ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV
1
Tables of Pancake Prime and Zoom Lenses, and of Lightest Fast Lenses, as well as Lightest Full Frame CamerasFind this table in the downloads section at ChristianSchnalzger.de, © 2024
2
3
Contents of this table:
Pancake Lenses for Full Frame
...Rangefinder (Primes)
...SLR (Primes)
...Digital (evil)-only (Primes)
...All Pancake Zooms
Lightest Fast Lenses and Most Compact Setups
Pancake Lenses for Smaller Formats
Lightest Full Frame Cameras

"List of Lightest Fixed-Lens Cameras" is a separate table,
see main Downloads page		Pancake Lenses turn a standard camera into a compact travel setup that fits a messenger bag or jacket pocket, whilst retaining image resolution and detail, high ISO performance and full manual control of your familiar camera - factors no smartphone can match.
The smaller the lens, the more compact and thus practical the resulting setup. The cutoff for this list is 3o mm from bayonet, without hood. This is arbitrary, yet already lenient.
Some earlier rangefinder lenses were collapsible, i.e. for compact transportation could be sunk into their own barrel or into the camera. That makes the setup very compact for travel, but is a bit clumsy for actual photography: setting up takes a moment, and there is a potential of improperly de-collapsing the lens when in haste, yielding defocussed pictures
4
This table is an overview of all options across the decades, addressing the real-world photographer. Prototypes (like a Leitz Elcan 5o/2 collapsible) are therefore not considered, since their prices and availabilty make them collectors' items rather than photographers' tools
5
As a nerdy sidenote, the technically correct definition of a telephoto lens is one with a focal length longer than the physical barrel of the lens (i.e. a 9o mm focal length lens with a physical length of only 7o mm). By that definition, most pancake lenses, even wideangles, are telephotos!
6
7
Performance comments: My comments on performance originated in my own subjective research as a photographer, and were originally not intended for publication. Use them as a start for your own research: look at image samples on flickr etc. and form your own impressions. I have also only used a fraction of these lenses myself. Comments in quotation marks are by other users; all others are mine, often based on samples pictures.
8
Value for money: comments pertaining to value are even more subjective, and often in response to popular belief. You may read critique on a Leica lens here, and praise of a Russian lens. That is not directly comparable. It starts from assumptions like all Leica lenses were impeccable, which they are not (Hello Peter Karbe!), or that all Sovyet lenses were rubbish, which they are not. Then there is the consideration of price: from a lens for many thousands of pounds/euros/dollars, I expect perfection. With a similar-spec lens for a fiver second-hand, I am more tolerant (case in point, albeit not a pancake: Leica Summilux M 5o/1.4 versus Canon FD 5o/1.4).
9
Prices: Second hand prices are outdating fast, so check your own sources. In the post-Brexit dystopia we live, all prices are in EUR = USD = GBP. Turquoise marks on the left signal lenses up to 1oo quid second-hand in the last round of research, 2o22. Not all lenses have been researched, though
10
Pinholes: Lensless pinhole or zone-plate caps have a very unique rendition. They are thus not considered here, but are a very compact option if the resulting look and handling fits your project
11
Adapting: When adapting vintage lenses to modern cameras, mind possible rear elements protruding into the camera body! Take the Russar 2o/5.6 for an example: it extends only 18 mm in front of the camera, but its rear element protrudes another 17 mm into the camera. Very carefully check that your camera, shutter and imager can handle that, and if so, mount the lens very carefully each time so as not to scratch the imager's filter or bend shutter blades. And DO NOT modify historical lenses to fit a modern camera! The camera will be outdated in five years; the lens has been around for a multiple already and will outlive the camera.
12
13
How to measure a lens from a picture (two methods):
1) To estimate the length of a lens from a product photo showing the lens in an undistorted side view, its engraved numbers can help! Focus-scale numbers on lenses from about 197o are typically about 2 mm high, slightly less on earlier lenses. Note that the height of other numbers, such as aperture scales, varies more between manufacturers.
Measure your physical screen: how tall are these numbers in the picture on your screen? Then measure how tall the entire lens is in the same picture. Do a simple rule of three calculation to get the correct lens height: number's height in picture: 4 mm. number's height in reality (assumed): 2 mm. lens height in picture: 44 mm. therefore lens in reality... 4mm : 2mm = 2. 44mm : 2 = 22 -> lens in reality = about 22 mm
1a) If you already own a lens of the same series, measure the focus scale numbers' height on that actual lens for much more accuracy. Then, same calculation: number's height in picture: 4 mm. number's height in reality (measured): 2 mm. height of lens in picture: 44 mm. therefore height of that lens in reality... 4mm : 2mm = 2. 44mm : 2 = 22 -> lens in reality = 22 mm

2) Another approach is researching the physical outer diameter of the mount: if you know it to be, say, 39mm wide, because it's M39, you can take a ruler to the bayonet on your screen. Divide the measured bayonet width by the known real bayonet width to get the factor of enlargement of the photo. Measure the height of the lens in the photo. Apply the enlargement factor. This gives you the actual height.
2a) If you already own a lens of the same mount: open the photo of the new lens in a software that allows stepless zoom. Enlarge it to the exact same size of the mount of your own lens in front of the screen. Then simply measure the lens on the screen to obtain its height.
14
15
If you have any information on other lenses meeting the pancake requirement, or additional information not listed here (###), please send me an e-mail!
16
17
18
1)Pancake Lenses Covering Full Frame
19
20
if this information saved you money on gear, if you found it helpful, or if you'd like to do something good today, rescue a kitten, end a war, or make a little donation. thanks cordially! if you use paypal, you can address any donation to christianschnalzger@web.de, and no donation is too big! :)
have you had a chance to look at my coaching/tutoring programme yet? christianschnalzger.de/index-Dateien/coaching.htm - maybe I can be of assistance in any technical, creative, commercialisation or gear questions? I'd love to help.
21
22
a) Fixed Focal Length Full Frame Rangefinder Lenses
23
Thread mounts such as M39 (=L39, LTM Leica thread mount, LSM Leica screw mount) or M42 are not strictly standardised and have been used with various specifications across the decades and manufacturers: The Braun Paxette SLR for instance uses M39, but has a flange distance (between the thread and the film) of 44 mm; Leica rangefinder cameras use the same M39 thread, but with a flange distance of 28 mm! As a result, Paxette lenses can be used on Leica cameras only with a) an adapter (extension tube) to compensate the different flange distances, and b) only with live view or distance focus, since they are not rangefinder coupled. Without an extension tube, the lens would focus way beyond infinity, i.e. not at all. Leica M39 lenses can be used on Paxette SLRs, but will focus only in the extreme macro range. Enlarger lenses also use the M39 thread and have even longer flange distances - most of which vary with every single lens model (the upside being that, with spacer rings, enlarger lenses even fit SLRs - where they usually perform sublimely in terms of sharpness). If adapting old lenses, make sure they are what you expect them to be. Even if they are sold as "for Leica", make sure they are rangefinder coupled if you require this.
24
Some APS lenses, such as Robot, cover the full frame format inofficially. For those, see in the APS section below.
25
One-off conversions by craftspeople, such as high-end compact camera lenses to Leica rangefinder mounts, are not sufficiently documented and thus not listed here. The prices for such conversions tend to make them collectors' items. Also, not every conversion makes sense: why pay lots of money to convert a slow 35/3.5, when you can have something faster off the shelf that is no larger, and much cheaper? Or why convert a Nikonos 35/2.5 lens, as undertaken by some company recently, which is optimised for chromatic aberrations UNDER WATER?!
26
Sorted by focal length, then speed, then alphabetically by manufacturer. Carl Zeiss resides under Zeiss; Nippon Kogaku under Nikon; MS Optical and MS-Mode under MS-Optics.
27
28
15 mm15 8 Leica M Zeiss Hologon: 11o g, 12-15 mm (M bayonet, 1972, no rangefinder coupling, focus lever, reportedly only 225 copies made. "The recording of the finer details in the field is on the soft side and its potential for high quality images is limited". Collector's item, around 9k€. Absolutely unusable colour cast, irrelevant in black and white just the same due to terrible square vignette; obsolete since the much cheaper, faster and better Voigtländer 15 mm came along)
29
15 8 Zeiss Hologon: ### (originally the lens of the Zeiss Hologon fixed-lens camera, and later independently converted to Leica M - not to be confused with the original M bayonet lens made by Zeiss for Leica, see above, albeit probably optically identical)
30
15 8 LightLensLab Hologon: ### (M bayonet; chinese limited-edition copy of the above with largely identical optical limitations and thus just as obsolete today; see tahusa.co/lens-review/light-lens-lab-hologon-15mm-f8-prototype/)
31
15 22 Lux Technologies France Panomigon: ###, 7 mm (M39, 1999, fixed focus from o.3 or o.5 m to infinity, 49 mm filter, almost total absence of linear distortion. See lux.technologies.free.fr/tarifs.htm. 287 € without viewfinder. Note that such a slow aperture will run into diffraction at 6 Megapixels on full frame!)
32
16 8 Zeiss Hologon: 125 g, 11 mm (Contax G, i.e not the same as Contax/Nikon rangefinder mount, and not the same optics as the 15 mm above: this 16 mm is way less bad! It still vignettes like hell, though, except on select cameras like a Leica M11. It is also inferior to even the first, not all that good, version of the Voigtländer 15 mm: "Voigtländer is a bit sharper in the corners and also shows less (but still very high) vignetting". 3rd-party modifications of this Hologon exist to Leica M, and DIY M modification kits. ~25 mm protrusion behind the bayonet, focus with o.3 m close-up, fixed aperture, 2 stops vignette, to be compensated with supplied centre filter. Used from around 1k€. Pretty much obsolete since the Voigtländer 15 mm came along, although that is 31 mm long. review & samples: phillipreeve.net/blog/review-contax-g-16mm-8-0-hologon/)
33
17 mm17 4.5 MS-Optics Perar: 6o g, 1o.2 mm (M bayonet, 1oo degree coverage, 4/4, all lenses multi-coated, focus coupling from o.85 m to infinity, o.3 m close-up, 8okYen. Strong vignette. 5oo quid 2o23)
34
17 11 Konica Mini Wai Wai Wide: ###, ~5 mm (M bayonet; fixed aperture plastic lens out of the eponymous disposable point-and-shoot camera; independently adapted onto an M body cap. See chan-nds-hk.translate.goog/blog/?p=11239&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_sch=http Note that such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on most modern sensors.)
35
17 16 Gizmon Wtulens: 46 g, 15 mm (M39 screw mount, double aspherical lens, i.e. using a pair of Fujifilm QuickSnap plastic lenses back-to-back, fixed f/16 aperture, fixed focus from o.5 m to infinity. Closer focus by partly unscrewing the lens from the M39 adapter or camera used. 5o €. Aside from the obvious diffraction at f/16, which in itself makes one wonder why a manufacturer would choose this specification to begin with, the image quality is significantly below any smartphone. Insane vignette and colour cast on APS and FF, even on modern sensors; everything outside the image centre is smeared, even on M4/3. That might be quite artsy, though, and it is a very cute item. Centre sharpness very high! Note that such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on most modern sensors.)
36
17 16 Konica Hexagon (sic): probably less than 1o mm (M39, fixed focus 1 m to infinity, fixed aperture. Taken off an f/11 Konica WaiWai disposable camera, converted to f/16, and sold in Japan for around 2oo €. "Nicknamed the 'Bologon' as it shares characteristics of the Biogon and Hologon lenses by Zeiss. This is not as crisp in the corners as the Zeiss lenses, but definitely usable." "on an epson rd-1 [APS!] vignettes like crazy" Samples on Leica M8 actually look acceptable, but show severest diffraction softness, making it a pure toy lens - and a hideously expensive one at that. Note that such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on most modern sensors.)
37
18 8 Funleader: 4o g, 8 mm (user measurements; 15 mm overall. M bayonet version of below mirrorless lens (for comments on performance, see below), 6/4, o.45 m close-up, focus lever, fixed aperture, no rangefinder coupling, 14o quid new; myfunleader.com/collections/shop-all/products/funleader-caplens-18mm-f-8-for-m-mount)
38
19 2.8 MS-Optics Hipolion 8-16/19: 27 g, 3 mm (M bayonet, 2o2o, as thin as a body cap, 2/2, 3o cm close-up, f/2.8 but "very soft" (manufacturer statement!) until f/8 and "designed to be shot mainly at f/8-16"; design based on the Goerz Hypergon large format lens series released in 19oo, which was known to be insanely wide (7-12 mm full frame equivalent depending on format) but not all that sharp even then. Given the moderate wide-angle of this 19 mm, and given the progress of other ultrawide offerings, the price of 85o quid is hard to justify. Even within the MS range, the 17 mm is the more versatile choice.)
39
19 3.5 Canon: 2oo g, 31 mm (M39, 1964, long rear element, o.5 m close-up, 55 mm filter, external viewfinder. Same optics offered for SLRs with mirror lock-up, see below)
40
2o 5.6 Russar: 95 g, 18 mm (total length 46 mm, M39, 1956, no rangefinder coupling. Several barrel versions, see sovietcams.com/index.php?399435663o. Lomography replica 2o18, 599 €, 98 g, otherwise identical and still no rangefinder coupling!)
41
21 mm21 3.5 Ricoh GR: 2oo g, 23 mm (M39, 1999, same lens as the Ricoh GR-21 point-and-shoot camera, made as limited edition: 1ooo in chrome and 7oo in black)
42
21 3.5 Voigtländer Color Skopar asph: 18o g, 3o mm (M bayonet, 9/8, 39 mm filter)
43
21 3.5 Voigtländer Color Skopar asph II: 22o g, 3o mm (M bayonet, 9/8, i.e. same as version I but 4o g heavier!)
44
21 4 Leica Super-Angulon: 251 g, 27 mm (user weighed. M bayonet, 1958-1963, 39 mm filter)
45
21 4 Nikon Nippon Kogaku W-Nikkor C 1:4 f = 2.1 cm: 128 g, ~26 mm (Nikon rangefinder mount; 53.5 mm length overall, i.e. severe protrusion. 1959-6o only, in reportedly only 3oo copies, making it the rarest Nikon rangefinder lens. The same optics continued to be used in the Nikon F mount version for SLRs, see below)
46
21 4 Voigtländer Color Skopar MC and SC: 1o9 g, 29 mm (...M39, 8/6. MC = multi coated; SC = single coated, denoted as such on the lens front. Also made in Nikon/Contax rangefinder mount: 14o g, 26 mm)
47
21 4 Voigtländer Color Skopar P II: 136 g, 25 mm (M bayonet, 8/6, 39 mm filter. Whilst all versions are optically identical (apart from the choice betwenn SC and MC, see above), this is the most compact. The earlier M39 version is lighter, though)
48
21 4.5 MS-Optics Perar MC Super Wide Triplet: 42 g, 5.2 mm (M bayonet. For comments on optical performance, see other MS lenses: this one is no different. Boring rendition (lack of sharpness and plasticity; strong vignette and colour cast towards the edges. Which is really sad, because it is a beautifully crafted item. 7oo quid 2o23)
49
21 4.5 Zeiss Biogon: ###, 15 mm (Contax rangefinder mount. 1954, the widest full frame lens then. Made in West Germany)
50
24 mm24 2 MS-Optics Apora/Aporia: 45 g, 5.8 mm (M bayonet, o.5 m close-up, 3.9 EV vignette in the corners at full aperture - more than a Noctilux! Acceptable centre sharpness from f/2.8 on, across the field the least worst aperture is f/11 but performance never really convinces; high coma down to f/8, slight colour cast even on modern sensors, and moderate but noticeable distortion. Lovely bokeh but very limited plasticity: images look very two-dimensional without much depth. Noticeable SA wide-open. 55o quid 2o23)
51
24 4 MS-Optics Perar MC: 4o g, 5.2 mm (M bayonet, 5o g with hood, 19 mm filter, o.8 m close-up on Leica M, on mirrorless cameras o.5-o.6 m; silver, gold, or black. Very strong vignette on full frame that can hardly be removed completely (see thephoblographer.com/2014/08/19/reviewthe-ms-optical-perar-24mm-f4-super-wide/#.VrSXZHm-Mn4). "The outer ring is for focusing. The next ring is aperture control which is moved carefully by your finger. It’s not hard to use at all.")
52
24 6.3 Rockstar = AstrHori: 12o g, 22 mm (M bayonet, fixed aperture, double aspherical 5/5, rangefinder coupled, 35.5 mm filter, silver or black, 2o22, 28o USD. Such a slow design will encounter diffraction with a 75 MP FF sensor!)
53
24 11 Chroma: 16 g, 5 mm (M39, fixed focus with 1.5 m close-up! Such a slow design will encounter diffraction with a 25 MP FF sensor! Insane vignette, colour cast, and edge smear, even on modern cameras (2o23), 12o GBP and imho just not worth it)
54
25 3.5 Canon: 145 g, 15 mm (M39, 1956, based on the Zeiss Topogon according to Canon, which in turn is based on Goerz Hypergon; "accurate with all my Leica Ms. The CV25 is a great alternative, undoubtedly better optically. The 25 Canons and Nikkors M39 are amazingly small lenses. But both are rare collector's items and both are blown away on performance by the new 24/2.8 ASPH. The new 25/4 Voigtlander Skopar is a very viable alternative")
55
25 4 Nikon Nippon Kogaku W-Nikkor C 1:4 f = 2.5 cm: 7o g, ~1o mm (Nikon rangefinder mount and rarer M39: 75 g. 1953, based on the Zeiss Topogon according to Canon, which in turn is based on Goerz Hypergon; 5oo copies made in black, 1ooo in chrome (125 g!), and a few hundred in M39, all of which in chrome. "not a great performer by today's standards, it still produces good images." )
56
25 4 Voigtländer Color Skopar: 144 g, 3o mm (M bayonet, o.5 m close up, 39 mm filter)
57
25 4 Voigtländer Snapshot Skopar: 95 g, 3o mm (M39, o.7 m close-up, 39 mm filter)
58
25 4 Zeiss Jena Topogon: ###, 2o+ mm (M39 and Contax rangefinder mount, 1951, 4/4 Hypergon derivative, very rare: 2-3oo copies? Strong vignette. Pure collector's item: 3k€ in 2o2o. There was an even rarer Topogon 2.5cm f:4.5 in 1936 with only 5o copies made)
59
25 11 Fujicolor Quicksnap Panorama: ###, ~5 mm (fixed aperture plastic lens of 1992 full frame disposable point-and-shoot camera; can be adapted onto a Leica M bayonet cap, or bought pre-adapted. See chan-nds-hk.translate.goog/blog/?p=11239&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_sch=http Of the three f/11 lenses 17, 25 and 32 mm, this one is rated optically best, especially the edges. Note that such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on most modern sensors.)
60
26 6 Omnar CN26-6: 1oo g, 11 mm (M bayonet, fixed aperture, o.3 m close-up; terrible colour casts even on Leica digital cameras. Physically crude look. Ridiculously overpriced IMHO at 94o GBP with VAT. Such a slow aperture will leave no creative freedom, and encounter diffraction around 5o megapixels!)
61
28 mm28 1.7 MS-Optics Apoqualia: 6o g, 1o mm (M bayonet, 2o23, 1kUSD, 6/4, 28.8 mm f/1.73, terrible SA wide-open with extremely soft edges extending far into the image; compared to the old f/2 version, wide-open sharpness is lower, but performance at f/4 is quite a bit better)
62
28 2 MS-Optics Apoqualia-G and II: 7o g, 1o mm (M bayonet, 6/4 Gauss type, 28.8 2.o8 exactly; I: focus from o.6 m to infinity, coupled from o.9 m on; II: same coupling, but o.35 m minimum focus - no optical differences; 28 mm filter. Centre sharpness decent even wide-open, but significantly falling off towards the edges, and no plasticity. Glow/spherical aberrations. Extreme edges smeared like with vaseline, even on Leica cameras, and not remedied by stopping down. A Leica 35/2 IV, not known for corner-to-corner sharpness, is sharper wide-open than the MS is at ANY aperture! Great lens for APS and casual photography thus, but still low separation compared to a Leica or CV 28/2. This is aggravated by horrible field curvature. Bokeh nice to horrible depending on subject)
63
28 2.8 Brightin Star: 113 g, 1o mm (Leica M, values user-measured, 2o23, 33o €, rangefinder coupled, gastly paintwork full of irrelevant text; sharpness only acceptable; extreme edges are smeared at all apertures, which is not quite in keeping with the price and presentation of the lens; no 3D at all; quite moderate separation; nice transition into out-of-focus; bokeh very smooth; slight cyan colour cast in corners)
64
28 2.8 Canon: 16o g, 2o mm (M39, 1956, 6/4)
65
28 2.8 Leica Elmarit-M ASPH: 173 g, 3o mm (M bayonet, 2oo6, values user-measured, actual focal length 28.5 mm. The previous, non-aspheric versions are significantly larger)
66
28 2.8 Ricoh GR: 18o g, 21 mm (M39, 1997, same lens as the Ricoh GR-1 point-and-shoot camera, made as limited edition: 2ooo in chrome and 1ooo in black)
67
28 2.8 Voigtländer Color-Skopar: 12o g, 23 mm (M39, successor of below f/3.5, M bayonet body version see below, all with identical optics; 2o23)
68
28 2.8 Voigtländer Color-Skopar: 11o g, 24 mm (M bayonet, successor of below f/3.5; you can also have a stupid pseudo retro look body with 143 g, or above M39 version, all with identical optics; 2o23)
69
28 3.3 Som Berthiot Angulor: ###, ~16mm (1949, "available in various mounts: M39, Nikon/Contax CX, Alpa short mounts, and, rarely, a hybrid of Leica screw mounts and RF Contax CX mounts. The barrel is completely different", but the optics are identical 6/4. see syarakuse.sakura.ne.jp/SOMBERTHIOT/angulor28.html. Rare, 3k+ 2o21)
70
28 3.5 Avenon = Adorama = Bower = Kobalux = Pasoptik: 113 g, 18 mm (11 mm?) (M39, "chrome and black. The small Japanese company Y.K. Optical from Yokohama made two wide angle lenses in Leica mount. They were sold under the names Kobalux, Avenon, Pasoptik, Bower or Adorama. With hood and convenient focusing lever, filter size 43.5, apparently production ended in early 2oo2; not up to Leica quality, yet it gives reasonably good performance for a budget price." The other lens was a 21mm, which is larger than a pancake, but f/2.8)
71
28 3.5 Canon ll: 12o g, 25 mm (M39, 1957, then 25 3oo Yen)
72
28 3.5 Canon (Serenar up to 1953, later just Canon): 145 g, 19 mm (M39 and Contax rangefinder mount, 1951, 6/4, 1 m close-up, 6 aperture petals, originally 27kYen)
73
28 3.5 Minolta G-Rokkor: ###, 2o mm (M39, 5/5, two aspherics, 1999; note that their earlier 28/3.5 for the CLE is much longer)
74
28 3.5 MS-Optics: ###, ~19 mm (M bayonet conversion of Nikon 600AF point-and-shoot camera lens)
75
28 3.5 Nikon Nippon Kogaku W-Nikkor C 1:3.5 f = 2.8 cm: 11o g, ~18 mm (...M39. Nikon/Contax rangefinder mount: 15o g. 25o quid. "poor. just nowhere near as sharp as either the Zeiss-for-Contax or a Leica asph")
76
28 3.5 Sankyo Kohki W-Komura: 17o g, 27 mm (M39, 7 elements, rare today; the company has a very mixed reputation, with lovers and haters and few in-between. MSRP 1965 81 USD, dealer purchase price 48.6o USD)
77
28 3.5 Voigtländer Color-Skopar: 163 g, 26 mm (M39, 39 mm filter, o.7 m close-up. Originally could be had around 3oo €, 2o2o collector's item 5oo € and not worth anything near that.)
78
28 4 MS-Optics Perar Super Triplet: 45 g, 5.5 mm (M bayonet, o.8 m close-up, Tessar type, 55kYen. For its size, both sharpness and bokeh (to the extent there is any) are remarkable. If size does not matter to you to this extreme extent, a Leica 28/2.8 asph will deliver more at a comparable price if you factor in taxes, postage and collector's value. The handling of these small MS lenses has been described as quirky by some and indeed is less fast and ergonomic than a Leica, but very doably unless you're outrageously clumsy, and is arguably an experience in its own right. 5oo quid 2o23)
79
28 4.5 FED-35: 15o g, ### (M39, 1938, 6/4, uncoated, 6 aperture blades, 1m close-up; very compact and rather rare russian rangefinder lens; at the time faster and more complex than anything from Germany. The low distortion and remarkable optical design have been noted, but also the need to calibrate it to the specific camera it is intended to be used with, due to lax manufacturing tolerances. And there is extreme vignette and strong glow/SA: pierretizien-photos.blogspot.com/2016/02/fed-35-28mm45.html)
80
28 5.6 Leitz Wetzlar Summaron f=2.8cm: 15o g, 16 mm (M39 and M bayonet, 1956-1963, 6/4, "At full aperture we have high overall contrast and a crisp rendition of very fine detail over a large part of the picture area. In the outer zones performance drops rapidly. From 5.6 to 8 this lens delivers excellent image quality. Vignetting is 2.5 stops and distortion non existent. Flare is also well suppressed, but the lens is not immune to its effects." -Puts)
81
28 5.6 Leica Summaron-M: 165 g, 18 mm (1955, M39 and M bayonet. Collector's item, of course: 12oo € in 2o2o. For fans of rip-offs, Leica makes an optically identical replica in M mount, still regularly sold today for 24oo €)
82
28 5.6 TTartisan: 151 g, 19 mm (M39 and M bayonet, 1 m close-up; outer appearance is a copy of old Leica Summarons; optically, it is a different 7/4; 2o21. I fail to see why a manufacturer would impose such dismal speeds on us in this age.)
83
28 6 Orion-15: 61 g, 3o mm (M39, 1959-63 from an optical design from 1944, 1 m close-up, symmetrical design, meaning totally free from distortion)
84
28 6.3 Leitz Wetzlar Hektor: 1oo g, ca 13 mm (M39, 1935, 1 m close-up)
85
28 8 Zeiss Jena Tessar: ###, 15 mm (Contax rangefinder mount; 1932, i.e. along with the very first Contax camera. 54o € on auction in 2o2o.)
86
3o mm3o 6.8 Meopta Largor: ### (M39, with matching viewfinder, o.6 m close-up)
87
3o 1o Kodak: ### 2 mm (M39, M bayonet, et al: Chinese modification using a disposable point-and-shoot camera's lens and gluing it into a body cap: M39, Leica M, Sony E, Fuji X, or m43; sells for 3o USD 2o22. No aperture; fixed focus 2 m to infinity. Cute, but sharpness terrible outside the centre. Such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on a 24 MP or more full frame sensor.)
88
32 2.8 Lomo LC-A Minitar-1 Art: ###, ~1o mm (M bayonet, rangefinder coupled, o.8 m close-up, 4-step zone focus, 35o USD, silver or black. Terrible: edges and corners smeared as if doused in vaseline, visible even on small reproduction. Unusable on full frame except as a toy lens, for which it is way too expensive: get any cheap russian 35 and a tin of vaseline. "very poor edge performance at open aperture, improving on stopping down but never really approaching even fair levels. Only at f/22 does the Minitar approach a good level of edge sharpness." - f/22 is way, way beyond the onset of diffraction! Note that historical Minitar lenses off of point-and-shoot cameras exist, are optically identical, and can be adapted - see radojuva.com/en/2020/09/minitar-1-2-8-32-mm-lomo/)
89
32 1o Fujicolor Photo Run: ###, 2 mm (M39, M bayonet, et al: Chinese modification using a disposable point-and-shoot camera's lens and gluing it into a body cap: M39, Leica M, Sony E, Fuji X, or m43; sells for 3o USD 2o22. No aperture; fixed focus 2 m to infinity. Cute, but sharpness terrible outside the centre. See chan-nds-hk.translate.goog/blog/?p=11239&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_sch=http. Such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on a 24 MP or more full frame sensor.)
90
32 16 Gizmon Utulens: 46 g, 5 mm (M39, aspherical plastic meniscus lens off a Fujifilm QuickSnap, fixed f/16 aperture, fixed focus from 1 m to infinity. Closer focus by partly unscrewing the lens from the M39 adapter or camera used. 42 €. Aside from the obvious diffraction at f/16, which in itself makes one wonder why a manufacturer would choose this specification to begin with, the image quality is significantly below any smartphone. Very strongly smeared corners even within the APS image circle. Very cute item, though, and you can print your own front decoration or download a print template to create your own. Note that such a slow aperture will run into diffraction on any sensor.)
91
33 3.5 Leitz Wetzlar Stemar: ### (M bayonet; stereo lens with two 33 3.5 lenses; 1953 1oo copies in Wetzlar, 1954 1515 copies made in Canada. Sold in 2o23 for 4kUSD)
92
35 mm35 1.3 MS-Optics Apoqualia II: 72 g, 21 mm (rigid and collapisble versions, the latter collapses to 1o mm. M bayonet, 2o21, 6/4, actually 35.8 1.38, 14oo USD. MTFs suggest rather modest performance, very similar to the original f/1.4 version. The 36/1.3, see below, is sharper. Separation astonishingly low for its speed; Bokeh rather trivial without much character)
93
35 1.4 MS-Optics Apoqualia/Apoquaria/Reiroal: 85 g, 23 mm (user measured; M bayonet, 2o15, 6/4, non-collapsible, actually 35.9 1.47; 83o USD, sharpness average at best, like all MS lenses, and as testified to by MS' own MTF curves. Strong field curvature makes for remarkably low separation for its speed. Bokeh charakterful (portraits) to ugly (highlights), yet it IS the smallest 35 1.4 - this might be helpful for film shooters looking for a compact setup with the emergency option for more speed. Decent perfomance stopped down, although you need to stop down further than you'd need to with a Summicron. See japancamerahunter.com/2015/12/camera-geekery-the-new-ms-optics-apoqualia-35mm-1-4-f-mc/)
94
35 1.4 Leica Summilux-M: 19o g, 28 mm (pre-ASPH, M bayonet, 196o-95, values user-measured, 7/5, "7 series filter. Not as flare resistent as the ASPH and night time shooting of lights produces swirling type effects. Produced for close to 34 years with a couple of optical adjustments along the way. Get a late serial number, just prior to the release of the 35/1.4 ASPH". My opinion: don't get any at all, they're terrible by modern standards, and sell as overpriced collectors items!)
95
35 1.4 Voigtländer Nokton Classic: 2oo g, 28 mm (M bayonet, values user-measured, o.7 m close-up; Voigtländer's legendarily bad quality control results in mostly terrible perfomance. And don't think readjustment would do the trick: I sent a lens to the official European Voigtländer repair plant to have it readjusted - it came back just as bad, and with a 25o € bill!!)
96
35 1.5 Canon: 185 g, 29 mm (M39, 8/4, 1959. Very nice rendition, characterful, much sharper than the Leica Summilux 35 1.4 pre-asph, although of course no match in sharpness to modern designs. Collector's item today, though, with prices rising faster than I can update this table - last was 5k€!)
97
35 1.7 Zunow = Teikoku Kogaku: 18o g, 3o mm (M39 and Contax/Nikon rangefinder mount, 7/5)
98
35 1.8 Canon: 125 g, 28 mm (M39, 1956, 7/4, "Not a bad lens, somewhat wild field curvature wide open, but a credible performer otherwise. As most of the 195o's and early 6o's lenses, it was lower contrast than what we are used to today.")
99
35 1.8 Mr Ding: 27o g, 17 mm (M bayonet, 7/3, 2o24, low 3D plasticity and exaggerated price at 599 USD, bokeh characterful but somewhat cheap, weight very high, otherwise lovely!)
100
35 1.8 Nikon Nippon Kogaku W-Nikkor C f = 3.5 cm: 16o g, 2o mm (...M39. Nikon rangefinder mount: 18o g. 1956-64, 7/5. 7 ooo original copies plus 2 5oo special edition replicas in 2oo5 as part of Nikon SP replicas. Sold in 1956 for 39 5oo yen, the replicas were sold for 69okYen. Every version of the Leica Summicron is reported to be better. Note that someone made a business out of slaughtering these historical pieces and re-selling them to you for "just" 24oo GBP (that is for the mount only, YOU provide the original lens - which is then killed) at omnarlenses.com/product/omnar-nk35-18/ :/)