Canon LTM 35/2 type I or II

[conradyiu]

Dear all,
Looking for Canon 35/2 lens and wonder what is the difference between type I and II. Any advice?

 

[dexdog]

From what i have read, there is no difference in the optics of the lenses between versions 1 and 2. The differences involve the writing on the lens bezel. See Peter K's website for info

www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=wide_angle_lenses&id=6

 

[ferider]

From Peter Evans, and http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JVd2, they seem to be slightly different.
Block diagrams are originally from pp. 36 and 38 of 世界のライカレンズ (''Sekai no Raika-renzu'') Part 2 (ISBN 4879560650).

I have only used the earlier one myself. Sharp and contrasty.

Roland.

 

[Sonnar2]

I've seen these diahrams at photo.net before but it looks to me that the second design will not work and it's probably wrong (first element too strong power biconvex lens). I haven't worked it through a ray tracing program but usually first elements of a Gaussian type needs to be convexo-concave.

 

[ferider]

I've seen these diahrams at photo.net before but it looks to me that the second design will not work and it's probably wrong (first element too strong power biconvex lens). I haven't worked it through a ray tracing program but usually first elements of a Gaussian type needs to be convexo-concave.

Interesting ... it doesn't look completely spherical either.

But then, the 37/1.7 Ultron front element is not convexo-concave, either ...

I don't know. I know my sample had weird bokeh and other Canon 35/2
users are very happy with theirs. I always thought that they might be referring to v2.

Roland.

 

[Mackinaw]

I don't know. I know my sample had weird bokeh and other Canon 35/2 users are very happy with theirs. I always thought that they might be referring to v2.

My old Canon 35/2.0 (just sold) had very harsh bokeh with background highlights that resembled fish scales. If you could get around that, it was an excellent lens.

Jim B.

 

[Sonnar2]

Interesting ... it doesn't look completely spherical either.

But then, the 37/1.7 Ultron front element is not convexo-concave, either ...

The C/V 35/1.7, alike the ASPH. Leica 35/2, isn't a Gaussian type either.

On the Schneider website there used to be a ray-tracing software for free download, but I cannot find it anymore. Anyway, the second diagram looks hand-drafted for me. The first diagram looks exactly like the ones published by Canon, or the one in Hooper's article for LHSA.

The Canon 35/2 isn't just quite in fashion at the moment, as it was 2 or 3 years ago.

The question is, for what use the lens. Yes, it may be harsher at f/2 than it's predecessor 35/1.8, but some might welcome it for better contrast, or detail resolution in shadows wide open. Lack of sharpness in the edges is clearly visible at f/2, which is not so clear with the f/1.8 because of "overall softness". It's not a cheap edition of the 4th ed. Summicron 35/2 - although very similar from arrangement of optical elements. After all it was released 18 years earlier, quite some time in lens development. This isn't a lens to use wide open if possible, but very strong from f/4 onwards and has still a great ratio performance : size (weight). A strong buy for a backpacker, traveller lens in screwmount. And just in case you urgently need it, you can use it at f/2. Moreover, I found the backlite flare less anyoing than with the CV 35/1.7, and even more predictable than with the CV 35/2.5.

 

[Mackinaw]

This (Canon 35/2.0) isn't a lens to use wide open if possible, but very strong from f/4 onwards and has still a great ratio performance : size (weight). A strong buy for a backpacker, traveller lens in screwmount. And just in case you urgently need it, you can use it at f/2.

Actually my old Canon 35/2.0 compared very favorably to my Leica 35mm Summicron ASPH at F2.0. Center sharpness and contrast were about identical with only the edges falling behind the ASPH. As I stated in a previous post, it was the harsh bokeh that cause me to give up on the Canon, but if you could get beyond that, it was an excellent lens, even at F2.0.

Jim B.

 

[Keith]

I have one of these and haven't used it much but it seems sharp and contrasty ... these are a couple of pics taken in Brisbane on my M7 with Bw400CN.

 

[Sonnar2]

Nice tonality in B&W. But colors are not so great wide open.

 

[JTK]

I've found #1 is good enough @ f2, but at f4 I've compared to my Summaron 35 3.5 (no haze) and it seems just about as sharp overall..though the Canon's a lot less prone to flare and enjoys better-designed access to fstops. Nothing odd about bokeh, though the Summaron's prettier.

Lens shade is manditory for the Summaron, even indoors, rarely for the Canon (though mine wears a Heavystar most of the time). I think the Canon's typical of Canon FD lenses, which I still use. I sent the 35f2 to Sherry/Golden Touch for CLA and she collimated/shimmed it...apparently desirable with Canons.