Canon 28mm 2.8?

[kchong]

Hi All,

I've been offered the above LTM lens for US$260 but I can't find any recent transactions. Could you guys please chime in whether this is a good deal or not?

Thanks!

 

[back alley]

very good price!
i'll take it if you don't!

joe

 

[kermaier]

What Joe said -- I'll take if you don't, and I already have one! 🙂
::Ari

 

[kchong]

Thanks guys! Looks like I'll be getting a new lens tomorrow 🙂 Any of you know how it compared to the CV 28/2 or the early Leica 28/2.8?

Crap, just heard from the seller than there's some flaws in the glass... Still a good deal though?

 

[back alley]

the older canon lenses are usually known for high resolution and lower contrast...very nice for digital use as well as film.

flaws? depends...minor cleaning marks, not usually a problem...i had a lens with a tiny chip on the rear element and it was fine.

 

[kermaier]

The CV 28/3.5 is a "better" lens, in terms of contrast, flare resistance, color saturation and, probably, resolution. It also focuses closer, and uses 39mm filters (as opposed to the Canon's odd-ball 40mm filters).
The Canon 28/2.8 (at least my sample) is much softer wide open, but very good stopped down to f/5.6 or so. It gives a nice lower-contrast image, with more muted colors. Nice in bright sunlight, if you need to tame the dynamic range of the scene a bit.
It's really a matter of what you want to see in your pictures.

::Ari

 

[raid]

I used to own a nice Canon 28/3.5. Some claim that it is sharper than the Canon 28/2.8. No clue if such a claim is true or not. The price of your Canon 28/2.8 is about $200 below market.

Congratulations.

 

[kchong]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I prefer the low-contrast look of old lenses so I'm dead set on getting the 28. Will post some results soon 🙂

 

[kchong]

As the saying goes, if it's too good to be true, it usually is. It looks like there's a ring of haze on the edges of the rear element. Anyone have experience with haze on these lenses? Can it be cleaned off without damaging the lens?

 

[kbg32]

Bring it to a reputable camera service and have it professionally cleaned. I know people do these by themselves, but I would rather trust it to someone with experience.

 

[kermaier]

If it's an even ring around the outer edge, it could be separation or simply yellowing/aging of the cement between the glass elements in the rear group. Get a repair shop to take a look and give an opinion.
Ari

 

[mretina]

Nice one. I paid very little for a clean ugly one very recently. I post a link to a few shots I have taken a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrapx/sets/72157630750359500/

 

[mretina]

those two are wide open


Liverpool Street, Canon 28mm f2.8 RF di mraposio, su Flickr


Liverpool Street, Canon 28mm f2.8 RF di mraposio, su Flickr

 

[bobkonos]

Consider Essex Camera in NJ for Canon lens cleaning

Consider Essex Camera in NJ for Canon lens cleaning

As the saying goes, if it's too good to be true, it usually is. It looks like there's a ring of haze on the edges of the rear element. Anyone have experience with haze on these lenses? Can it be cleaned off without damaging the lens?

They do a good job. Worth a try since you got such a fine deal on the 28mmf2.8 lens.

 

[kchong]

So I sent the lens for a cleaning and there's still some haze left but it's a lot better than it used to be. I managed to spend an afternoon shooting after I picked it up and here's some of my favourites.


L9996640 by chongkenneth, on Flickr


L9996605 by chongkenneth, on Flickr


L9996590 by chongkenneth, on Flickr

Overall, I really like the way the lens renders. I shot most of these at 2.8 to really stress the lens and I noticed that the center is somewhat sharp but the corners can be very soft. Also, the lens handles flare pretty terrible but gives an odd glow in the highlights at certain times.

For those of you who own a copy of this lens, are you getting similar results?

 

[ampguy]

I sold mine (regrettably), but mine had pretty good flare rejection (I had types II and III - later ones), so your flare could be related to the haze you mentioned. Wide open, the edges are softer than the center, and there is vignetting, but I really liked this lens a lot.

These were taken with expired Reala, exposed at ISO 50: here

 

[kchong]

Thanks for the feedback, ampguy. I'm pretty sure the haze is the source of the flare but then again, I was torturing the lens by shooting at F2.8 in daylight. I'll head out again tomorrow and see if it's any better at more typical apertures.

 

[Stan]

Gawd, is that a normal price? I got mine along with an 85mm Jupiter and a Kilfitt for $NZ 100.

 

[fotomeow]

I have a Canon Serenar 28/2.8 LTM from 1957. Definetely a keeper. Has the quintessential look of the 50s/60/s which I love; mostly used for B&W;
This lens is actually pretty sharp, adding to an illusion of increased contrast, though it is still medium (but not low) contrast in my book.
I paid about $500 for it, but it is an exceptional specimen.
This lens and a CV 28/1.9 Asph is all I will ever need for a 28mm length. (though I retain the retain to buy more!)