Canon LTM Canon 35 f2 1st and 2nd type

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
M

mkok

Member
Local time
5:25 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
29
Location
Pesaro - ITALIA
View My Gallery
Hi greetings to all,
this is my first thread and I would like to greet all.
I'm a leica user and I'm about to buy a Canon 35 f2 ltm 1st version and I wonder if anyone knows if is there any difference with the second one and which are they.
I've heard that this lens is similar to Summicron 35, is this real?
I've had for some time the Canon 35 1.8 ltm and I wasn't sodisfied at all with film camera, better with Leica M8, because of the edge of the photos, too much difference from the centre to the edge about sharpness, I hope that the canon 35 f2 is best in this.
Best regards
 
I've had good experiences with the Canon 35/2. I'm not sure what verison it was. However I doubt it's in the class of a Summicron 35/2, certainly not the modern versions at least.
 
canoin 35 f2

canoin 35 f2

i had the earlier type , sharp and contrast even wide open , superior to the 35 1.8 canon (planar type ) . in my opinion close or equal with the leitz summicron . have had both over the many years .

somewhere i read that the optical formula of the second type has slight change , still 7elements in 4 groups . performance the same or close for both types . think that one of the optical groups was split differently however i can not find the optical diagrams on line .

the canon 35 f2 deserves its reputation .
 
enasniearth said:
.....somewhere i read that the optical formula of the second type has slight change , still 7elements in 4 groups . performance the same or close for both types . think that one of the optical groups was split differently however i can not find the optical diagrams on line ......
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference for this? Peter Kitchingman, in his book on Canon rangefinder lenses, says the only difference between the type 1 and type 2 lenses is sightly different engravings on the trim ring.

Jim B.
 
The first link posted by rhouzan shows that there was a slight change in the optics between the first and second versions, and some have said that the second version has smoother bokeh. Best advice is to buy it and try it: if you don't like the lens you can sell it for what you paid for it
 
Bingley said:
The first link posted by rhouzan shows that there was a slight change in the optics between the first and second versions, and some have said that the second version has smoother bokeh.....
Click to expand...

Interesting. I never knew that there was an optical difference between the Type 1 and Type 2 35/2.0 lenses.

Jim B.
 
I have version 1 and love it a lot. It is a fantastic lens, whichever version you get. For >$500, it is a steal. And the size...pocketable
 
Yes, the diagrams in the link show some minor changes to the shape of the optical elements. The overall design appears the same (at least as I interpret the diagrams), but it looks like Canon tweaked the elements.
 
Ok, now is quite clear how to Recognize the two type of lens (the last one may have diffent Written, less word maybe....) and if is similar to Summicron 35 IV it would be a great lens the best 35mm i've had but it was gone instead of a Noctilux.
thanks to all for the help.
 
Mackinaw said:
That's what I thought too until I read this.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

Look how old the thread is; this was discussed in epic length everywhere. This 2nd diagram is a nonsense, these lenses aren't even spherical. Ask Peter Evans where he has it from. All reliable sources say that there is one 35/2 lens design. Canon didn't changed anything of the late RF lens series, starting with the 100/2 which dates 1959, and why should they? All these lenses were excellent and far ahead of their time. The last thing changed was the body of the 50/1.4, enlarging the room for the distance scale to show both meter and feet. There were some rumors of a different design of the 50/1.4 here at RFF too, until someone found out that the 9-element(!) design it supposed to have was that of the Fuji RF 50/1.2.

Cheers, Frank
 
Last edited:
Thank you Sonnar2,
so we can say that the difference between the two type are only estetic.
I have considered to buy a 1st type but I think that $630 are too much for this kind of lens so I've found a 2nd type for $460 with caps and leather case.
I hope to enjoy this lens as the Canon 50 f1.4 that I consider very good.
I have read that the canon 35 f2 doesn't need a lenshood but I would like to find one to fit on because of more protection. Is there some original canon lens hood that works fine?
Thanks a lot
 
Sonnar2 said:
Hi Jim,

Look how old the thread is; this was discussed in epic length everywhere. This 2nd diagram is a nonsense, these lenses aren't even spherical. Ask Peter Evans where he has it from. All reliable sources say that there is one 35/2 lens design. Canon didn't changed anything of the late RF lens series, starting with the 100/2 which dates 1959, and why should they? All these lenses were excellent and far ahead of their time. The last thing changed was the body of the 50/1.4, enlarging the room for the distance scale to show both meter and feet. There were some rumors of a different design of the 50/1.4 here at RFF too, until someone found out that the 9-element(!) design it supposed to have was that of the Fuji RF 50/1.2.

Cheers, Frank
Click to expand...

Frank------Actually I was very surprised to see the diagrams that Evans provided. I wonder where he got them? Like you, I had always believed there was only one design for the 35/2.0 (and still do). There are too many unanswered questions here like: Why would Canon redesign such an excellent optic? I got to believe redesigning a lens and retooling the factory would cost some serious money. And you wonder about the logic of doing so in 1962 when the rangefinder market was already in serous decline. This is another case of "don't ever believe anything you read on the internet." You think after 15+ years of reading this stuff I would know that by now.

Mkok, you'll be satisfied with either version of the 35/2.0. As for lens hood, I'm sure there are third-party lens hoods out there that will fit. Maybe somebody else will have some suggestions as to a brand.

Jim B.
 
mkok said:
I have read that the canon 35 f2 doesn't need a lenshood but I would like to find one to fit on because of more protection. Is there some original canon lens hood that works fine?
Thanks a lot
Click to expand...

I wanted a hood to use in the rain, for protecting the lens front, and because all my other Canon lenses have hoods, and I wanted it to match the others. Helped me keep my fingers from in front of the lens, too 🙄

When I had the Canon 35mm F2 lens, I used the Canon Hood (clamp-on) for the 50mm F1.8/35mm F2.8 and never got any vignetting at all.

You can screw the hood apart, and put in a series VI filter (I used Kodak Wrattens, they are cheap, easy to find and just a good as original series VI Canon ones) but you can also use the hood with the Canon RF 40mm Slimline filters, although they are kind of hard to find.

If I could find a 35mm F2 at a decent price, I'd probably grab one. I do miss that lens, although I have the 35mm F1.5
 
Last edited:
A hood would be no help on a 35/2, and, as such, was not available by Canon. It has flare when used in backlite (like every Planar type wideangle do) but no hood in the world can help with light sources within the frame...
Even my UC-Hexanon shows some flare. To a lesser extend than 50 year old Canon, but it shows. With light sources out of the frame, the Canon behaves good even without a hood (at least far better than the 35/1.5!).
This said, flare ist much better controlled than with it's predecessor, 35/1.8. Probably this was one reason why the launched it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom