35mm LTM Lens Question

N

nation_of_pomation

Established
Local time
12:44 PM
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
109
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
View My Gallery
Hi everyone! Quick question: for LTM cameras, what are some good options for a 35mm lens other than the Jupiter-12? I am planning on buying one because they're so affordable, but I'd be interested in others. I've heard some good things about the Canon 35mm/f2. What are everyone's thoughts?
 
Just get yourself an LTM color skopar. On your Canon P this has the advantage of focusing down to 0.7m.

They are really hard to beat technically and cost around US 300 in good used condition. Easy to filter, great handling, sharp and rectilinear, nice bokeh, etc.

Roland.
 
I currently have both the Canon 35/1.8 and the Canon 35/2.0 (second version), and have had the small, chrome Canon 35/2.8. And I also had the CV Skopar 35/2.5 in LTM mount, and still have the PII version (M mount).

The Canon 35//2.0 is very very sharp and more modern in its rendition than the 1.8 or 2.8. It is sometimes nicknamed the "Japanese Summicron" and has been compared favorably to the pre-ASPH 'chrons. Some folks have found the bokeh from this lens unattractive, but I think that's a matter of taste. I'm loving mine and it's becoming my go-to 35mm lens. But this lens is also more expensive than the other Canon 35s. There is some disagreement over whether there were any changes made to the lens design or coatings between versions 1 and 2 of this lens. My sample is from 1971 and was purchased from a member here.

The 35/1.8 dates from the late 1950s, and is fairly soft wide open and at f2. It sharpens considerably as you stop down from there. It is not as contrasty as the f2, and I think is well suited to b&w photography (although I've been pleased w/ color photos from this lens). Wide open, it's soft and dreamy which can be nice for portraits. It tends to flare easily when pointed at a light source. I think it's a very fine lens, particularly if you're looking for more of a vintage look.

The 35/2.8 (chrome version) is an early '50s lens that is tiny, well made, and very very good. It is a high resolution/moderate contrast lens, that gives the Leica Summaron a run for its money. Color photos with this lens have somewhat muted hues (compared to the 35/2.0) and can have a nice, rounded, 3-D effect. If you're looking for a small, high quality lens, this one may be worth seriously considering.

The other LTM 35 you should conisder is the CV Skopar 35/2.5, which is very very sharp, flare resistant, and tiny. It gives a more modern look than the Canon 35/1.8 or 2.8, and will be sharper wide open than either of those lenses. And it's a real bargain given how good it is. There are LTM and M-mount versions of this lens, but the optics are identical. The Skopar also has the advantage of focusing to .7 m, instead of 1 meter like the Canons.
 
I recommend 35/1.8. I found CV 35/2.5 skopar too modern look for what I seek from an LTM lens, although I probably regret having sold as I miss its useability and 0.7m focus. Never tried 35/2.8 or 35/2, the latter arguably the best option, but it is quite pricey though and at that stage you may consider a 35/2.8 summaron, probably the best 35 in LTM I came across.
 
Sorry about your budget. The Konica UC-Hexanon is a dream. I also own the early, tiny, solid, very nice all chrome Canon 35/2.8 with original case, finder & hood. Do I really need 2 35mm lenses? Perhaps. It is comforting to know that you own two of the best.
Good hunting!

Wayne
 
I have the Canon 35mm f 2.8. I agree that it is a sharp, low contrast lens, and the images match the look of my Canon 50 mm 1.8 very well. It handles well on each of my LTM bodies, although I know there are some that would be driven nuts by the infinity lock. That is easily removed if you are one. I leave it in place.

I use a Jupiter 3 for portraits, but I really like the look I get from the Canon for landscapes and street shooting.
 
All the Canon 3.5cm & 35mm lenses are good. I've owned the heavy chrome f/2.8 and the later all black f/2. Both were fantastic. (I note 3.5cm and 35mm as the way the lenses were marked denotes their age.)

Same with the Nikkors. I have the 3.5cm f/1.8 Nikkor and it's a dream to shoot. The images it makes are outstanding. The 3.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor could be technically better than the f/1.8 version but I sold the slower f/2.5 for the extra stop.
The f/2.5 is much more common on the used market and not as highly prized though it is every bit as good, if not better aperture-for-aperture.

The Komuras are great lenses, whatever name they bear. Tiny too.

Aside from the 3.5cm f/1.8 Nikkor, the best 35mm LTM lens I've ever used was the Konica UC Hexanon. It's perfect.

Don't discount the Leica Summarons as well. Both f/2.8 and f/3.5 are excellent performers.

As for the Jupiter-12, it's one of the best 35mm lenses ever made due to it's true Biogon formulation. No distortion, and good samples are very sharp. My old J-12 was sharp enough to excite moire on the M9 sensor so the lens is up to any task it was handed.

Phil Forrest
 
Honestly, I tried the J12 and I do not see what could be better at this price level. This lens is very much usable, had good results on film and on my M8. OK, my old 'lux 35 is faster and perhaps sharper stopped down, I like its rendering very much but I paid for it 13 times the price of my '57 J12.
 
i can't contribute anything regarding to canon ltms but i wish i could get my hands on them someday.
i found the CV 35/f1.7 quite ok in it's rendering. maybe it's my copy but i think it has quite the classic look to it.
 
nation_of_pomation said:
Hi everyone! Quick question: for LTM cameras, what are some good options for a 35mm lens other than the Jupiter-12?
Click to expand...

Canon 35/1.5 if you can find one. A better lens than the Summilux pre asph in my opinion.

35mmf15_01.jpg
 
just a HU I have a beautiful copy of the 35 1.8 canon in the classifieds for cheap, it's a great lens only selling because I'm a gearnut and got a summicron recently.
 
Hi,

It really depends on how much you want to spend. And allow for the cost of the adapter if buying one with the screw mount; Leitz and Voigtlander are the ones to chase after. It's best to look at prices and do some sums when considering LTM lenses and adapters.

Regards, David
 
I have the Voigtlander Color Skopar, and it is a very, very nice lens. But I also own the Nikkor 35/2.5 and it gets the Lion's share of time on my IIIc.
 
Try the 35mm Summaron. Fairly inexpensive, compact and sharp. Wait, I take that back! Just looked at e abay and they are going for $500 and up. Try a Jupiter 12 or CV glass.
 
venchka said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I have to wonder about that. With any lens, especially the decades old variety, it always comes down to Condition, Condition, Condition.

Wayne
Click to expand...

Hi,

It was adapters, not lenses. I've had several adapters that were slightly too fat or too thin, and several that would only bring up 50 or 35 mm frame-lines despite being marked for other focal lengths.

Regards, David
 
My apologies. Yes, I agree. I own Leitz adapters. 2 @ 35mm/135mm, 1 @ 50mm and 1 @ 90mm. My total cost for all 4 was under $100. I would never think of using anything else.

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Canon LTM 35mm f2, Canon 35mm f2.8, Jupiter 12 - opinions on these lenses?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
8K
ACullen
A
8
Help me Choose a 35mm for an Canon RF Article
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
wlewisiii
W
S
Question about the effect of lens on color
Replies
16
Views
986
Stargazer63
S
R
Canon LTM 35mm f/2 - Good Deal at $260 + Shipping?
Replies
8
Views
495
Sonnar Brian
Sonnar Brian
CandidChronicles
Alternative to Voigtländer 35mm 2.5?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
1K
filmtwit
filmtwit
Back
Top Bottom