Canon 35mm f1.5

[sanmich]

I was watching that auction- you got a great deal!. I was tempted to bid on it myself, even though I already have a nice clean example of this lens.

I am not wild about the lens wide open, but stopped down to f2 it is a beauty.

dexdog, Do you know how it performs after f/2 compared to slower lenses (f/1.8; f/2)?

If it is comparable, maybe it is the ultimate lens:

excellent after f/2 and with the provision of almost one stop for tough situations...?

Thanks!

 

[raid]

AHHHH

Raid! Thanks for joining.

I did studied your test yesterday before posting. Thanks for doing such a systematic comparison!

Generally, the lens seems to perform well. One thing remain unclear to me regarding flare:

On the candle flame example, the canon 1.5 fully open seems one of the best if not the best of the bunch.

On the light bulb, the same lens is obviously one of the worst

😕 Any explanation for this?😕

Hello Michael,
The light intensity is much higher for the bulb lit scene than for the candle lit scene. With the candle light, the room was nearly dark, whereas with the bulb light, there was strong front light.

The lens could be a low contrast but high resolution lens. With the bare bulb, the lens showed its lack of resistance to flare up, whereas with the candle it showed its high resolution in a scene where there is no flare.

I am not a master lens designer, as you know. I sometimes make a guess based on my limited knowledge on lenses.


Also take into account that with some lenses being older lenses [in the test], there can be inconsistencies ocurring due to aging.

 

[Sonnar2]

Raid, in your very nice park portaits I notice some typical background behavior for this "pushed for speed" lens class: unsharp background behind the center and "coming back" to the sharpness area in the corners. That gives an expressive structure but can also be annoying with background of certain structures, i.e. tree twigs, causing "swirly bookeh". Most extreme with vintage Plasmat lenses. Probably this is caused by undercorrected spherical aberration.
What is great on the Canon 35/1.5 in this class is that it is very well corrected for center sharpness and color saturation. It's less "cold" than the Canon 50/1.4. I cannot imagine that the PRE-asph. 35/1.4 Summilux comes out any better.
What I noticed with my lenses: backlight flare of my (very clear) 35/1.5 is well controlled, better than with the 35/1.8 (very light haze) and the 35/2 (clear), much better than the older (chrome) 35/2.8 (which is clear as well).
In contrast (price for extra speed) the 35/1.5 more prone to ghosting than the others if the sun is near to the picture frame. Maybe this corresponds to your light-bulb test behaviour (strong light source). But with real low light, it behaves nicely (as the 50/0.95 too).
At f/2.8 my 35/1.5 beats any other Canon RF lenses in terms of sharpness and contrast. At f/5.6-8 it is more contrasty than the 35/1.8 but not the 35/2. I would take the 35/1.5 as a standard lens with a reserve for high speed. It is big in diameter, but not heavy or protruding. 48mm filter (like the 50/1.4) is good as well. In screwmount it can be beaten only by the UC-Hexanon 35/2, but this is nearly one stop slower and a much younger design.
I think Canon did it very well with their super-fast 35/1.5 in 1958. Universal usability is much better than with the 50/0.95. Consider it's 50 years ago. Yes, it's underrated from a user's view.

have fun, Frank

 

[Silva Lining]

Thanks for all for the answers. I have seen the pictures and galleries and all in all, it seems a good lens.
Tom why do you want one after having the 1.8?
Do you think its signature is so different? It's only half a stop difference.
Will you drop the 1.8?

Don't get me wrong, I have the 1.8 which is very nice and just got the 1.5 on a kind of gambling auction:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280194386315&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=018

Yeah, right, an enlarger lens...😉

I just hope it's in clean condition (so the seller says..). If it's the case, I guess I had a good deal...


It sure seems to flare easily.

I guess the hood should be on its way soon.

And a filter..

When will this end ?🙂

Looks like you got a great deal there, I paid almost twice this much for a 'mint' example (It was mint too!)

Happy shooting!

 

[sanmich]

What I noticed with my lenses: backlight flare of my (very clear) 35/1.5 is well controlled, better than with the 35/1.8 (very light haze) and the 35/2 (clear), much better than the older (chrome) 35/2.8 (which is clear as well).
In contrast (price for extra speed) the 35/1.5 more prone to ghosting than the others if the sun is near to the picture frame. Maybe this corresponds to your light-bulb test behaviour (strong light source). But with real low light, it behaves nicely (as the 50/0.95 too).
At f/2.8 my 35/1.5 beats any other Canon RF lenses in terms of sharpness and contrast. At f/5.6-8 it is more contrasty than the 35/1.8 but not the 35/2. I would take the 35/1.5 as a standard lens with a reserve for high speed. It is big in diameter, but not heavy or protruding. 48mm filter (like the 50/1.4) is good as well. In screwmount it can be beaten only by the UC-Hexanon 35/2, but this is nearly one stop slower and a much younger design.
I think Canon did it very well with their super-fast 35/1.5 in 1958. Universal usability is much better than with the 50/0.95. Consider it's 50 years ago. Yes, it's underrated from a user's view.

have fun, Frank

Frank, thanks for the detailed answer.

Just to make sure: by ghosting you mean those round or aperture-like shaped light spots that appear when the sun is in a corner or just outside the frame?
And by flare you refer to the glow that appear around a strong light source in the picture?

Also, your comparison puts this lens really as an "all around" piece of gear but you start to compare at f/2.8

f/2 is very important to me as I find myself shooting in door a lot with TX @ 1/30 f/2.
Did you remark how the three lenses compare at this aperture?

Thanks!

 

[sanmich]

Looks like you got a great deal there, I paid almost twice this much for a 'mint' example (It was mint too!)

Happy shooting!

Thanks!

I think we are making it a better deal at each contribution...😉


But hey, I've got mine, You've got yours,....Let the price climb

well ok, let's wait for Tom to have his 🙂

 

[LeicaTom]

My Canon 35mm/1.8 is being cleaned by a professional, so I am looking forward to a better lens returning to me.

Raid,

Who did you send it to? Mine is near mint glass, but the focus ring is stiff 🙁

Tom

 

[sanmich]

Raid,

Who did you send it to? Mine is near mint glass, but the focus ring is stiff 🙁

Tom

Tom

Canon lenses are, from the few i had in my hands, usually very easy to re-lube.

My 1.8 was also stiff and it was the first one to get the helicoid cleaned and relubed.

All you need is a spanner wrench and the right grease (I use Lithium automotive grease).

let me know if you want to give it a try. It's fun, too. 😉

 

[Sonnar2]

Just to make sure: by ghosting you mean those round or aperture-like shaped light spots that appear when the sun is in a corner or just outside the frame?

Yes, plus artefacts coming from internal reflections like this one (the 35/1.5 delivers some strange ghostings...)

as opposed to

And by flare you refer to the glow that appear around a strong light source in the picture?

Yes, but it's often just visible as a "haze" in the middle part of the picture, like this one:

I believe this kind of flare is very common with Gaussian wideangle lenses. The Summicron IV-gen 35/2 has exactly the same kind of flare with a bright sky as backlite. For landscapes this can be very annoying. Newer designs like the ASPH.-Summicron 35/2, the ZM-Biogon or UC-Hexanon don't show it (or much less)

Very bad with this kind of flare is the Canon 35/2.8. Opposed to it, the 28/3.5 (designed in the same year 1951 and even looking similar from diagrams) is quite free of it!

To be precise, at f/1.5 sharpness is only present in the very center of the picture with the 35/1.5. But in many cases this is just enough, i.e. when you have a three-dimensional subject and small DOF anyway. Light-loss to the corners can look bad too. You need to think about before using this lens wide open, or to have just good luck. At f/2 it is much better, plus you get nicer bookeh and colors than with the Canon 35/2. From f/2.8 on the Canon 35/1.5 is very strong.

have fun, Frank

 

[sanmich]

Yes, plus artefacts coming from internal reflections like this one (the 35/1.5 delivers some strange ghostings...)

as opposed to

Yes, but it's often just visible as a "haze" in the middle part of the picture, like this one:

I believe this kind of flare is very common with Gaussian wideangle lenses. The Summicron IV-gen 35/2 has exactly the same kind of flare with a bright sky as backlite. For landscapes this can be very annoying. Newer designs like the ASPH.-Summicron 35/2, the ZM-Biogon or UC-Hexanon don't show it (or much less)

Very bad with this kind of flare is the Canon 35/2.8. Opposed to it, the 28/3.5 (designed in the same year 1951 and even looking similar from diagrams) is quite free of it!

To be precise, at f/1.5 sharpness is only present in the very center of the picture with the 35/1.5. But in many cases this is just enough, i.e. when you have a three-dimensional subject and small DOF anyway. Light-loss to the corners can look bad too. You need to think about before using this lens wide open, or to have just good luck. At f/2 it is much better, plus you get nicer bookeh and colors than with the Canon 35/2. From f/2.8 on the Canon 35/1.5 is very strong.

have fun, Frank

Franck

Do you know what made the difference between the two pictures of this cute kid?

Does closing down the aperture reduces flare?
or ghosting?

About the ghosting, maybe a good hood could help?
do you remember if you used one one the first picture?

I have to say that the flare you show on your landscape reminds me of what I had from time to time on my last version summicron-M 50mm. I was so amazed it was from the lens, I was convinced it came from the camera and sent it to DAG (that did a great CLA on it BTW). It appears this lens ('cron-M) allows for some kind of reflection on the inner hood, after the rear lens surface. At a certain angle, with strong light just at the edge, outside the frame, the lens would reflect the light onto the film and get this ugly hot-spot.

I sent the lens to Don and he repainted the hood with a matte paint. So far so good...

 

[Sonnar2]

Hi Michael, I remember that I used the W-50 hood on both kid pictures, and with the second one (the third of three), I additionaly take my hand to cover the lens (the W-50 is quite small). Stopped down ghosting was gone.
See it as an excellent f/2.8 lens with 2 stops reserves for special conditions.

 

[raid]

Raid, in your very nice park portaits I notice some typical background behavior for this "pushed for speed" lens class: unsharp background behind the center and "coming back" to the sharpness area in the corners. That gives an expressive structure but can also be annoying with background of certain structures, i.e. tree twigs, causing "swirly bookeh". Most extreme with vintage Plasmat lenses. Probably this is caused by undercorrected spherical aberration.
What is great on the Canon 35/1.5 in this class is that it is very well corrected for center sharpness and color saturation. It's less "cold" than the Canon 50/1.4. I cannot imagine that the PRE-asph. 35/1.4 Summilux comes out any better.
What I noticed with my lenses: backlight flare of my (very clear) 35/1.5 is well controlled, better than with the 35/1.8 (very light haze) and the 35/2 (clear), much better than the older (chrome) 35/2.8 (which is clear as well).
In contrast (price for extra speed) the 35/1.5 more prone to ghosting than the others if the sun is near to the picture frame. Maybe this corresponds to your light-bulb test behaviour (strong light source). But with real low light, it behaves nicely (as the 50/0.95 too).
At f/2.8 my 35/1.5 beats any other Canon RF lenses in terms of sharpness and contrast. At f/5.6-8 it is more contrasty than the 35/1.8 but not the 35/2. I would take the 35/1.5 as a standard lens with a reserve for high speed. It is big in diameter, but not heavy or protruding. 48mm filter (like the 50/1.4) is good as well. In screwmount it can be beaten only by the UC-Hexanon 35/2, but this is nearly one stop slower and a much younger design.
I think Canon did it very well with their super-fast 35/1.5 in 1958. Universal usability is much better than with the 50/0.95. Consider it's 50 years ago. Yes, it's underrated from a user's view.

have fun, Frank

Hello Frank,

I try not to get attached to any of the borrowed lenses in a lens test. This particular lens I liked a lot for the some of the reasons that you have mkentioned above. I carefully selected the OOF background. This is something that I am used to, as I favor the older lenses anyways.

 

[Charles Woodhouse]

Six years ago when I joined ebay I stated that the 1.5/35 Canon was my favorite lens, and it probably still is for an all-round 35,but for colour saturation my 2.8/35 Topcor has no equal. Unfortunately although I bought it cheaply here in Australia,
when they do occasionally appear on ebay the vendors usually have stupid buy it now prices. I have several LTM 35's, and one day soon I'll do a comparison of each over three apertures for my own amusement.

 

[xayraa33]

the 35mm/ f 2.8 Topcor is one fine lens.

 

[Silva Lining]

Thanks!

I think we are making it a better deal at each contribution...😉


But hey, I've got mine, You've got yours,....Let the price climb

well ok, let's wait for Tom to have his 🙂

Heh!

Well, mines been out for it's first test run, loaded up on a Voigtlander R3M (I used the whole viewfinder as a 35mm frame😉 ) With PanF and Ilford Delta 100, Souped in Ilford DDX and scanned with a Minolta E5400....

MORE HERE

Hopefully, I'll be taking more this weekend...