Canon 28mm LTMs 2.8 or 3.5?

[bonatto]

Looking for a compact 28mm, and since the Voigtlander 28mm 3.5 seems impossible to find, I'm considering a Canon 28mm. Between the two models in LTM mount, 2.8-3.5 are there any appreciable differences other than the speed?

Are there any reliable online dealers that may stock these?

 

[nikonosguy]

i had the canon 28/3.5 - - unfortunately, FrankS thinks it's his now --- superb lens ---

 

[johannielscom]

The 2.8 is very low contrast. The 3.5 is a bit better maybe.

I found out I like high contrast lenses. If you do to, I'd hold out for the 3.5/28mm Voigtlander.

 

[mretina]

canon 28/2.8 is a vintage lens, very low contrast, only sharp in centre and not so good in color. has a very nice signature though and produces very characteristic and pleasant images.

voigtlander 28/3.5 is probably the best voigtlander lens (together with 75/2.5) higher but not too high contrast, reasonably sharp, very useable in color as well as black and white. I do not think it is impossible to find.

no experience of canon 28/3.5

 

[maddoc]

I had the Voigtlander 28/3.5 in S-mount briefly and it was an excellent performing lens. Well balanced contrast and also very good for color. If you can find one in LTM I would go for it.

Alternatively, have a look at the Avenon/Kobalux 28/3.5. A very tiny lens and good quality.

 

[Livesteamer]

I have the Canon 28mm f3.5 and like it very much. It is quite compact and it comes with a good finder. It has enough depth of field that it turns my IIIc into a point and shoot. The Voigtlander 28 is going up in price and when they show up here they are quickly bought. I got my Canon from e bay for $200 with finder altho that was a while back. My other 28 is a Summicron and that is, of course, a much more capable lens but, I probably use the Canon more since my IIIc is my carry everywhere camera. My IIIc with its little Elmar 50, Canon f3.5's in 28mm and 100mm, some film and I have a small, lightweight kit that I enjoy traveling with. Try one. I'll bet you would like it. Joe

 

[Rotarysmp]

I have a Canon LTM 28 2.8. Never use it, as the focus throw is too long, so the tab ends up in awkward places. It is also soft and has poor color. On the plus side is look pretty cool on a chrome M2.

Since I have a summicron 28 the poor old canon really doesnt stand a chance.

 

[shimokita]

I have the Canon (L) 28mm f/2.8 (chrome) and find it acceptable, only shoot b&w with the IIIf. I saw a Canon (L) 28mm f/3.5 (chrome) listed at US300 but it was sold out :-(. The (black) 3.5 seems to have a better reputation.

Casey

 

[funkydog]

This guy seems to like his Canon 28/3.5.

Lotta pictures here:
..Tibet... a place like heaven　---　taken with M9
and
Canon 28mm f3.5 (Black version) LTM on M9 Testing shoots~

 

[raid]

I used to own a Canon 28/3.5. It was a tiny, sharp lens. I sold mine as I already have a Rokkor 28/2.8 and a Kobalux 28/3.5. The Canon 28/3.5 is supposedly sharper than the Canon 28/2.8.

 

[Calzone]

I owned a chrome Canon/Seranar 28/3.5. This lens is very compact, high center resolution, but softer corners for a retro look. This is not a high contrast lens, but it has very nice rendering. Focus throw is 180 degrees and the ergonomics are not the best due to the compact size.

I missed the chrome 28/3.5 so now I own a black 28/3.5 Canon that is about 1/4 inch longer with a real focus ring. The ergonomics are nice, but the lens is still small, some would call a pancake lens. It seems that the black versions had a different coating that offers a bit more contrast than the earlier chrome version, but at best it is a moderate contrast lens while the chrome version is low contrast. The front element is more deeply recessed, and since no hood was ever available I think the black version is more flare resistant as well.

If you can find a black version I say get it. The construction is lighter than the chrome version, although the chrome version is kinda bomb-proof. I really like how the black 28/3.5 renders on my Monochrom BTW and know that my other 28mm lens is a 28 Cron.

Cal

 

[aldobonnard]

Hi Fred 🙂
I can speak about the Canon 28/2.8 and Avenon 28/3.5, which I have.
The Canon P, wonderful for B&W. Not so easy to fast focus (very tiny lens). Very sharp past f/4.
The Avenon shows a similar character to the Canon, marginally sharper and more contrasty.
The opinion of the Leica dealer I bought it from, is that the Avenon 28/3.5 will surpass the Leica 28/2.8 v1/v2/v3, and he advised me to buy it - despite having a few Elmarit-M for sale -.

 

[raid]

Avenon or Kobalux are the same.
The color images come out beautiful.

 

[Calzone]

BTW slightly off topic: if you get the Canon 28mm VF'er with your lens know that the VF'er is kinda nice, but not as nice as a Leica of Zeiss.

Cal

 

[rfaspen]

Canon 28/3.5: Sharp, tiny, low contrast. Finder is quite usable. I barely use mine, but when I do, I'm shocked at how small the lens is. It gets lost on an M body, seems more at home on an LTM body.

 

[sanmich]

For my use (mainly street) a 28mm with a min focus distance of 1m and a long throw were a no-go. I bought the color skopar, and was happy (very happy) with it until I got the elmarit, and the little marvel had to go...

 

[kermaier]

The CV 28/3.5 LTM is not impossible to find -- I see 2 on eBay right now -- but it is rising in price. It's an excellent lens, very sharp with pleasant contrast and tonality, though there is some light fall-off in the corners on digital.

The Canon 28/2.8 provides a decidedly vintage look, with soft edges wide open, and low contrast. It can still be used very effectively if you know its limitations and want the character it delivers.

The Canon 28/3.5 is a better overall lens than the f/2.8. However, the earlier chrome version is very tiny, in terms of ergonomics, though very solidly built; and the later black version is not as solidly built, and is more prone to aperture linkage issues, but much more usable in physical layout.

::Ari

 

[kermaier]

BTW, if you need screw mount, there's also the vintage Nikkor 28/3.5, which is very compact as well.

 

[bonatto]

Thanks for all the input.

Michael (sanmich) touched on a very good point, and considering a 28mm this might be especially relevant for me, and it's the minimum focus. I do use a 35mm Summaron 3.5 which focuses down to 1m.

This will be my first compact 28mm for film, a fov I've been using quite frequently on digital. I have a CV 28mm 3.5 and an Avenon 28mm 3.5 on the way, with enlisted help from a couple of forum members. I'll report back on both.

 

[bonatto]

I haven't been able to put both the Avenon 28mm 3.5 MC and the CV 28mm 3.5 through similar paces, but wanted to report back on some thoughts on initial impressions having had a look at results from both.

The Avenon 28mm 3.5 MC

Size/handling: Possibly one of the smallest lenses available in LTM mount, rivalled only by the MS optical triplet. This does not, however, mean that it's a fiddly lens. The focus tab is well positioned, and the aperture ring is always out of the way, until you need to use it. Recessed optics are a big plus for using the lens without a filter, and the wide OEM hood does little in the way of adding bulk, but does limit access to aperture ring when on as I have wider hands/fingers. Depth of field scale is easily read. Seems to be a brass/alloy hybrid build. Smooth focusing and aperture mechanisms, though not built to leica-tight tolerances (though this may be due to age and normal wear and tear).

Performance: I did not shoot on full frame digital with either lens, so no idea how they performs there. On film the Avenon has an aesthetic I like very much, and the flare performance is amongst the best. As sharp as it needs to be at all apertures with minimal softness at far corners. Supposedly a hand made lens, so, impressive to say the least. 1m minimal focus distance is was limiting on very few occasions.

The Voiglander Color-Skopar 28mm 3.5

Size/handling: Like the Avenon, it's a tiny lens, but this one has a "cone" build, wide at base, narrowing towards front. It sits taller than the Avenon. Nice focus tab, but narrow and not as comfortable to rest a fingertip on like the Avenon's tab. This lens is a bit more fiddly to use, but nothing that gets in the way, it just feels more cramped despite its larger size. Depth of field scale less clear. Solid brass construction, and like others have already said, one of CV's best technical build efforts. Smooth focusing and aperture controls and very well designed/compat screw in hood.

Performance: Again, on film, this lens seems to have struck a serious balance between modern performance, and medium contrast. It's as sharp as it needs to be, but on an X-Pro 1 on a tripod and compared to the Avenon, it showed slightly different rendering (micro contrast differences?). Flare performance also excellent. Negligible light falloff at edges. .7m minimum focus distance allows for a much closer shot. 30cm on a 28 is a significant difference.

Final thoughts
These are two very capable performers at a very similar price point. I would not hesitate with either one, though I do prefer the Avenon's handling. It will be hard deciding to let either one go.