Canon LTM Black Canon 28mm F3.5 Leica Thread Mount Lens

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
David Murphy

David Murphy

Veteran
Local time
1:19 PM
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
2,835
Location
California
View My Gallery
I just acquired an example of the black finished Canon 28/3.5 in very good condition. I know from experience that the chrome model makes good images for a vintage wide, but does anyone know the story on this lens? Is the optical formula the same as the chrome version? It must be at least an uncommon lens if not rare, since I've only seen one or two for sale over many years. The serial number on mine is 21503. Any comments welcome.
 
I have one, number 21470. Very nice lens for the size and money, regardless of vintage. Much better ergonomics, IMO, than the earlier chrome version, though it's larger. Good option in bright sunlight or other high-contrast scenes, as it's lower contrast than most modern lenses.

It was my first 28mm lens, but mine doesn't get out much these days, since I've accumulated a CV Skopar 28/3.5, M-Rokkor 28/2.8 and Canon 28/2.8. The Canon f/2.8 is a recent purchase, and just came back from a CLA, so I don't know how it compares to the f/3.5 yet.

There's an RFF member by the username gohaj (IIRC) who has posted some very fine urban landscape shots using the black Canon 28/3.5 on an R-D1 in the past year or two.

Enjoy your new little gem!

::Ari
 
OK, thanks for the information. I've owned and used the Canon 28/2.8. While I found it a tour de force mechanically and design-wise, it was not as sharp as the 28/3.5 in use. Not everyone agrees with me however. All said, I still regret selling it!
 
From what I gathered, the black version is longer, but is also lighter.

Optically I believe they are the same. Possibly Canon just extended the hood for better flare resistance.

I own a chrome 28/3.5 Serenar. I have to develope my first roll with this lens. Did you also get a 28mm Canon finder? Mine is the brushed chrome version that is cylindrical. A very nice finder for 28 BTW.

Calzone
 
Calzone said:
From what I gathered, the black version is longer, but is also lighter.
Click to expand...
Yes, true -- more aluminum alloy in the barrel and focus/aperture rings, where the older version is chrome over brass.

Optically I believe they are the same. Possibly Canon just extended the hood for better flare resistance.
Click to expand...

Also, I think the coatings are likely improved on the later version, again improving flare-resistance.

::Ari
 
I will share some information I discovered over the internet yesterday under the general search "Serenar 28mm 3.5."

One web page stated that only 670 Version 1's were produced and only 200 Version 2's, while 5,839 28/2.8's were produced.
Seems like no a lot of 28/3.5's were made. Only 870. Can this be correct?

Calzone
 
I will look it up the black and chrome version in Peter K's book on Canon rangefinder lenses after I get home from work (if someone doesn't beat me to it). The book has production estimates, weights, serial numbers, etc.
 
Calzone said:
One web page stated that only 670 Version 1's were produced and only 200 Version 2's, while 5,839 28/2.8's were produced.
Seems like no a lot of 28/3.5's were made. Only 870. Can this be correct?
Click to expand...

That does not seem likely. There are far more 28/3.5 lenses available in the market than 28/2.8 lenses.
::Ari

EDIT: Though it may be that there are relatively few in black/chrome....
 
David Murphy said:
I just acquired an example of the black finished Canon 28/3.5 in very good condition. I know from experience that the chrome model makes good images for a vintage wide, but does anyone know the story on this lens? Is the optical formula the same as the chrome version? It must be at least an uncommon lens if not rare, since I've only seen one or two for sale over many years. The serial number on mine is 21503. Any comments welcome.
Click to expand...

Peter Kitchingman's book of Canon RF lenses states that all 5 types of this lens were 6 elements in 4 groups. The black and chrome is Type 5. The recorded serial numbers appear to indicate a maximum production of 1,765 lenses, although is is not known whether all serial numbers in this range were produced. Peter rates it an R4 for rarity, where R6 is the most common, and R1 is the rarest. Production dates are Jan 1957 to March 1960. Weight is given as 116g, which is about 34 g lighter than the all-chrome versions.
 
Last edited:
David:

I read "somewhere on the 'net" that it was a real lemon. As a result, you should put it in the classifieds right away, but please notify me just before you do. haha

Great find and should appreciate faster in the future than the chrome ones.

BTW--I have a chrome version and I'm really happy w/ it.

Bill
 
Hello all. Thanks for the informative information. I had a chance to shoot with the black 28/3.5 after I had it CLA'ed. My impression is that the image quality is superior to the chrome 28/3.5, possibly, as mentioned above, because of Canon's steady improvement in coatings (and possibly improvements in alignment techniques). In fact the image quality is really impressive for such a vintage lens. I'll post some results here in a day or two.

In answer to the above, no I do not have the black finder for it. This seems to be a little more common than the lens for some reason - perhaps they made more of these in black than they did of the lenses. I might pick one up at some point -- the Canon 28mm finders are really wonderful.
 
David:

I seem to remember kevincameras has one or two black 28 VFs, but w/o the front glass. If you could find somebody to make the front glass, you're OK. Maybe an optometrist who's also a camera nut? I've got a Canon black 25 VF w/ the same problem. There has to be a solution somewhere/ someone?

Bill
 
I asked a couple opticians about making a front lens for one of Canon 19mm finders, and both refused, saying that it was very difficult to grind. I remember an earlier thread where Peter Kitchingman (an optician by training, IIRC) verified that it would be difficult to grind such a lens, and he undertood why no one expressed any willingness to do so. I asked one amateur telescope maker, and got the same response
 
dexdog said:
I asked a couple opticians about making a front lens for one of Canon 19mm finders, and both refused, saying that it was very difficult to grind. I remember an earlier thread where Peter Kitchingman (an optician by training, IIRC) verified that it would be difficult to grind such a lens, and he undertood why no one expressed any willingness to do so. I asked one amateur telescope maker, and got the same response
Click to expand...


OK--thanks. That's too bad.
 
David Murphy said:
Hello all. Thanks for the informative information. I had a chance to shoot with the black 28/3.5 after I had it CLA'ed. My impression is that the image quality is superior to the chrome 28/3.5, possibly, as mentioned above, because of Canon's steady improvement in coatings (and possibly improvements in alignment techniques). In fact the image quality is really impressive for such a vintage lens. I'll post some results here in a day or two.

In answer to the above, no I do not have the black finder for it. This seems to be a little more common than the lens for some reason - perhaps they made more of these in black than they did of the lenses. I might pick one up at some point -- the Canon 28mm finders are really wonderful.
Click to expand...

WOW. I developed some B&W film and was impressed by the images. My chrome version has this creamy low contrast even with Tri-X gently bumped to 500. The lens is clean enough to use as is, but I'm sure a CLA would help, but the contrast right now matches well with my 50 Rigid Cron.

Is the improved image quality mostly contrast, or is it also sharpness, or both? Were you shooting color?

I was lucky to get a Cannon 28 finder with my Serenar. You are right, it is a wonderful finder.

Calzone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom