it on an APS-C sized sensor, woudln't I?


Just an FYI, any lens with a mount registration bigger than EOS will mount on EOS bodies with adapters with out glass, there are a few issues with some lens/camera combos, lenses with shorter registration distance require an adapter with a glass element to reach infinity, or require a mount conversion(which range from easy to impossible).
Also APS-C sensor only crops the field of view, so your Canon xxD with a 35mm lens will have a similar field of view of a 56mm lens on a full frame sensor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/camera-mounts-and-register-distance-t13170.html

So you can see why the NEX is so popular, it's 18mm can accept just about any lens and still reach infinity.(EOS is 44mm, FD is 42mm)

I hope that this clears any confusion with out adding to it.


Ok thanks. How hard would it be for the Canon 35mm FD? I've never done a conversion before...


Why bother going there when you can use almost any other brand on your 40D without needing to worry about conversion? Everyone will have their own ideas what is best, but virtually nobody has ever owned and compared every 35mm lens, so they are going to give you their own limited experience and you'll end up with no better idea what to get.

I would suggest, to start with, that you go for a Takumar S-M-C 35/.3.5 or even better, a CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35 (but that will be more expensive). Make sure either is in good condition as there are some flaky sellers out there. And just to toss another one in the ring, the Pentax-M smc 2.8/35 (K mount). I bought one recently and I'm extremely impressed with it.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some interesting comparison of three 35's: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1055375.html#1055375

From the Mir-24N or Flektogon 35/2.4 I have seen nice samples. Note that in the comparison above the Flektogon 35/2.8 is included, which is not the same lens as the 35/2.4.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok thanks for all the help guys! ('n girls...?)

I've also placed a bid on the 35mm f/2.8 from Enna München, because that usually is pretty good glass, anyone know anything about it?

I'm sold on the SMC Tak 35mm f/3.5, I'll just go pick one up. I also saw a 35mm f/2.4 Flek go for 130€ on a site, but obviously it was already sold out!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd say it depends also on the camera you are using.
If you are using a DSLR with optical viewfinder I would suggest getting a fast 35, like a 35/2.0, because you are getting a brighter viewfinder then.
This is not so important if you are using a camera with elektronic viewfinder.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1