Kobalux and Canon 28mm

[Fred R.]

Greetings,
Prices are about the same for these two today, the Kobalux 3.5 and Canon 2.8. Anyone compare the two? Preference?
Fred

 

[johannielscom]

Greetings,
Prices are about the same for these two today, the Kobalux 3.5 and Canon 2.8. Anyone compare the two? Preference?
Fred

LTM lenses, I presume?

The Canon is older, contrast is lower and as a result delivers nicely muted, pastellish colors. I own a Canon 28/3.5 from 1952 and will not ever sell it, its rendering is unique.

The Kobalux is more modern and as a result will likely have higher contrast, more bright colors. Maybe somebody else can comment on that.

 

[Calzone]

I miss my Canon/Serenar 28/3.5, I lost it in a trade, but now I have a 28 Cron for a 28. It did have a very retro look that was charming.

I would add to the post above that the Canon 28/3.5 was made of chromed brass and had that 50's savage durability, and was a tiny lens. Also if you are lucky enough to get a Canon VF'er you would find it to be as bright as a Leica VF'er, but without framelines.

Good luck.

Cal

 

[sanmich]

I asked myself the same, and although I was tempted by the canon 3.5 black that seems to be the best one, I opted for the VC skopar for several reasons:
I like short throw lenses.
I want 0.7m min focus
The VC is a relatively new lens, relatively easy to find in good shape.

Since I have it, there is one more thing that I really like about it:
the focus tab/screw makes it very easy to focus it quickly "by the feeling"

I know it's not one of the OP two options, but that would be my advice...

 

[Calzone]

I asked myself the same, and although I was tempted by the canon 3.5 black that seems to be the best one, I opted for the VC skopar for several reasons:
I like short throw lenses.
I want 0.7m min focus
The VC is a relatively new lens, relatively easy to find in good shape.

Since I have it, there is one more thing that I really like about it:
the focus tab/screw makes it very easy to focus it quickly "by the feeling"

I know it's not one of the OP two options, but that would be my advice...

Good points. The Canon only can close focus to three feet and has a slow 180 degree focus throw, but it did have the distance scale marked exclusively in feet only which I found handy. BTW I wish all my lenses were marked in feet only. (Had a 50 Rigid V.1 that was marked in feet only, and currently own a 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM that is marked in feet only.)

For me I basically used the Canon/Serenar at mostly either F5.6 and F8.0 and zone focused effectively making my Leica a point and shoot. For this style of shooting it performed very-very well.

Cal

 

[raid]

LTM lenses, I presume?

The Canon is older, contrast is lower and as a result delivers nicely muted, pastellish colors. I own a Canon 28/3.5 from 1952 and will not ever sell it, its rendering is unique.

The Kobalux is more modern and as a result will likely have higher contrast, more bright colors. Maybe somebody else can comment on that.

I used to have both lenses, Johan (the 28/3.5 Canon and the 28/3.5 Kobalux), but I sold the Canon lens because it was older. The Kobalux has more contrast, and it is better for colors. My 21mm lens is an old W-Rokkor and my 19mm lens is an old Canon 19mm lens, so I wanted a modern 28mm lens.

Both lenses are good lenses, and it is more a personal choice, in my opinion. I kept the Canon 35mm/2.8 though.

 

[Fred R.]

Appreciate the comments so far. There's always something to learn in a question/answer like this. Any photos from these lenses wide open?

 

[raid]

Kobalux 28mm/3.5: (maybe) wide open

 

[raid]

Canon 28mm/3.5: wide open

 

[Fred R.]

Thank you, Raid.
Any thoughts on the differences between the Canon 2.8 and 3.5. I hear more about the 3.5. here on rff.

 

[johannielscom]

Garry Winogrand used to shoot the Canon 28/2.8 and as a result it's pretty sought after and expensive. That's why you don't see it too much...

Recently I saw two of them pass through the classifieds here though.

 

[Fred R.]

Thanks, Johan. So, celebrity distinguishes the 2.8 from the 3.5! Haha.

 

[raid]

I have read at RFF that the 3.5 is sharper than the 2.8.

 

[kermaier]

Thanks, Johan. So, celebrity distinguishes the 2.8 from the 3.5! Haha.

That, and a half-stop. 😉

But seriously, my subjective impression, having owned both the late black 28/3.5 and the 28/2.8, is that the f/3.5 was sharper. (I never compared them side-by side.) However, the results some here have posted using the f/2.8 make me suspect that some examples are sharper than others, lo these many years down the line.

::Ari

 

[raid]

I prefer my Rokkor 28mm/2.8 M to the Canon 28/3.5 in sharpness.

 

[johannielscom]

Raid, I'd be interested in seeing some shots of that 21mm Rokkor of yours, is that a modern lens, or a vintage one?

 

[raid]

Raid, I'd be interested in seeing some shots of that 21mm Rokkor of yours, is that a modern lens, or a vintage one?

Johan,
It is a non-retrofocus lens. My lens is a vintage lens. There was also a 21mm/4.5. Mine is the 21mm/4. I have a Minolta-Leica adapter which I had for many years (unused by me), so I finally saw possibilities for the lens. I will find some images for you.

 

[raid]

 

[raid]

The colors look like pastel, and the lens is reasonably sharp but not biting sharp. It is a good wide angle lens at a manageable cost. I may have pais $200 for this lens without the finder.

 

[je2a3]

Got my Canon 28/3.5 with VF last year, I like it a lot!

Wide open - Leica II/TX400/Diafine

E-P1

Flickr set