Canon LTM Help me Choose a 35mm for an Canon RF Article

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
8

8bit Barry

Member
Local time
7:52 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2025
Messages
44
Canon 35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2
Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5
Voigtlander 35mm f1.7

These are the choices I have narrowed it down to - what would you choose to match a Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM?

I regularly write for Amateur Photographer magazine here in the UK and after buying a Canon VT Deluxe and doing some research here on the RFF, I got myself a mint Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM. I am so glad I did, as its got so much character! The bokeh is wonderful but the I am struggling with a companion lens.

I got have a Canon 7s in the post from Japan. As soon as I looked through the huge viewfinder I just had to get one.
 
Last edited:
8bit Barry said:
Everyone seems to rave about the Canon f2 - it’s the look too modern to pair with the 50mm f1.2?
Click to expand...
I had both, and the Canon 35/2.8. The 35/2 is sharper, higher contrast, and somewhat swirly Bokeh.
The 35/1.8: more like the 50/1.2.

I ended up using my 35/1.7 Ultron LTM more, sold the Canon wides.
 
Last edited:
I've got the Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM and the Canon 35mm f2.0 LTM. I've never used a Canon 50mm f1.2 but I can say the 35mm f1.8 has a very vintage look, and the 35mm f2.0 has a much more modern look. So match accordingly.

Best,
-Tim
 
Not sure if you are trying to match any character between the lenses, but in that list the 35mm f/2.5 blows the vintage ones away. Never used the 1.7.
 
das said:
Not sure if you are trying to match any character between the lenses, but in that list the 35mm f/2.5 blows the vintage ones away. Never used the 1.7.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting to know. If the Color Skopar has decent bokeh then I’m certain it would fit well for what I’m trying to do.

I adapted the 50mm f1.2 over to my Canon R3 as soon as I got it and it looks so good at f1.2
 
Bear in mind that the LTM Voigtlanders of that era (late 90s/early 2000s) are prone to irremovable "haze"; supposedly something to do with the glue/cement between elements. Black-barrelled Canon lenses of the 60s have a similar problem in that haze in those etches and damages the glass.

I have to agree with everyone else - the Canon 35/1.8 is closest to the 50/1.2 in rendering. The 35/2 is much "cleaner" and more modern, and the Voigtlander lenses are much, much more modern again (for obvious reasons).

I own the 35/1.8, but I rarely use it - I tend to prefer the smaller 35mm f/3.5 Summaron if I'm going to use a 35mm lens, and I've been off-and-on about selling the Canon for a couple of years as a result. As a general rule, from f/4, the Canon's pretty good. f/2.8 is mostly useable. f/1.8 is tolerable in low light, but the edges and corners can be a bit of a mess and performance can get a bit odd close up.

Here's a few samples from the 35/1.8 on film to demonstrate what I mean. First, wide open at night, where it did much better than I expected:

LeicaIIIf (26).jpg

And stoppped down (can't remember exactly what to, but I'm guessing f/5.6-ish):
LeicaIIIf-2017-Foma-ID11 (5).jpg

f/4 is definitely its sweet spot:
Leica IIIg - Roll 14 - Foma 100 (17).jpg

But here's a prime example of why I don't generally shoot it at f/1.8 when I can help it:

Leica Ic - Roll 14 - Fomapan 100 - Rodinal (13).jpg

I feel like f/1.8 was a bit of a stretch too far for this lens design, personally. That's why I tend to stick to the Summaron - I'm only really losing half a stop if I'm mentally limiting the Canon to f/2.8, but I get a much smaller lens and the use of A36 filters instead of Canon's 40mm Series VI nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I am really thinking the 35mm f1.7 Ultron will be the best idea for me. I think the bokeh at f1.7 should be very useful and make a match for the Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM without all

1. Canon 35mm f1.8 is not great wide open.
2. Canon 35mm f2 has weird filters that I know could be problematic
3. Voigtlander 35mm Color Skopar f2.5 is too modern looking and won't have enough vibe.

Does anyone have any experience of the 35mm Ultron f.1.7?
 
Coldkennels said:
Bear in mind that the LTM Voigtlanders of that era (late 90s/early 2000s) are prone to irremovable "haze"; supposedly something to do with the glue/cement between elements. Black-barrelled Canon lenses of the 60s have a similar problem in that haze in those etches and damages the glass.

I have to agree with everyone else - the Canon 35/1.8 is closest to the 50/1.2 in rendering. The 35/2 is much "cleaner" and more modern, and the Voigtlander lenses are much, much more modern again (for obvious reasons).

I own the 35/1.8, but I rarely use it - I tend to prefer the smaller 35mm f/3.5 Summaron if I'm going to use a 35mm lens, and I've been off-and-on about selling the Canon for a couple of years as a result. As a general rule, from f/4, the Canon's pretty good. f/2.8 is mostly useable. f/1.8 is tolerable in low light, but the edges and corners can be a bit of a mess and performance can get a bit odd close up.

Here's a few samples from the 35/1.8 on film to demonstrate what I mean. First, wide open at night, where it did much better than I expected:

View attachment 4858688

And stoppped down (can't remember exactly what to, but I'm guessing f/5.6-ish):
View attachment 4858689

f/4 is definitely its sweet spot:
View attachment 4858693

But here's a prime example of why I don't generally shoot it at f/1.8 when I can help it:

View attachment 4858692

I feel like f/1.8 was a bit of a stretch too far for this lens design, personally. That's why I tend to stick to the Summaron - I'm only really losing half a stop if I'm mentally limiting the Canon to f/2.8, but I get a much smaller lens and the use of A36 filters instead of Canon's 40mm Series VI nonsense.
Click to expand...
Much appreciated - the f1.8 shot made me realise its not for me... the shot of the skater at the fairground is so good!
 
After reading so many horror stories about how the Canon f1.8 was much lower in contrast than the f2 version, I decided to do a quick test to see for myself how obvious the differences are. Here are both lenses shooting the same subject at the same aperture. I made sure both lenses were clean and free of haze and I included a light source in the photo to exacerbate any problems with flare, haze or significant differences in contrast.

You can judge for yourself. Straight out of the camera with no edits.

Canon 35mm f1.8 at f2
M2406236 by Brusby, on Flickr


Canon 35mm f2 at f2
M2406234 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
brusby said:
After reading so many horror stories about how the Canon f1.8 was much lower in contrast than the f2 version, I decided to do a quick test to see for myself how obvious the differences are. Here are both lenses shooting the same subject at the same aperture. I made sure both lenses were clean and free of haze and I included a light source in the photo to exacerbate any problems with flare, haze or significant differences in contrast.

You can judge for yourself. Straight out of the camera with no edits.

Canon 35mm f1.8 at f2
M2406236 by Brusby, on Flickr


Canon 35mm f2 at f2
M2406234 by Brusby, on Flickr
Click to expand...
They both look really good don't they. I can see the f2 has better corners but its not a lot of difference. It certainly isn't as though one has far less contrast than the other as the reviews seem to say. Thank you for that
 
8bit Barry said:
They both look really good don't they. I can see the f2 has better corners but its not a lot of difference. It certainly isn't as though one has far less contrast than the other as the reviews seem to say. Thank you for that
Click to expand...
Speaking of corners, here's the f1.8 lens in actual use stopped down a couple of stops. This formation of birds was racing by so quickly that I only had seconds to compose and shoot. But as you can see, even under such adverse conditions, the corners are amazingly sharp for such an old lens.

And the obvious question I have is would increased contrast of the f2 version have helped this image? I think probably the opposite.

I'm not trying to encourage you one way or the other, but I could be very happy shooting with either version Canon 35mm ltm.

M2404473 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
I don't think I've ever used the Canon 35/1.8 and felt like it was low contrast - I don't know where that's coming from! Here's one shot stopped down a bit on the Fomapan 100/Rodinal combo I use more than anything else; I wouldn't call this flat:

Leica Ic - Roll 14 - Fomapan 100 - Rodinal (9).jpg

If you're only planning on using it in the middle/optimum apertures, it's a cracking lens. If you're expecting "speed", there's better options.

Here's a curve ball: what about Canon's 35/2.8? I really like some of the photos I've seen from that lens on here; if I was buying a Canon 35mm again, I think I might opt for that over the f/1.8 version. How does that perform at f/2.8?
 
U82583I1532680875.SEQ.0.jpg


Canon ltm 35mm f1.8
 
In the end I found a deal on eBay I couldn't refuse - I bought a mint condition Voigtlander 35mm Ultron f1.7 LTM. I got this for £250, on eBay. As there were literally no decent condition Canon 35mm f1.8 / f2 options for sale here in the UK, I thought I would go Voigtlander.

I appreciate all the responses and time taken to show examples. I will do the same!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom