Kim Coxon
Moderator
I have come across a near mint 35/2. The asking price is £250 ($425) but it is in the UK so no extra tax to pay. Two questions, firstly is this price reasonable. I was really after a "user" one but if the price is right, I can soon make this a user one 
Secondly, how does the F2 compare with the 1.8 and the 2.8. The 1.5 is likely to be well out of the price range!!
Kim
Secondly, how does the F2 compare with the 1.8 and the 2.8. The 1.5 is likely to be well out of the price range!!Kim
Sonnar2
Well-known
keep waiting... the last one I saw (with both caps and case) went for 317 USD 7564070028
Last edited:
My 35/1.8 was $200. Is the 35/2 really that much of an improvement?
Sonnar2
Well-known
I dunno... maybe the "improvement" is a better contrast at f/2.0 than the older at f/1.8...
HOOPER speaks for the 1.8/35 too... let's take a look at the prices now...
HOOPER speaks for the 1.8/35 too... let's take a look at the prices now...
S
StuartR
Guest
Yeah, the 35/2 is around 100-150 dollars here in Japan. They are after speed speed speed. The 35/1.8 actually costs MORE here than the newer f/2.
I want the 35/1.5. Speed.... Good.
taffer
void
Grab a cheaper older 35 and adjust contrast in post-processing
Bill58
Native Texan
The 35/2 is w/o doubt the finest and rivals or exceeds the Summicron. At $300 or less, it's a bargain. Above that, you'd better buy the Nikon 35/ 2.8 or 28/ 3.5 in my opinion.
taffer
void
Some of them are now being offered for ~400-500 on a regular basis. Look for the counterpart anyway, while 50/1.5 and 35/2 skyrocket, 35/2.8 and 50/1.4 could lower their prices. There can't be high demand for EVERYTHING, there's always something in the other side of the balance.
I'm not sure if it rivals the Summicron, but at the current rates it will soon be more expensive
I'm not sure if it rivals the Summicron, but at the current rates it will soon be more expensive
Sonnar2
Well-known
yes, but the 1.5/35 got rare at the moment. Two years ago I saw one once in a month... anyone has had both??
back alley
IMAGES
i think it was sean reid's test that show the 35/1.5 is not so sharp, at least not as sharp as the other canon 35'2.
this past summer i took some shots with the 35/2 & 35/2.8 and the 2.8 had better contrast.
i was surprised at that as it goes against all the reputation. maybe it's just mine. the 35/2 seems very clean and no haze.
my favourite of all is the 2.8, not just for the look but also comfort of use. i like the infinity lock which the 2 lacks, making it a smaller more fiddly lens to play with.
joe
this past summer i took some shots with the 35/2 & 35/2.8 and the 2.8 had better contrast.
i was surprised at that as it goes against all the reputation. maybe it's just mine. the 35/2 seems very clean and no haze.
my favourite of all is the 2.8, not just for the look but also comfort of use. i like the infinity lock which the 2 lacks, making it a smaller more fiddly lens to play with.
joe
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Hi Guys,
Many thanks for the comments. I am leaning toward the 2 but if a 2.8 came along at the right price I would be tempted. However, I am thinking hard about the F2 I have seen. I know the last evilbay ones have gone for about $320-350. However, these have been US sourced and by the time I pay shipping, handling fees and tax that equates to $400-450. It will need some thought. In the meantime, if anyone comes across one at a good price, I would appreciate a HU.
Kim
Many thanks for the comments. I am leaning toward the 2 but if a 2.8 came along at the right price I would be tempted.
However, I am thinking hard about the F2 I have seen. I know the last evilbay ones have gone for about $320-350. However, these have been US sourced and by the time I pay shipping, handling fees and tax that equates to $400-450. It will need some thought. In the meantime, if anyone comes across one at a good price, I would appreciate a HU.Kim
taffer
void
OTH, how can a 35mm lens be bad ? They just have a so lovely focal length
Mackinaw
Think Different
Somebody on another list I'm on has posted shots taken with the 35/1.5 Canon and what he showed (wide-open) weren't all that bad. I wonder if this is another Canon lens that has to be callibrated properly (back-focus) to perform properly (see the 50/0.95 DR-1 thread).
My Canon 35/2.0 compares very favourably with my 35/2.0 Summicron asph. Wide-open central image quality is about equal with the Leica (much) better in the corners. Stopped down they're about equal. My main complaint with the Canon is its build quality. While very light, the barrel has a bit of play in it that makes it feel somewhat "cheap." Truth be known, i haven't used the Canon 35/2.0 much since I picked up the Summicron.
My favorite Canon 35mm is the all-chrome 2.8. This thing is a little jewel with build quality that rivals the best (chrome on nickle on brass. Sharp and contrasty too. It also looks cooll.
Jim Bielecki
My Canon 35/2.0 compares very favourably with my 35/2.0 Summicron asph. Wide-open central image quality is about equal with the Leica (much) better in the corners. Stopped down they're about equal. My main complaint with the Canon is its build quality. While very light, the barrel has a bit of play in it that makes it feel somewhat "cheap." Truth be known, i haven't used the Canon 35/2.0 much since I picked up the Summicron.
My favorite Canon 35mm is the all-chrome 2.8. This thing is a little jewel with build quality that rivals the best (chrome on nickle on brass. Sharp and contrasty too. It also looks cooll.
Jim Bielecki
back alley
IMAGES
'My favorite Canon 35mm is the all-chrome 2.8. This thing is a little jewel with build quality that rivals the best (chrome on nickle on brass. Sharp and contrasty too. It also looks cooll.'
i agree, although my 35/2 seems well built with no play to it.
joe
i agree, although my 35/2 seems well built with no play to it.
joe
JJW
Established
35mm lenses for Canon RF
35mm lenses for Canon RF
The Canon 35mm f/1.8 is a good lens.
The Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 is a spectacular lens.
The first pic is a test I did with the Canon 35 1.8 on my VT body and the second was shot with the Voigtlander 35mm Ultron.
To really see the detail, open the files in a picture editor like Photoshop or MS Paint (if you are a PC kind of a person).
35mm lenses for Canon RF
The Canon 35mm f/1.8 is a good lens.
The Voigtlander 35 f/1.7 is a spectacular lens.
The first pic is a test I did with the Canon 35 1.8 on my VT body and the second was shot with the Voigtlander 35mm Ultron.
To really see the detail, open the files in a picture editor like Photoshop or MS Paint (if you are a PC kind of a person).
djon
Well-known
I'm in love with my 35/2. It's not just "sharp" and it's not "contrasty" , it separates
tones exceptionally well. It's physically a gem. It's well worth $400-500, certainly is in Leica league. Makes me want a 50 1.4 Canon, despite my Nokton.
I don't know about CV 35 optical performance (I have a 25 and a Nokton 50) but CV is really just Cosina, after all, nothing like Canon/Pentax/real Nikon build quality.
Canon 35/2 is less than half the size of CV 35/1.7, fwiw.
It's true that Leica builds gems, and my long-gone 35 'chron was physically finer than my Canon (which equals anything else by Canon or Nikon)...but I don't think it was optically better.
Leica's biggest drawback is if Kim's looking for LTM: There's no LTM 35 Summicron, and if there was it'd be worth $1500.
A 35 2.8 Elmar LTM would be sweet if one could be found in excellent condition, but of course it'd cost $650+ and would be a stop slower than the Canon (which in my experience is quite effective at f2).
tones exceptionally well. It's physically a gem. It's well worth $400-500, certainly is in Leica league. Makes me want a 50 1.4 Canon, despite my Nokton.
I don't know about CV 35 optical performance (I have a 25 and a Nokton 50) but CV is really just Cosina, after all, nothing like Canon/Pentax/real Nikon build quality.
Canon 35/2 is less than half the size of CV 35/1.7, fwiw.
It's true that Leica builds gems, and my long-gone 35 'chron was physically finer than my Canon (which equals anything else by Canon or Nikon)...but I don't think it was optically better.
Leica's biggest drawback is if Kim's looking for LTM: There's no LTM 35 Summicron, and if there was it'd be worth $1500.
A 35 2.8 Elmar LTM would be sweet if one could be found in excellent condition, but of course it'd cost $650+ and would be a stop slower than the Canon (which in my experience is quite effective at f2).
Last edited:
djon
Well-known
Don't buy on price. A good lens is worth twice as much as a risky lens.
JJW
Established
The Voigtlander lenses are made very nicely and will hold up for years if they are handled well. Their "quality control" is very good since the consistency between examples has been quite good in my experience.
I am an old timer and I've been around for years and have gone through a lot of lenses as my hair went gray and fell out.
The older Canons had issues with quality control since they were inconsistent... I had tested three Canon 35mm f/2 lenses before I found a good one. I sold it 20 years ago. Now I look at the negs I shot with it and I wonder what all the ruckus is all about. It was nice, but the Voigtlanders are better.
The Cosina Voigtlander finish is not as high class as some other lenses like the Leicas and the older Canons. I hear people peeing on them because of this. There are also people who claim they need a Rolex Submariner to know the time of day. The Rolex sure looks nice, but I bet my quartz Seiko diver's watch keeps just as good time.
The proof is in the pudding. Enlarge the negative and have a look.
Now if you want a status symbol around your neck, that's a horse of a different color, isn't it?
Retro is "in", I guess... I'm so old I didn't realize it was "out".
I am an old timer and I've been around for years and have gone through a lot of lenses as my hair went gray and fell out.
The older Canons had issues with quality control since they were inconsistent... I had tested three Canon 35mm f/2 lenses before I found a good one. I sold it 20 years ago. Now I look at the negs I shot with it and I wonder what all the ruckus is all about. It was nice, but the Voigtlanders are better.
The Cosina Voigtlander finish is not as high class as some other lenses like the Leicas and the older Canons. I hear people peeing on them because of this. There are also people who claim they need a Rolex Submariner to know the time of day. The Rolex sure looks nice, but I bet my quartz Seiko diver's watch keeps just as good time.
The proof is in the pudding. Enlarge the negative and have a look.
Now if you want a status symbol around your neck, that's a horse of a different color, isn't it?
Retro is "in", I guess... I'm so old I didn't realize it was "out".
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i have no doubts about the quality of cv gear. i re-started in 35mm with a bessa r and 35/75 cv combo and was quite pleased with the results.
i like the older canon gear for any number of reasons though. i like the feel of the older chrome lenses, nice and heavy even if petite. i do not obsess over sharpness or contrast too much. i don't care as much for the black lenses, not the same feel to me.
i'm rambling maybe...i just like what i like is the bottom line for me and if it makes me happy and puts an image on film, cool!
joe
i like the older canon gear for any number of reasons though. i like the feel of the older chrome lenses, nice and heavy even if petite. i do not obsess over sharpness or contrast too much. i don't care as much for the black lenses, not the same feel to me.
i'm rambling maybe...i just like what i like is the bottom line for me and if it makes me happy and puts an image on film, cool!
joe