Canon 35mm f1.8 ltm - photos and discussion
- Thread starter brusby
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 9K
brusby
Well-known
Bingley
Veteran
This is a lovely lens from late 50s, with moderate contrast, quite different in the way it renders from the later 35/2.0. It really shines in bw, as your first photo shows. But avoid shooting in the direction of a light source, such as an open door or window, as it will flare badly.
The photo below was shot on a 35/1.8, and required a lot of post-processing to get the flare down so that you could make out the string quartet.
String Quartet by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
The photo below was shot on a 35/1.8, and required a lot of post-processing to get the flare down so that you could make out the string quartet.
String Quartet by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Bingley
Veteran
It’s wonderful with bw...
Starbucks, Great Russell Street by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Steps of St. Paul's by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Paying Attention I by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Starbucks, Great Russell Street by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrSteps of St. Paul's by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrPaying Attention I by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickrbrusby
Well-known
This is a lovely lens from late 50s, with moderate contrast, quite different in the way it renders from the later 35/2.0. It really shines in bw, as your first photo shows. But avoid shooting in the direction of a light source, such as an open door or window, as it will flare badly.
The photo below was shot on a 35/1.8, and required a lot of post-processing to get the flare down so that you could make out the string quartet.
I really like the flare here. Wouldn't remove it even if possible. Gives an ethereal feel. Beautiful photo.
I haven't made many images with this lens yet and was expecting pretty low contrast, but it's a nice blend of old and new. The color shot I posted is pretty much straight out of the camera with no adjustments to contrast -- just a very slight bit of saturation.
newst
Well-known
This is my go-to 35mm lens.
2020-09-26 Stage Canon L1 Canon 35-18 Kentmere 400 000549310017 (2) by newst54, on Flickr
2020-05-31 Stage Canon P Canon 35-18 Astrum 400 000457130005 Serenity by newst54, on Flickr
2020-09-26 Stage Canon L1 Canon 35-18 Kentmere 400 000549310017 (2) by newst54, on Flickr2020-05-31 Stage Canon P Canon 35-18 Astrum 400 000457130005 Serenity by newst54, on Flickr
Timmyjoe
Veteran
My copy of the Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM is tack sharp in the center, even wide open, but quite soft the more you move away from center. Can make for some interesting images. Stopped down to 2.8 or 4 it's pretty good across the frame.
It renders in a pleasingly vintage way IMHO and it is one of the 35mm rangefinder lenses that I've kept over the years. Sold a 35mm Summicron ASPH (too contrasty in B&W), Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 (Nikon S mount which I no longer use) and Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Aspherical Ultron LTM (didn't like the rendering in B&W).
Best,
-Tim
It renders in a pleasingly vintage way IMHO and it is one of the 35mm rangefinder lenses that I've kept over the years. Sold a 35mm Summicron ASPH (too contrasty in B&W), Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 (Nikon S mount which I no longer use) and Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Aspherical Ultron LTM (didn't like the rendering in B&W).
Best,
-Tim
Bingley
Veteran
Thanks much, brusby! This is the photo after post-processing. The flare in the original was a white bloom that obscrured the two people sitting by the window and the string players on the left. My recollection is that I cranked up the contrast in PS and then adjusted the exposure to get the image yiu see now.
brusby
Well-known
My copy seems sharp in the center and very soft towards the edges wide open too. 'Probably wouldn't shoot much at f1.8 unless I were going for a dreamy effect. Might be good for portraits, though. The shots I posted above were both at f8 if I remember correctly, and I think the corners sharpened up nicely. Now just need to shoot some more to get a better feel for the edge transitions with changes in aperture.
I haven't noticed the flare issues you illustrated, Steve, but then I haven't shot anything back lit yet. Could be interesting.
I haven't noticed the flare issues you illustrated, Steve, but then I haven't shot anything back lit yet. Could be interesting.
raid
Dad Photographer
Such a Canon lens has a reputation for having haze. Flare can happen .
02Pilot
Malcontent
Couple pretty torturous samples. I can't recall if these were wide open or not, but they were certainly close to it. The OOF areas are sort of nervous and a tiny bit swirly.
brusby
Well-known
brusby
Well-known
brusby
Well-known
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Brusby, those photos from the M240 look great. I tried my 35/1.8 on the X-T1 ages ago and it was so bad that I've never fitted it to a digital body since. In fact, it put me off using the lens full stop.
I dug it out again last summer and was really impressed with what it can actually do:
Robyn in the Hoop by Tony Gale, on Flickr
That was shot wide open on Foma 400 in Rodinal (hence the grain - didn't have some LC29 to hand!) in such dim light that I wasn't really expecting anything usable at all. I was really impressed when I actually saw the scan. Great little lens.
I dug it out again last summer and was really impressed with what it can actually do:
Robyn in the Hoop by Tony Gale, on FlickrThat was shot wide open on Foma 400 in Rodinal (hence the grain - didn't have some LC29 to hand!) in such dim light that I wasn't really expecting anything usable at all. I was really impressed when I actually saw the scan. Great little lens.
brusby
Well-known
Nice tones Coldkennels. 'Enjoying the unusual and interesting pose plus lovely subject. Looks like a fun way to spend the day.
I like the handling, small size and light weight of this little lens.
I like the handling, small size and light weight of this little lens.
newst
Well-known
2020-05-31 Stage Canon P-Canon 35-18 Astrum 400 000457130014 by newst54, on FlickrOver the years I have seen many people comment on how they prefer Canon's 2/35 over this lens as it produces a 'more modern' image. Personally I prefer the 1.8.
brusby
Well-known
Quick comparison of Canon 35mm f2 LTM versus 35mm f1.8 LTM
After hearing for years about how different these two lenses are, including how the newer f2 has a much more modern look and higher contrast, I am surprised at how similar they are, particularly in the center. Both images processed in exactly the same manner.
Canon 35mm f2 ltm at f2
M2406234 by Brusby, on Flickr
35mm f1.8 at f2
M2406236 by Brusby, on Flickr
After hearing for years about how different these two lenses are, including how the newer f2 has a much more modern look and higher contrast, I am surprised at how similar they are, particularly in the center. Both images processed in exactly the same manner.
Canon 35mm f2 ltm at f2
M2406234 by Brusby, on Flickr35mm f1.8 at f2
M2406236 by Brusby, on Flickr
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
Close crop of image above. 35mm f2 on left. 35mm f1.8 at f2 on right.
Screen Shot 2021-03-22 at 8.19.37 PM by Brusby, on Flickr
Screen Shot 2021-03-22 at 8.19.37 PM by Brusby, on Flickr
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
I’m one of the ones who’s said that the 35/2.0 has a more modern look to its images than the 35/1.8, and I’m sticking to my story. Now, I’ve only shot these lenses on film, and that could make a difference. But in my experience the 35/2.0 is more contrasty and has more flare resistance. The photo below was taken with my sample of the 35/2.0 not long after I got the lens, but before I sold my sample of the 35/1.8. I could not have taken this image with the 35/1.8: the flare would have obliterated the image of the young lady. The 35/2.0 handled the scene without an issue.
By Rail by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
By Rail by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr