John Shriver
Well-known
I've read strongly held comments that the Canon 28/2.8 is sharper than the 28/3.5. No personal experience with the 28/2.8. I have the 28/3.5, and it meets my needs, but it is not sharp in the corners in the canonical brick wall test. Even stopped down, the corners are still not as sharp as the center. But, this is from looking at 1:1 views of 2900 dpi scans. Probably not going to notice much unsharpness at 8x10 after a stop down or two.
raid
Dad Photographer
John: Could it be that the old design of this lens was targeting sharpness in the center only so that the overall rendition of the photo is dreamy looking? Maybe it was the limitation of the design?
JJW
Established
If you give me a few days I can run some tests of the old Canons vs. the new Voigtlanders. I sold my old Canon gear to a friend of mine who is a collector. I can probably borrow them and shoot them alongside the new CV 28s.
In the meantime, I'll search my archives for scans of pictures I took with these 28s. I had a computer upgrade about a year ago and didn't migrate my old scans to my new PC.
If you look through the RFF archives for the Voigtlander forum sometime over the past year or so and you might run across a thread I started asking members to post their 28mm shots. I have some samples there.
In the meantime, I'll search my archives for scans of pictures I took with these 28s. I had a computer upgrade about a year ago and didn't migrate my old scans to my new PC.
If you look through the RFF archives for the Voigtlander forum sometime over the past year or so and you might run across a thread I started asking members to post their 28mm shots. I have some samples there.
raid
Dad Photographer
CameraQuest states that the Canon 28mm/3.5 is excellent optically (or something similar).
==> "28/3.5 Canon: Black, an excellent lens but hard to find"
==> "28/3.5 Canon: Black, an excellent lens but hard to find"
Last edited:
John Shriver
Well-known
I'm not 100% sure that the very late black/chrome Canon 28/3.5 is the same exact optical design as the earlier chrome ones. Peter Kitchingman does have them on the same page, but there's a big jump in the serial numbers. No question the black/chrome one is hard to find, under 2000 made.
JJW
Established
Well, the one I had was one of the early chrome versions and it was very sharp. Out to the corners, too.
raid
Dad Photographer
JJW said:
I just took some shots with the Canon 28/3.5. I still need to find a suitable lens hood for it. What did you use with this lens as lens hood?
back alley
IMAGES
no hood, the glass is deep enough to be ok.
i don't think canon made one either.
i don't think canon made one either.
raid
Dad Photographer
This is a good lens design. A lens hood is always a hassle to get for old lenses. I am always in fear of vignetting.
Sonnar2
Well-known
No hood on my 3.5/28 - see here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Wideangles.html)
And no need for it! It's amazing how flare-resistent this old lens is. Much better than with the 2.8/35 of the same vintage. Amazing. Sharp to the corners as well. Little light-falloff - what is to expect from a wideangle of that vintage, look at older Leica-pictures! I was very impressed by this little gem.
According to Hooper, both versions are rare: 670 the chrome one, 200 its black successor. Same optical design, I think. Im not sure if this is true, in conjunction to the 5.389 of the 2.8/28. They seem to be rarer in ebay. If the figure is true for the chrome one, then they are heavily underrated.
If my lens isn't a exception, this leads me to the conclusion that this is one of the lenses which made CANONs name...
cheers Frank
And no need for it! It's amazing how flare-resistent this old lens is. Much better than with the 2.8/35 of the same vintage. Amazing. Sharp to the corners as well. Little light-falloff - what is to expect from a wideangle of that vintage, look at older Leica-pictures! I was very impressed by this little gem.
According to Hooper, both versions are rare: 670 the chrome one, 200 its black successor. Same optical design, I think. Im not sure if this is true, in conjunction to the 5.389 of the 2.8/28. They seem to be rarer in ebay. If the figure is true for the chrome one, then they are heavily underrated.
If my lens isn't a exception, this leads me to the conclusion that this is one of the lenses which made CANONs name...
cheers Frank
JJW
Established
I used it with a Series VI filter adapter and lens hood, which I sold along with the lens to my buddy.
A lot of people who still use the old Canon gear look around for dedicated filters and lens hoods, but the Series VI and VII adapters, filters and accessories were the way to go back when all these items were in production.
Sonnar has a good webpage up on these lenses. The 28 I had looks exactly like the one illustrated. Mine was not labelled "Serenar" however. I believe Canon dropped the Serenar trade name at some point in the mid-50s.
Raid, I noticed you posted on photo dot net that you had a clean Minolta 28 looking for a new home. I recently got a Minolta CLE body and was hunting for lenses for it.
A lot of people who still use the old Canon gear look around for dedicated filters and lens hoods, but the Series VI and VII adapters, filters and accessories were the way to go back when all these items were in production.
Sonnar has a good webpage up on these lenses. The 28 I had looks exactly like the one illustrated. Mine was not labelled "Serenar" however. I believe Canon dropped the Serenar trade name at some point in the mid-50s.
Raid, I noticed you posted on photo dot net that you had a clean Minolta 28 looking for a new home. I recently got a Minolta CLE body and was hunting for lenses for it.
raid
Dad Photographer
Sonnar2 said:
Frank: I have the chrome version of the Canon 28mm/3.5. It really looks cool with classic cameras. I am planning to use it with my Canon IVsb and maybe with the Leica Standard, but the latter has no viewfinder or rangefinder. What did you mean by "According to Hooper, both versions are rare: 670 the chrome one, 200 its black successor." What do the two numbers (670 and 200) mean? Are these seruial numbers?
Sonnar2
Well-known
Production numbers according to Hooper's article about Canon RF lenses in LHSA magazine several years ago - cheers Frankraid amin said:
Meleica
Well-known
raid
Dad Photographer
Frank: Thanks for the clarification.
Dan: Prices can vary greatly from what is listed on that site. I take the list price as the minimum.
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm
Dan: Prices can vary greatly from what is listed on that site. I take the list price as the minimum.
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm
David Murphy
Veteran
John Shriver
Well-known
Peter Kitchingman's serial number range would predict about 9000 of the 28/3.5 chrome, 1700 of the 28/3.5 black/chrome (rare), and about 11000 of the 28/2.8. No idea what Hooper was smoking, these lenses would be priced like the 19/3.5 if the production numbers were that low...
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hooper had access to the CANON archive of production numbers, according to his article. Nevertheless the information he got can be wrong too. The article was written in the early 90's and was an excellent work for it's time, full of facts, but not completely free of errors.
I cited his production number on my website, but for my feel (ebay occurence) some more 3.5/28 were produced than he stated. Logic tells that for a 7 year run it should be, let's say, 1/2 of the 2.8/35mm produced in the same time. Maybe more because it was the fastest 28mm these days! Leica just offered a 5.6/28 then!
Gandy wrote "black- an excellent lens but hard to find". This makes me think he didn't know the - more common; longer produced - chrome version of it. Even a knowledgable man can't know everything. The chrome lens is an excellent performer for a wideangle lens of 1951, and still good now in terms of sharpness and contrast. Remarkable low flare too. This makes me agree with Gandy. Better than the 2.8/35 too! When compared to the new Voigtlaender 3.5/28mm, I'm sure it would get noticeable respect.
I doubt CANON had to change this excellent design when changing the outer form of the lens to black. They did it with several lenses without changing the optical design: 1.8/50, 2.8/35, 1.9/85, 3.5/100,3.5/135. Why should they change the 3.5/28?
I cited his production number on my website, but for my feel (ebay occurence) some more 3.5/28 were produced than he stated. Logic tells that for a 7 year run it should be, let's say, 1/2 of the 2.8/35mm produced in the same time. Maybe more because it was the fastest 28mm these days! Leica just offered a 5.6/28 then!
Gandy wrote "black- an excellent lens but hard to find". This makes me think he didn't know the - more common; longer produced - chrome version of it. Even a knowledgable man can't know everything. The chrome lens is an excellent performer for a wideangle lens of 1951, and still good now in terms of sharpness and contrast. Remarkable low flare too. This makes me agree with Gandy. Better than the 2.8/35 too! When compared to the new Voigtlaender 3.5/28mm, I'm sure it would get noticeable respect.
I doubt CANON had to change this excellent design when changing the outer form of the lens to black. They did it with several lenses without changing the optical design: 1.8/50, 2.8/35, 1.9/85, 3.5/100,3.5/135. Why should they change the 3.5/28?
raid
Dad Photographer
I have taken several rolls with the Canon 28mm/3.5 (chrome), and I find the results wonderful. The rendition of the faces are creamy and the sharpness/contrast performance is respectable.
raid
raid
bob cole
Well-known
Are Canon 28mm 2.8 LTM lenses rare? Reply to Thread
Are Canon 28mm 2.8 LTM lenses rare? Reply to Thread
Are Canon 28mm 2.8 LTM lenses rare? Reply to Thread
NIKON KIU said: