Reading mode: Light Dark

35mm fast lenses that are good and affordable?

Go to last post
David Heinrich

David Heinrich

Well-known member
Messages
202
Reaction score
13
Location
Rochester, US
I'm assembling a prime manual focus collection for my Sony a7s and am trying to find some good options for 35mm. At 50mm, there are some pretty good normal lenses that are f/1.4, like the Minolta MD 50/1.4 and a Canon FD 50/1.4; and also the exceptionally sharp 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.

I haven't had much luck finding equivalent excellent options at 35mm. A fast f/1.4 and also a super-small sharp one would be nice. The options I'm finding seem to be pretty pricey:

Rokinon 35mm f1.4 AS UMC Wide Angle Cine Lens for Sony E-Mount ($400)

Samyang SY35M-C 35mm f1.4 Fixed Lens for Canon ($400, $300 used)

Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 Wide Angle Leica M Mount Lens ($600)

Rokinon IO35AF-E 35mm f/2.8 Ultra Compact Wide Angle Lens for Sony E Mount Full Frame ($330)

Nikon Nikkor-N 35mm f1.4 non-AI (ebay $255)

Bower 35mm f1.4 Nikon f Mount ($300 ebay)

Does anyone have any recommendations?
 
You're going to struggle.

All of the 'mainstream' 35mm's have been AF for a while now - to go mainstream MF means you're looking at older glass, and therefore not likely to be as sharp.

For the modern (and sharp) MF 35mm's, you're looking at the likes of Zeiss, and will be therefore paying Zeiss prices..

I was always a big fan of the EF 35mm F2 IS, but that may not be fast enough for you.
 
noggin2k1 said:
You're going to struggle.

All of the 'mainstream' 35mm's have been AF for a while now - to go mainstream MF means you're looking at older glass, and therefore not likely to be as sharp.

For the modern (and sharp) MF 35mm's, you're looking at the likes of Zeiss, and will be therefore paying Zeiss prices..

I was always a big fan of the EF 35mm F2 IS, but that may not be fast enough for you.
Click to expand...
It is bizarre as there are so many great affordable options in the 50mm range for f/3.5, f/2.8, f/2, f/1.7, f/1.4 and even f/1.2.

I'd sooner go with an excellent f2 than a mediocre f1.4. It looks like I can get the old autofocus model of the Canon EF 35mm f2 for $200 or so used.

The Rokinon 35/1.4 seems like it might be worth looking out for at a discount.
 
noggin2k1 said:
You're going to struggle.

All of the 'mainstream' 35mm's have been AF for a while now - to go mainstream MF means you're looking at older glass, and therefore not likely to be as sharp.

For the modern (and sharp) MF 35mm's, you're looking at the likes of Zeiss, and will be therefore paying Zeiss prices..
Click to expand...
Exactly, the new Zeiss Milvus 35 F1.4 is a good example.
 
David Heinrich said:
I'm assembling a prime manual focus collection for my Sony a7s and am trying to find some good options for 35mm. At 50mm, there are some pretty good normal lenses that are f/1.4, like the Minolta MD 50/1.4 and a Canon FD 50/1.4; and also the exceptionally sharp 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor.

I haven't had much luck finding equivalent excellent options at 35mm. A fast f/1.4 and also a super-small sharp one would be nice. The options I'm finding seem to be pretty pricey:

Rokinon 35mm f1.4 AS UMC Wide Angle Cine Lens for Sony E-Mount ($400)

Samyang SY35M-C 35mm f1.4 Fixed Lens for Canon ($400, $300 used)

Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 Wide Angle Leica M Mount Lens ($600)

Rokinon IO35AF-E 35mm f/2.8 Ultra Compact Wide Angle Lens for Sony E Mount Full Frame ($330)

Nikon Nikkor-N 35mm f1.4 non-AI (ebay $255)

Bower 35mm f1.4 Nikon f Mount ($300 ebay)

Does anyone have any recommendations?
Click to expand...
I am using Canon 35 f/2 IS (the newer version) with DEO Saker Falcon Lite (the phase detection autofocus) adapter.

It autofocuses fast and reliably on my original Sony A7 (non-R/S). Image stabilization works too.

The lens can focus close for up to 1:4.2 magnification. Longitudilal chromatic aberrations are remarkably low. I sold my Batis 25/2 lens after acquiring this Canon (large LoCA aberrations with that lens, and 25 mm in not my focal length anyway).

Costs $400 on Ebay, plus the cost f the adapter (if you do not have one already) .

Weighs 445 grams with the adapter.

In my opinion, that is the best 35 mm lens for A7 series cameras available at the moment.
 
Another option I'm thinking about would be to go a little wider and get something like the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagom 28mm f/2.8 T* or a zoom like the Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm f/3.4. I've read very good things about these lenses, as well as their 100-300, for the "3D look".
 
David Heinrich said:
Another option I'm thinking about would be to go a little wider and get something like the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagom 28mm f/2.8 T* or a zoom like the Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm f/3.4. I've read very good things about these lenses, as well as their 100-300, for the "3D look".
Click to expand...
To each their own. I really do not like the 28 mm FL, it's "neither here nor there".

35 mm gives you a nice "People in context" view without objectionable distortion.

28 mm is to wide for that, as it starts distorting noticeably, while not providing a substantially wider angle of view to fit in the landscape. Frankly, I prefer stitching for wider angle.

This particular (Contax) 28 mm is really great stopped down to f/8-11, but not that hot at the sides and corners wide open. I have a similar lens (Nikkor 28/2.8 Ai-S) which is actually better in the corners wide open, but I'm not using it much other than reversed for supermacro shots.

I also have this zoom, 35-70, and it is really great (though again, not wide open in the corners at the wide end). I love it at any focal length, so contrasty!

But it is nearly 2 stops slower than the aforementioned Canon, does not autofocus and lacks image stabilization.

Among 35 mm options, Canon 35/2 IS is still the best in my opinion. Well, second best, I am actually using it now that my wife took away my Sony Rx-1, and not giving it back. I do not blame her...
 
Last edited:
David Heinrich said:
Another option I'm thinking about would be to go a little wider and get something like the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagom 28mm f/2.8 T* or a zoom like the Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm f/3.4. I've read very good things about these lenses, as well as their 100-300, for the "3D look".
Click to expand...
I can vouch for the two Zeiss zooms, they really are special.

Wasn't so excited about the Zeiss 28 2.8 MM, as the extreme corners never really sharpened up. Find the Pentax K 28mm 3.5 to be better (but you want fast and that would lose another half stop).

Both the Rollei and C/Y Zeiss 35mm 2.8 lenses (different optically) are good, but not so fast. The 35mm 1.4 in both mounts (in this case optically identical, but the Rollei version has a triangular aperture) is one of my absolutely favorite lenses, but is big, heavy & expensive.
 
Krich13 said:
Among 35 mm options, Canon 35/2 IS is still the best in my opinion. Well, second best, I am actually using it now that my wife took away my Sony Rx-1, and not giving it back. I do not blame her...
Click to expand...
I wonder if one's viewpoint on full-frame 28mm depends on where one lives. I used a 14-54 on an Oly E-3 and currently use the Tamron 18-270 on my Sony a77, both equivalent to 28mm on full frame. I think because I live in Western NY and am frequently in areas without enormous wide open visas, a more moderate wide-angle is good for my local landscapes. This will be different on some trips I plan to take.

Regarding the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM , is there any reason to go with it over the "old" Canon EF 35mm f/2? Is the only difference the image stabilization and ultra silent motor?

Also, any experience with the really old manual focus Canon new FD 35/2.8? It is highly Phillip Reeve rates the Canon nFD 35/2.8 highly in a review , and also mentions the 35/2.
 
Rol Lei Nut said:
David Heinrich said:
Another option I'm thinking about would be to go a little wider and get something like the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagom 28mm f/2.8 T* or a zoom like the Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm f/3.4. I've read very good things about these lenses, as well as their 100-300, for the "3D look".
Click to expand...
I can vouch for the two Zeiss zooms, they really are special.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking about those Contax CZ zooms. I doubt they'd have much trouble with the 12mp a7s sensor, but I wonder how well they'd do on the 42mp a7r II sensor (for future use).
 
There is also a nFD Canon 35-70/4 that is reputed to be pretty good and is so cheap that it makes a worthwhile experiment. Certainly not fast, but apparently pretty sharp.
 
How important is 5mm for you? EF 40mm pancake is excellent, very cheap new and with adapter it's barely larger than Zeiss 35mm. I personally prefer to have 28/40/50mm lenses so it's really nice option.
 
David Heinrich said:
noggin2k1 said:
You're going to struggle.

All of the 'mainstream' 35mm's have been AF for a while now - to go mainstream MF means you're looking at older glass, and therefore not likely to be as sharp.

For the modern (and sharp) MF 35mm's, you're looking at the likes of Zeiss, and will be therefore paying Zeiss prices..

I was always a big fan of the EF 35mm F2 IS, but that may not be fast enough for you.
Click to expand...
It is bizarre as there are so many great affordable options in the 50mm range for f/3.5, f/2.8, f/2, f/1.7, f/1.4 and even f/1.2.

I'd sooner go with an excellent f2 than a mediocre f1.4. It looks like I can get the old autofocus model of the Canon EF 35mm f2 for $200 or so used.
Click to expand...
There are two versions of Canon EF 35mm f2, one with IS(US$450) and the other Non-IS(US$350) new, the former is much sharper and recognized and well regarded by the the Canon community. The IS version(*) is a better one in terms of sharpness and other features, eg not as noisy I own the Non IS version it is so far good enough for me. If you can afford it get the IS version, it is even cheaper second hand. Both versions are small, compact and light as well. If you can live with f2, I am sure you will be very happy with this lens. But it is non native lens and video work is non existence I think have't try it yet.

* comparative sharpness measurement it one of the sharpess lens in the Canon line up, go to DXOmark and you can find out more info. It goes very well with Viltrox II(very cheap now) adapter and also other adapters as well.
David Heinrich said:
The Rokinon 35/1.4 seems like it might be worth looking out for at a discount.
Click to expand...
Remember you get f1.4 and it is much larger than Canon 35mm f2, also much heavier. No problem with video if you buy the AF version.
 
Legacy 35's aren't typically faster than f2 or f1.8.

Minolta Rokkor 35/1.8

Takumar 35/2

Nikkor.O.C 35/2, AI 35/1.4

Rollie HFT 35/1.4(3 blade aperture)

Canon FD 35/2 55/1.2, FL 58/1.2, 55/1.2

Konica AR 35/2

Canon S 35/1.5 and 35/2 in LTM

Voigtländer 35/1.7, 35/1.2, 35/1.4, I think their new 35/1.4 is the same design as the older "Classic" RF lens... a missed opportunity IMO.
 
Last edited:
ttan98 said:
David Heinrich said:
noggin2k1 said:
You're going to struggle.

All of the 'mainstream' 35mm's have been AF for a while now - to go mainstream MF means you're looking at older glass, and therefore not likely to be as sharp.

For the modern (and sharp) MF 35mm's, you're looking at the likes of Zeiss, and will be therefore paying Zeiss prices..

I was always a big fan of the EF 35mm F2 IS, but that may not be fast enough for you.
Click to expand...
It is bizarre as there are so many great affordable options in the 50mm range for f/3.5, f/2.8, f/2, f/1.7, f/1.4 and even f/1.2.

I'd sooner go with an excellent f2 than a mediocre f1.4. It looks like I can get the old autofocus model of the Canon EF 35mm f2 for $200 or so used.
Click to expand...
There are two versions of Canon EF 35mm f2, one with IS(US$450) and the other Non-IS(US$350) new, the former is much sharper and recognized and well regarded by the the Canon community. The IS version(*) is a better one in terms of sharpness and other features, eg not as noisy I own the Non IS version it is so far good enough for me. If you can afford it get the IS version, it is even cheaper second hand. Both versions are small, compact and light as well. If you can live with f2, I am sure you will be very happy with this lens. But it is non native lens and video work is non existence I think have't try it yet.

* comparative sharpness measurement it one of the sharpess lens in the Canon line up, go to DXOmark and you can find out more info. It goes very well with Viltrox II(very cheap now) adapter and also other adapters as well.
ttan98 said:
The Rokinon 35/1.4 seems like it might be worth looking out for at a discount.
Click to expand...
Remember you get f1.4 and it is much larger than Canon 35mm f2, also much heavier. No problem with video if you buy the AF version.
Click to expand...
This makes me think I should just get a cheapish small one for now and accept a higher f-number, and hold off until I am ready to spend several hundred on one designed for the shorter flange of the a7 cameras or just a better performer.

Voigtlander Ultron 35/1.7 ($780), Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.4 ($700), Voigtlander 40/2.8 ($400), Rokinon 35/2.8 ($330), Samyang/Rokinon 35/1.4 ($400), or maybe one of the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm.

The size is starting to become a big factor, though. I already don't think I'll have room in my bag for my a7 and a77 with these full-frame lenses I'm getting. I have a Rokinon 24/1.4, which is already pretty big and has to be put on its side in the bag, and will have a Rokinon 14/2.8 (I've heard it described as "hilariously big"). I'm gonna need a bigger bag! (and/or will have to leave the a77 behind).
 
You are looking at the M mount versions of the Voigtlander Ultrons at those prices. the earlier LTM mount versions are about half those prices.

I have the LTM Ultron 1.7/35 and it is actually quite small with a diameter about 4 inches and a height, with lens hood, of under 5 in.
 
Alseyn said:
How important is 5mm for you? EF 40mm pancake is excellent, very cheap new and with adapter it's barely larger than Zeiss 35mm. I personally prefer to have 28/40/50mm lenses so it's really nice option.
Click to expand...
I also own the 40mm and 50mm STM lenses, the 40mm is a joy to use very compact and I use it a number of times with A7RII indoors(*) with a small flash the images are really good, furthermore you can get lens compensation from the Lightroom s/w.

* taking small group photos.
 
SLN001 said:
You are looking at the M mount versions of the Voigtlander Ultrons at those prices. the earlier LTM mount versions are about half those prices.

I have the LTM Ultron 1.7/35 and it is actually quite small with a diameter about 4 inches and a height, with lens hood, of under 5 in.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, as I posted, the lens mount will make a difference in cost. The lenses were originally produced in Leica's Thread Mount (LTM). When Leica switched to their current M mount, so did Voigtlander.

Prices for the original LTM versions of the lens are not as high as prices for the current M mount versions.

Oh, and patience saves money. Most 'Buy It Now' prices are exorbitant. Take your time and go for auctions to save money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top