35mm Canon RF lenses

What are $350 in 1990 Dollars worth today? $351 or maybe much more? Some ebay sellers ask for $480+. There is today an ubandance of offers for such lenses.
 
Some time ago I got interested on the 35/2, and saw that Igor from Cleveland had one listed for $325 (without adapter). By the time I geared up for the purchase it was gone.

This time, I'm after some for my Leica M4, and would like a silver lens. Hence, the f2.8. I'd like the f1.5 instead, but then...
 
I want to use the Canon 35/2 on the EP2 for portraits. When used on the M9, it is a moderate wide angle lens. If I add a 17/4 to the mix, I am covered for a trip with two cameras and two lenses only.

I paid today $335 for the lens.
 
Maybe the market for this particular lens is down at the moment.

I paid $400 for one on the classifieds here a year or so ago with nice glass but a lot of paint wear, after scoring a v3 summicron that I like using better. I listed the Canon for sale here this year and couldn't get any takers even at a discount...
 
I've had the 35/2.8 chrome and the 35/1.8, and still have the 35/2.0 (later version). All are good, but with different characters. The 35/2.8 chrome gives a more desaturated look to color and is tiny and well built. The 35/1.8 flares easily if you point it at a light source, but also gives glorious color and lovely b&w stopped down a bit. The 35/2.0 (the "Japanese Summicron") is very sharp and more distinctly modern in the way it renders. It's got an aluminum body, so it's light weight, and is much more flare resistant than tbe 1.8. I think it's a terrific all-round 35 lens at a fraction of the price of a Summicron. There are sample photos on my flickr from each of these lenses - just search by tags, or have a look at the Canon RF lens group on flickr.
 
burancap said:
Of all their 35's, I actually have both that interest you, the 1.8 and 2.8. I can not comment on their design -not my thing, but outwardly they appear to be same basic lens. That said, I seem to always grab the 2.8. I really like both of them though. Well built, nice sized, and rather handsome lenses in black/chrome. I am very pleased with their output:cost.

I just had a quick play with them. They definitely share some common components, but the 2.8 is actually a longer (bigger) lens than the 1.8. Subtle, but there is a difference. Of course, the 1.8 glass is of a greater diameter, but the bodies are the same. I don't know why I keep chasing Summicrons with these on the shelf. I am going to shoot them both this weekend!
Click to expand...

Very nice photos! There were two versions of the Canon 35/2.8 - an all chrome version from the early and mid 50s, and a black and chrome version from 57-60. The earliest chrome versions were also labeled Serenar. Same design throughout, though.

My 35/2.0 is a type 2 from 1971.
 
Bingley said:
I've had the 35/2.8 chrome and the 35/1.8, and still have the 35/2.0 (later version). All are good, but with different characters. The 35/2.8 chrome gives a more desaturated look to color and is tiny and well built. The 35/1.8 flares easily if you point it at a light source, but also gives glorious color and lovely b&w stopped down a bit. The 35/2.0 (the "Japanese Summicron") is very sharp and more distinctly modern in the way it renders. It's got an aluminum body, so it's light weight, and is much more flare resistant than tbe 1.8. I think it's a terrific all-round 35 lens at a fraction of the price of a Summicron. There are sample photos on my flickr from each of these lenses - just search by tags, or have a look at the Canon RF lens group on flickr.
Click to expand...

I only have the f1.8 and f2, and could not agree more with your assessment.

wide open samples taken with the f1.8/35mm ( all samples however are taken on APS-C, Ricoh GXR M )

14236351640_8806fa4ca3_b.jpg


13923404143_c8bf09d87a_b.jpg


and one taken with the f2/35mm

15804611197_7e4f3b13b5_b.jpg


a 100% CROP:
R1169474100.jpg


my set of photos taken with the 1.8/35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644035549111/
and the set of photos taken with the 2/35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644114143659/
 
Congrats Raid! I paid about the same for my Canon 35f2. It is now my only 35 RF lens.

Perhaps you could do a 35mm lens comparison with it when you get it.
 
I could do such a comparison with the M9, Frank. I now have several 35mm RF lenses.
Summicron version 1, Summilux pre-asph, Summaron 35/3.5
Canon 1.5, 1.8, 2, 2.8
 
I've really been hunting for a 1.8, but all the prices I see look really high.

At 350-400$ Ide rather buy the VC 1.7 Ultron.

I've only ever owned one Canon 35, that was the unusual 3.2.
Stellar lens for sunny 16, really compact, and gorgeously finished.
The results, hum dum average in my book, but for sub 150$ you can't go wrong.
 
Bingley said:
I got more photos with 3-D effects with the little 2.8 than with any of the other Canon 35s. It's a great little lens. Gives the Summaron a run for its money, IMO.
Click to expand...

Interesting to se your comments about the 3-D of the 2.8 given our exchange a long time ago about the same in B&W for the 1.8, Steve. I'll have to check it out.

Giorgio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

8
Help me Choose a 35mm for an Canon RF Article
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
wlewisiii
W
A
Fast mid-long zooms - why not?
Replies
18
Views
651
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
N
Canon LTM 35mm f2, Canon 35mm f2.8, Jupiter 12 - opinions on these lenses?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
8K
ACullen
A
S
Question about the effect of lens on color
Replies
16
Views
981
Stargazer63
S
dexdog
Fuji 35/2 LTM and Canon 35/1.8 LTM
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
rfaspen
rfaspen
Back
Top Bottom