The 1.7 looks better opticaly but less good handling and size wise. The 2.5 classic looks a lot neater but how much is it giving away opticaly - if any. Yes I would love a leica lens but I can't justify the cost!

-- John Griffin (john.griffin@millerhare.com), February 22, 2002

Answers

John,

what about a used Leica Summaron 2.8/35 ? They are (as a used lens) cheaper than both lenses you mentioned and are real Leica lenses in case of handling and optics.
Given their age you should look for a nice example, but optically the Voigtlaender optics are better, no question. But for normal (up to 18x11 or similar) there might be no noticable differences. So if you don't mind the 2.8 - max. aperture this might be the way to go. Be sure to get a M2 - version w/o googles as this improves handling alot.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), February 22, 2002.

John, Look into a used Canon 35/2 lens also a screwmount. They were made until the mid 60's I believe and go for around $300 with excellent glass. Canon lenses of that era usually don't suffer from cleaning marks or fog typical of earlier lenses. If you look on the LUG archives it is rated by a few equal to the 2nd or 3rd version Summicron of the same era. I have one and what I like about it while it has excellent sharpness,saturation and constrast even wide open, it is not quite as "edgy" as new glass.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), February 22, 2002.

Kai Blanke wrote

>what about a used Leica Summaron 2.8/35 ?

That'd be nice indeed. M2 versions of this (ie without the glasses) are very uncommon in the UK where I live.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), February 22, 2002.

Tim - I have to disagree with the above comments, unless you can afford at least the 3rd or 4th generation Summicron - you will do far better (as you surmise) to pick up one of the excellent Voigtlander 35's. In fact probably only the 4th gen. or ASPH will out perform it.

I believe the 1.7 Ultron is certainly the best performer, I like the compactness of the Pancake but it only focuses to 1.0 metre.

If you want a new one try Fieldgrass and Gale - Ultron=£264, Pancake=£176.

I just picked up a mint (un-used) Voigtlander 75mm F2.5 for £169! They are simply incredible value for money lenses, Leica's only 75mm costs £1700 - that's 10 times the Voigtlander!

This was purchased from Solo Photographic (another Leica dealer) in St Albans this morning, they have an Ultron 1.7 S/H boxed mint for £169 - snap it up!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 22, 2002.

John, both lenses are excellent optically. The Canon (Gerrys response) is optically very good, but behind both Voigtlander lenses. I have the Ultron f1.7 and the flat Color Skopar f2.5 but prefer the Ultron f1.7/35. It handles better, the distance ring and the aperture ring on the Skopar are so small. I do not enlarge beyond 8x10 and cannot see a difference up to this size. If you take a Voigtlander lens, you should know, that the black colored show wear very fast.

-- Richard (richard.srienz@swissonline.ch), February 22, 2002.

Sorry John, called you Tim for some reason!?!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 22, 2002.

Giles,

not really a justification, but as I wrote the Voigtlaender lenses are unbeatable in terms of optical performance. Though the Leica Summaron 2.8 is unbeatable in Leica feel - and since the optical difference is not that bad (in fact it is really good, but a bit lower than the very best) it depends on wether you want the feel or the optical performance.

Tim,

try german eBay for a M2 Summaron, there are some up there right now for quite reaonable prices, like this M3 one: http://cgi.ebay.de/aw- cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1334368633 or this one including an M3 ;-) http://cgi.ebay.de/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=1334121440. Otherwise do a google search for the lens specification data (summaron 35 2,8) plus the currency you want to pay in and you get a lot of offers ... they should sell for about $250-$350.

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.Blanke@iname.com), February 22, 2002.

I will second the Canon 35 f2-- I had one and loved the lens. Really sharp, and TINY. I still regret ever getting rid of it. Ive found the Voigtlander 1.7 to be a fine performer, but it was too bulky for me. Best,

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), February 22, 2002.

Hi John,

I just re-fell in love with my 35/2.5 Classic and can highly recommend it. Optical tests I've seen in one Japanese magazine show that 35/2.5 wide open at infinity and recording a Tokyo night scene with bright lights and difficult contrasts is virtually as good as the 'cron 35/2 ASPH in center and especially at edges. (Mind you, this is f2.5 vs f2, not a fair one on one comparrision.) In the same tests the VC 35/ 1.7 also came out quite well. The central image showed the street lights to be a bit flarey and not quite as good (as far as I could see using a magnifying glass) as a late generation 'cron 35/2 non-ASPH. But the VC 35/1.7 beat the pants of the older Leica 35/2 on edge quality. In fact the edge quality of the VC 35/1.7 was so good that I wondered if the images hadn't gotten mixed up. Certainly the 2.5 beats the 1.7 hands down wide open, but comparing 2.5 to 1.7 isn't fair. Both beat the pants off my old 'lux 35/1.4.

The question is one of feel. Test both and see how they feel in your hands. I love the touch of the 35/25. A lot better than the 35/2 ASPH (IMO) which I tested yesterday and didn't buy (to my wife's great relief).

The old Leica 35/2.8 is now quite cheap (by Leica standards), compact and finger friendly. I would be mindful about clouding. Probably it is a very good performer--certainly took many brilliant photos in its day and can do the same for you.

The VC 35/2.5 will have a very good shade (which it will share with the new VC 50/2.5) come April.

Also I think that the mechical quality of the VC 35/2.5 is very good to excellent. Mine is black and bought used. It is very solid and the black paint looks very good. I hated the red foot marks and repainted then yellow orange.

I have the old Canon 35/1.8. It is a fine performer and in good mechanical shape (for an old dear). But don't bother with it. The VC 35/1.7 will out perform it hands down. Leave old Cannon lenses to the collectors.

Nothing beats the current Leica 35/2 and 35/1.4 ASPH. But for the money the VC lenses are a very, very good option.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 22, 2002.

Here's another option, about the same money as the V-lander but with the optical quality of the last pre-asph 35 cron. Why not buy a 40mm Summicron-C from a Leica CL? Its very sharp, has leica build quality and is a perfect match for your 35mm finder. Best of all, it will only run you $200-$250.

-- Pete (pete@email.com), February 22, 2002.

Pete is quite right: the 40/2 is a very fine lens. It is one that I can recommend in both CL and CLE versions. It will turn up the 50 (or 50/75) frame. On the upcoming Bessa R2 you can dial in either the 50 for a little less or the 35 for a little more than what the lens delivers. If you, John, decide to go for the 40, I recommend that you get the new VC 40mm external finder for more accurate framing.

I've use the 40/2 as both a substitute for the 35 and the 50. The lens is, of course, happiest on a CL or CLE. But it can certainly be used with a Leica.

The advantages of the 40/2 are its size, weight, speed and dept of field. To some it is the perfect compromise between a 35 and a 50; to others it is neither fish or fowl.

My thoughts. If you don't have a 50mm lens (or one that is very heavy like the Nocti) this might be the right lens for you. A little more than 50, a little less than 35 may be exactly what you need. If you do have a 50 that you love dearly and use all the time, spend the extra bucks (not that many) and get a 35.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 24, 2002.