Canon LTM Canon 35/1.5: A Tribute

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Once upon a time I had a 35mm F:1.8 Nikkor in LTM mount. I used it for twenty plus years and was never dissatisfied. But I had a 50mm F:1.2 Canon and a 100mm F:2.0 Canon. The Nikkor seemed out of place. I knew there existed an F:1.5 35mm Canon . . .

I put the Nikkor out on "EVIL-BAY" and was positively stunned at the price it finally commanded.

I bought my 35mm F:1.5 Canon and have been happy ever since. I'm the second owner - the original having bought it in 1962.

As for its' rarity? I've never seen another. Hell - aside from the 50mm F:1.2 Canon, I've never seen another of any of my Leica/Canon gear.

Thanks for the thread.

Paul
 
Hi guys, first thank you for this thread. Then, I own a Canon 35mm f/1.5 LTM myself and I really love this lens. In fact it's certainly my favorite one, all mounts.

I've just found a M-Summilux 35mm f/1.4 1rst version (non-asph), so I hope I'll be able to compare them soon. Summi is pretended to be quite soft wide open, but to me it should be better in B&W than the Canon 35mm f/1.5.

After 18 months using it in every day use, I find the Canon not so good in B&W, compared to the 35mm f/2 for example (a real Summicron killer with incredible bokeh WO). But for colours, with slides films, I must say I just L O V E the Canon 35mm f/1.5 LTM. I noticed the same thing with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM : very 'milky' with flare in B&W at wide apertures, I did not like it very much, but with colors...

Dante Stella, who seems to like Canon LTM lenses, wrote :

We accept that a F/1.4 lens is tougher to make than an F/2.

Probably easier with a longer than a shorter lens. There are several brilliant choices, for instance, in an 85 /1.4 lens: Contax Planar, Leica R Summilux, Nikon, Minolta... they are all expensive, have fantastic 'build quality', and deliver wonderful, EQUAL, images. And all must be used wide open to show off their unique image properties: a fine F/2 lens is as-good-or-better at any aperture smaller than F/2.8. And I'll suggest there is less difference between F/1.4 and F/2 performance at 85mm than at 50mm, and less at 50mm than 35mm.


I'm sure he's right, and comparing the 50mm f/1.2 to the 35mm f/1.5 suddenly makes sense, don't you think ?

FYI, Peter Kitchingman talks about 5537 copies of this lens. 😉
 
Very nice images from everyone!

There was a Canon 35mm f/1.4 LTM that never quite made it to production. Does anyone know why Canon went with 1.5 instead of 1.4? Any information would be appreciated.

Cheers,
 
bennyng said:
There was a Canon 35mm f/1.4 LTM that never quite made it to production. Does anyone know why Canon went with 1.5 instead of 1.4? Any information would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Are you sure of this, Benny ? I've never heard about and PK does not mention it.

raid said:
I have the Canon 1.5 trio: 35-50-85.
Which one do I like the most? Make a guess.
Click to expand...

I guess it's the 50mm f/1.5... you alone are responsible of the increase of this lens... ha ha... 😀

I would like to have the 50mm f/1.5 but I already have the 50mm f/1.4 : I think it's at least as sharp and it has a wonderful bokeh.

Concerning the 85mm f/1.5 : it has to be a great portrait lens, but I've heard that the f/1.8 version is better. The 100mm f/2 also has a great reputation. Raid, your 85mm f/1.5 looks really nice and it's a good deal at this price.
 
Last edited:
I am only selling it because I need the cash to buy another lens. The 85 1.5 is a very nice lens. I traded off the Canon 100/2 for a Canon 50/1.5. I sold the Canon 50/1.4. It is a great lens, as you said.
 
No one knows about that lens except some owners. I wondered if someone saved the yahoo Japan auction pictures of probably one of the prototype lenses (35/1.4) sold about 5 years ago.
 
I find that using Fuji Reala 100 with the Canon 35/1.5 has potential for resulting in pastel-like colors that look great.

For B&W I prefer the first version Summicron 35mm 2.0with eight elements.It has a nice balance of "everything".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom