Canon LTM 35 x 4 - a lens test

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
4:39 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
well, maybe not such a great test but i tried...

i tell ya, for a disorganized non linear thinker, this was a chore.

place your curser over the pic to see what lens you're looking through.

all shots on hp5 in ddx, same roll of film.
one camera, tripod mounted - 1/60th @ f4

all scanned in one session on canon 2710, no adjustments in photoshop except for resizing.

the scene, my basement, one overhead bulb in a silver reflector and one bare bulb in the scene.

can't think of anything else.
 
Aside from the first (35/3.5) showing more flare, I personally can't see much significant difference.

Of course, I think the 35/2 is the best, since that's the only one I have. ;)

Thanks for sharing these, Joe.
 

Now im suffering from lense envy! I only have two 35mm lenses right now. One thing your test does is shows how great digital processing is. I cant wait til the day I can load up twenty processed prints in my computer and then plug in directly to my enlarger skipping the manual dodge and burn because its already done. Thanx for the tests.
 
Thanks Joe! Is there any way you can enlarge just a small section of each test shot that includes some text (on a box)? Viewing an enlarged section may tell a story.
 
There appears to be quite a bit of vignetting with the 35/1.8 wide open.

The 35/2 looks to my eye (I am getting dizzy going back and forth between pics :) ) to have the best resolution, wide open (look at the '500' on the box). It should be even better than the 2.8 and 3.5 when stopped down equally.

But let's wait for the crops. :)
 
i don't see the vignetting ray but my eyes are also getting tired at this point.

in photoshop, looking at the can of contact cleaner on one of the shelves i think the 2 has a very slight edge over the 1.8 - then the 2.8 and then the 3.5.

i'll try to crop/save a smaller section.
 
xayraa33 said:
I agree with ray_g , that 35/f3.5 seems like a flare monster.
Click to expand...

remember, this is the one that i cleaned (lots of grime on the glass) and there also is some haze still there, between 2 elements that i cannot get at to clean.
my guess is that a clean sample of this lens would be less sharp than the others but not necessarily having more flare.
 
back alley said:
remember, this is the one that i cleaned (lots of grime on the glass) and there also is some haze still there, between 2 elements that i cannot get at to clean.
my guess is that a clean sample of this lens would be less sharp than the others but not necessarily having more flare.
Click to expand...

I hope so Joe, I would not think that Canon would make such flare prone lens as your sample, mind you that is one of the first wide angles that Canon/Serenar ever made. it is from a different time period than the rest of your 35s.
 
xayraa33 said:
I hope so Joe, I would not think that Canon would make such flare prone lens as your sample, mind you that is one of the first wide angles that Canon/Serenar ever made. it is from a different time period than the rest of your 35s.
Click to expand...

i do think it's the haze as it is way less flare prone now than before i cleaned it.

i'm hoping to find another cleaner sample to either replace this one or repair it.
 
Last edited:
i'd like to re do this in the daylight with better light.
this test is more for low light situations.

as soon as it's warm again...
 
the Serenar 35/f3.5 was a 35mm Elmar copy, Nikkor also made one before the war and went into full production after the war in the Nikon rf mount & in Ltm. The Nikkor 35/3.5 was well regarded, but photographers like David Douglas Duncan used the Nikkor 50mm f 1.5 & the 85mm f2 on his Leicas, but used german glass for his 35mm wide angle in 1950. the Nikkor 35/f3.5 stayed in production till 1960 and was one of the lowest priced Nikkor lenses, with a list price of $99.00
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom