Canon LTM Canon 35mm f1.8 ltm - photos and discussion

[Bingley]

To be clear, I’m not dissing the 35/1.8... it’s a lovely lens among late 1950s optics, and the moderate contrast gives a pleasing look in both color and bw, including a roundness to subjects that may result from the lower contrast/somewhat desaturated colors. All of the examples below were short on film:

Cafe Society, Oslo by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Caddy by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Cricket Fans, Wellington Road by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Tivoli by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[brusby]

Steve, I don't doubt your experience. I just always like to confirm things for myself whenever possible and I was fortunate to get a clean copy of both lenses. Plus I wanted to see if the difference in contrast and flare resistance you and others report about the f1.8 is a design difference between those lenses or whether it might have been sample variance caused by something like a bit of fog in the older f1.8.

So I did the above very quick test and included a light source in the frame, fully expecting the f1.8 image to show very clear evidence of the reported lower contrast and for it also to have a bit of veiling flare or extra haziness around the lamp. But, to my surprise, I'm not seeing much if any evidence of either issue here. That's not to say those issues wouldn't show up in other images made under different conditions. Maybe the light source has to be much stronger or located more peripherally to trigger the flare you experienced. Again, I'm not doubting or discounting your experience in any way, just trying to recreate the issues with my lenses and some controlled testing. I'll be checking more when I have time.

 

[Bingley]

Bruce, It might be interesting to compare the lenses by photographing a subject framed by an open door or window.

 

[brusby]

Will do, Steve. This first test was a super quick effort to get a feel for the gross differences between the lenses. And I was fully expecting the images to look very different in terms of sharpness, contrast, flare resistance and color saturation. But when I looked at the results with the identifying info obscured, I was surprised to find them almost indistinguishable, at least without doing super close inspection of minute details. Maybe a more dynamic scene with stronger backlight will make differences between them more readily apparent. I'll try to find or set something like that up soon.

 

[Alas]

I just ordered a copy from Japan and can hopefully contribute to this thread soon.

 

[jc031699]

Brusby, all of your images seem to be marked as private now. Any way to have them available again? I’m signed in on Flickr. Thank you-

 

[brusby]

Brusby, all of your images seem to be marked as private now. Any way to have them available again? I’m signed in on Flickr. Thank you-

Yes, I had some problems with Flickr, but all those images should be visible now, 'just have to click on the link. Let me know if you have any problems viewing. Thanks!

 

[Darinwc]

I have both these lenses. Neither have issues with flare/haze/low contrast/veiling in normal conditions where there are lights etc.

Both lenses do have pretty strong ghosting flares in harsh conditions, where lights are shining ~at~ the lens.
But that is pretty normal for lenses of that age.

At least from a quick comparison on my sony ff. These lenses are nearly identical in design right?

 

[abnai]

Recently paired the 1.8 version with the FujiFilm XPro3. Some images from that combo.

 

[hendry86]

I have the 35mm F1.8 but realize I enjoy the F2 more. And recently got myself a F1.5 which I found myself using by default even though it vignettes quite a lot!

Hope I'm not going off topic, if so, please delete this post!

 

[brusby]

I noticed that most of my links in this thread had gotten corrupted. So, I've gone through and tried to fix them all.

There are plenty of reports of the f2 lens being a better lens that is more contrasty and sharper at wide apertures with the f1.8 lens being softer and more prone to flare. To get a quick feel for the differences under normal shooting conditions, I did a comparison in posts #18 and #19 above showing the f2 versus f1.8 both at f2, and including a light in the scene to check relative levels of flare, contrast and sharpness. There is a slight difference in contrast, but I find these two clean examples surprisingly similar.

It's a very limited test so I've been meaning to do some comparisons in more contrasty scenes. Hopefully soon.

 

[Timmyjoe]

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

I completely agree Steve. I too have both lenses and the 35/2 renders like my other modern lenses, where as the 35/1.8 is very vintage looking. When I get a chance, I'll try to do a side by side comparison.

Best,
-Tim

 

[brusby]

I completely agree Steve. I too have both lenses and the 35/2 renders like my other modern lenses, where as the 35/1.8 is very vintage looking. When I get a chance, I'll try to do a side by side comparison.

Best,
-Tim

Yep, that's exactly what I hear almost everyone saying and that's why I did my own comparison under the same lighting conditions.

I look forward to seeing your tests. If there are dramatic differences, it would be interesting to have some flashlight backlight pics to confirm the condition of the optics in each, just to eliminate things like fog, haze and/or fungus as contributing factors.

I own both lenses and don't have a horse in this race. So, it doesn't matter to me which is perceived as best. Just trying to see what differences there are between clean, properly functioning copies.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I don't see one or the other as "best", they're just different lenses, and render differently, horses for courses.

Three shots of the same Christmas tree in front of a bright window. Each shot was focuses on the red bulb in the middle of the image.

First up, Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM shot wide open at f1.8:


Next up, Canon 35mm f2.0 LTM shot wide open at f2.0:


And finally, Canon 35mm f1.8 shot at f2.0 to compare to the image above:


Like mentioned earlier, the f1.8 version is sharp on center, even wide open, but the sharpness falls off pretty quickly as you move away from center, look at the top branches of the tree against the window light and see how soft they are compared to the f2.0 version (even when the f1.8 is stopped down to f2.0). These were taken straight out of the camera (Nikon Z6) and the only adjustment was reducing the highlights, and shrinking to fit the internet.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

And the lenses are pretty much identical when stopped down. Here is the same scene, but shot with both lenses at f5.6.

Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM shot at f5.6:


Canon 35mm f2.0 LTM shot at f5.6:


You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Best,
-Tim

 

[ironhorse]

Thank you for the above comparison.
I have been happy with the 35/ f2 for years. Was initially surprised at how well this inexpensive llittle lens performed.
No reason to change for anything else.

 

[Mark240590]

December ‘24

Queen Victoria in Scarborough

Fomapan 400

 

[Zuiko-logist]

And the lenses are pretty much identical when stopped down. Here is the same scene, but shot with both lenses at f5.6.

Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM shot at f5.6:
View attachment 4853223

Canon 35mm f2.0 LTM shot at f5.6:
View attachment 4853224

You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Best,
-Tim

Thank you for the tests. Agreed on the above.

 

[Mark240590]

A couple from a recent roll