Black Canon 35 2.8 ltm lens

I own the chrome version of the 35mm F2.8 which, optically, is the same as the black version. Not much to say about either lens. Both are small, compact and light, perhaps a bit low in contrast wide-open but nice, sharp and contrasty when stopped down a bit.

My 35/2.8 spends more time on my Olympus E-P1 than on my film cameras.

Jim B.
 
The Black Canon 50/1.8 used a newer glass than the chrome 50/1.8. I'm not sure of the other lenses were changed over to the newer glass as well. It would not surprise me if the 35/2.8 was also changed over to the newer glass.

I only have the chrome version 35/2.8, amd very happy with it.
 
The old style 50/1.8 is plenty sharp and can render portraits beautifully, so I am not sure how much improvements the new glass brought in.

I also have the chrome 35/2.8, and I find it to be a very good lens.
 
I had both versions of the 35/2.8. The newer black/chrome lens had different color coatings, but they seemed to perform about the same. Chrome version is smaller and heavier. Black version has a more usable focus ring. Also, the black version has the front element sufficiently recessed in the barrel that a hood isn't usually needed.

I sold the black version, mostly for the sake of variety -- I have the 28/3.5 and 50/1.8 in black/chrome. It's a very good lens, and the chrome one was my first 35mm, but it doesn't see much use since I've accumulated a 35/2 UC-Hex, 35/2.8 Summaron, 35/2.5 Skopar, 35/1.2 Nokton and 40/2 M-Rokkor.

Ari
 
Back
Top Bottom