NicholasNicholas
Member
I'd love to hear some thoughts on these, see some photos and some guidance on real world use and what to expect / look out for!
Deciding between these to shoot a wider view on my Canon 7, Canon P, Bessa R. I've never shot 35mm lenses on rangefinders and am overwhelmed by the differences.
Canon LTM 35mm f2
Canon 35mm f2.8
Jupiter 12
a wildcard option is the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 LTM but I think it might render on the modern side of looks... also a few hundred more in cost.
Thanks
Deciding between these to shoot a wider view on my Canon 7, Canon P, Bessa R. I've never shot 35mm lenses on rangefinders and am overwhelmed by the differences.
- I am on a budget so Leica glass is out.
- I love the more classic rendering, Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM, helios 44m, Industar 50mm 3.5 LTM
- Something with some contrast and pop is great, but not essential. If it has a classic charm and nice optics thats best
Canon LTM 35mm f2
Canon 35mm f2.8
Jupiter 12
a wildcard option is the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 LTM but I think it might render on the modern side of looks... also a few hundred more in cost.
Thanks
Last edited:
newst
Well-known
You have listed two of my favorite 35mm LTM lenses, with a third, the Canon 2/35, that I consider an excellent optic, but perhaps with too modern a rendering to fit in with your expectations. Between the other two, I would avoid the Jupiter 12. While I love the look that it produces, it won't work with your Bessa R as the rear element interferes with the light going to the sensor. You will get a reading, but it will in no way be reliable. Using a J-12 on on a Canon P also has its difficulties. Some J-12s fit well on that camera, while others don't play well with that body. I don't know how you tell the difference in advance. I don't know how it works with the Canon 7.
The Canon 2.8/35 is one of my personal favorites. I will share three shots taken with a Canon L1 with Ilford PAN F for you to see for yourself.
Finally, another alternative you might consider is Canon's 3.5/35.
The Canon 2.8/35 is one of my personal favorites. I will share three shots taken with a Canon L1 with Ilford PAN F for you to see for yourself.
Finally, another alternative you might consider is Canon's 3.5/35.
das
Well-known
Imho, neither the Canon 35mm f/2 nor the Jupiter are exceptional lenses. The M39 Jupiter is not even designed to Leica spec but to Contax. The Canon is just ok in today's terms and does not even produce an interesting "vintage" look. On the other hand, the VC 35mm f/2.5 is a phenomenal lens that blows both away by a wide margin - definitely worth the asking price used these days and you probably won't be disappointed. 
.
.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The Canon 35mm f2 is the best of them. The Jupiter 12 won't focus accurately on any Leica. People will tell you that they will; they're lying or just don't know what they're talking about. That lens was NOT designed to be used on Leicas and uses a different focusing standard. Full stop, end of discussion.
The Canon 35mm f2.8 is ok but the f2 is sharper, especially at the edges.
This is so sharp at the edges that when blown up large, the text on the tiny road sign on the far left edge is readable. Canon 35mm f2
I had a Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 and sold it after just a few weeks. It was sharp, but excessively contrasty for B&W work. Was nice for color though. I have a friend who has one and it is not as sharp as the one I had. Cosina's quality control isn't great; I've seen a lot of sample variation in their lenses.
The Canon 35mm f2.8 is ok but the f2 is sharper, especially at the edges.
This is so sharp at the edges that when blown up large, the text on the tiny road sign on the far left edge is readable. Canon 35mm f2
Imho, neither the Canon 35mm f/2 nor the Jupiter are exceptional lenses. The M39 Jupiter is not even designed to Leica spec but to Contax. The Canon is just ok in today's terms and does not even produce an interesting "vintage" look. On the other hand, the VC 35mm f/2.5 is a phenomenal lens that blows both away by a wide margin - definitely worth the asking price used these days and you probably won't be disappointed.
I had a Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 and sold it after just a few weeks. It was sharp, but excessively contrasty for B&W work. Was nice for color though. I have a friend who has one and it is not as sharp as the one I had. Cosina's quality control isn't great; I've seen a lot of sample variation in their lenses.
Bingley
Veteran
I disagree w/ das's assessment of the Canon 35/2.0. It's quite sharp yet produces a roundness to subjects that is quite appealing. That said, given the OP's criteria, I would recommend the Canon 35/2.8, having had a couple of versions of this lens. If you're looking for a vintage look, meaning not overly contrasty, this is the one I would opt for of the three you mention. And it will likely be much less expensive than the Canon 35/2.0. One of the advantages of lenses w/ moderate contrast is that you can use them in bright sun while preserving highlights and shadow detail:
Taking a break by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
And the bokeh on the Canon 35/2.8 is also quite pleasing, IMO:
Interior by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Taking a break by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrAnd the bokeh on the Canon 35/2.8 is also quite pleasing, IMO:
Interior by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
das
Well-known
My assessment is not comparing the 35mm f/2 in a vacuum but to the world of better 35mm RF lenses. It's not that it produces bad results, but there is nothing particularly special or magical to it. It also has a 1.0m minimum focus which is extremely limiting. The 2.8 Summaron, the 1.8 Nikkor, any version of f/2 Summicron, etc are far better. The VC 2.5 is just a superior optic to the Canons in every way. It may be a little contrasty but it has zero distortion, can focus down to 0.7m, and is sharper than essentially any classic 35mm RF lens, including the Summaron and the Nikkor.
Bingley
Veteran
Undoubtedly there are many excellent 35mm lenses in LTM (or adaptable) out there, but the OP said he was on a budget and couldn't afford Leica glass. I think the Nikkor 35/2.5 is an outstanding optic, but finding one in LTM for the same or lower prices as one of the Canons would be a real challenge. Ditto for the Nikkor 35/1.8.
das
Well-known
The 2.5 Nikkor is indeed a fantastic lens, almost the equal of the later Summaron. It's basically cheaper to get an S mount one with an Amedeo adapter than find one in M39.
. And the S mount can focus 0.1m closer. Lol.NicholasNicholas
Member
Interesting input so far, thanks!
The photos are of a great help. The Skopar is indeed a very good lens, but it's also very modern in rendering and quite 'perfect' looking. I have lots of SLRs that I can get perfect results with, I suppose shooting a rangefinder makes me want to lean into more quirky / romantic / unique images?
I enjoy the more character-filled details: the out of focus rendering being different and unique is a huge plus for me. Hmm decisions decisions.
The photos are of a great help. The Skopar is indeed a very good lens, but it's also very modern in rendering and quite 'perfect' looking. I have lots of SLRs that I can get perfect results with, I suppose shooting a rangefinder makes me want to lean into more quirky / romantic / unique images?
I enjoy the more character-filled details: the out of focus rendering being different and unique is a huge plus for me. Hmm decisions decisions.
yossi
Well-known
A recent image shot with the ltm Canon 35mm f2 lens. Wide open. I like the look this lens gives.
NicholasNicholas
Member
looks good, nice sharpness and out of focus area is still interesting - seems like a great fit for documentary work and reportage...A recent image shot with the ltm Canon 35mm f2 lens. Wide open. I like the look this lens gives.
julio1fer
Well-known
My Jupiter-12 gives nice images but ergonomics are bad and its rear lens may touch the interior of your camera.
Not really elegant but you may consider getting an adapter m39 to m42 for access to a plethora of 35mm lenses for reflex cameras, much cheaper options with excellent quality.
Not really elegant but you may consider getting an adapter m39 to m42 for access to a plethora of 35mm lenses for reflex cameras, much cheaper options with excellent quality.
NicholasNicholas
Member
Interesting idea! Does an m42 adapter allow rangefinder focus?
NicholasNicholas
Member
Another suggestion given to me is the Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM - apparently it's a sweet spot of classic rendering and modern perks like coating and sharpness. On the more expensive side though...
trix4ever
Well-known
If you want character, why not the Canon 35mm f1.8 ltm, sample below...
Cheaper, less sharp in the corners but loads of character. Just a thought.
NicholasNicholas
Member
Yep, literally JUST looking at one now. Price is about the same as the others. All in all how does it handle, also on colour film what's the character like in your experience?If you want character, why not the Canon 35mm f1.8 ltm, sample below...
Cheaper, less sharp in the corners but loads of character. Just a thought.
Evergreen States
Francine Pierre Saget (they/them)
I cannot give advice on lens choices, only to wish you luck getting to explore composing with a 35mm lens on a rangefinder for the first time. Carrying 35 and 50mm lenses together for a rangefinder is just peachy.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I had one but disliked it. Far too clinical. I like my Jupiter 12 on my Leica M 240. Though Chris is correct that it is not technically the right focal length, the fact that it is a f/2.8 lens means that DOF hides it except at the most close up of distances and I never shoot that close with wides anyway.
Also, I have learned over time that I far prefer 28 to 35 and almost never bother with any wide other than my Kobalux 28/3.5 anymore.
Good luck and good light!
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Had one on a Leica CL & Canon 7. Loved it, probably should not have sold it but even by then I was moving to 28mm. I got a Canon 28/3.5 in it's place.
aw614
Established
I kinda splurged on the LTM version LLL 35mm F2 collapsible last year, but I also still have both the Chrome Canon 35mm 2.8 and the black one. I still use the canon lenses when I don't want to deal with the collapsible LLL. Plus the Chrome one looks great on Barnacks and the black one newer Canon LTM bodies
I probably overpaid a Japanese seller for the Chrome "near mint" (glass was) given the helicoids for focusing had old grease on it and I had to regrease mine (I paid around 250 back in late 2022). I made up for it finding a cheap black one on ebay that is clean optically, but whoever had it before me had it put it together wrong when they had to match the threads and sold it as "bent helicoid threads".
I found a few color shots, however, I don't remember if I was using the chrome or black one
I probably overpaid a Japanese seller for the Chrome "near mint" (glass was) given the helicoids for focusing had old grease on it and I had to regrease mine (I paid around 250 back in late 2022). I made up for it finding a cheap black one on ebay that is clean optically, but whoever had it before me had it put it together wrong when they had to match the threads and sold it as "bent helicoid threads".
I found a few color shots, however, I don't remember if I was using the chrome or black one