Canon LTM Canon 35/1.5: A Tribute

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
3691844403_2b73234e9a_b.jpg

Canon 35/1.5
 
Interesting.
The background are much more "involved" in Koni Kowa picture than on TWoK samples.
could there be differences in optics, or just the casual difference from shot to shot?
 
sanmich said:
Interesting.
The background are much more "involved" in Koni Kowa picture than on TWoK samples.
could there be differences in optics, or just the casual difference from shot to shot?
Click to expand...

sample variance but the bokeh usually holds up very well.
 
sanmich said:
Paul
Do you mean lense sample variance or situation variance?
Do you own this lens?
Click to expand...

I've done some research on it while looking into 35 f/2 Black (LTM), which I acquired recently. Discussion of lens sample variance comes up occasionally re this circa of lenses.

EDIT: Except for some outliers, the general consensus is that they're very good.
 
35mmdelux said:
I've done some research on it while looking into 35 f/2 Black (LTM), which I acquired recently. Discussion of lens sample variance comes up occasionally re this circa of lenses.

EDIT: Except for some outliers, the general consensus is that they're very good.
Click to expand...

I must say mine is sharp.
I measured it between a canon 1.8 and a summicron Asph at f/2 which I find quite impressive.
 
i have been loooking for this lens and no luck so far.
I'd like to compare it with 35/1.8, 35/2 and to figure out which one to keep. I like the 35/1.8 and 35/2 very much.
 
me too

me too

I think a lot of folks are looking for this lens.

fbf said:
i have been loooking for this lens and no luck so far.
I'd like to compare it with 35/1.8, 35/2 and to figure out which one to keep. I like the 35/1.8 and 35/2 very much.
Click to expand...
 
It has bokeh far from pretty, Ted. Similar to the Canon 35/2. Optimized for resolution across the field at medium apertures.

Have a look (and check out the details in post 26, 36 and 37):

411897606_UyDCG-XL.jpg


Also difficult to filter, since any normal 48mm filter will vignette - then again, on the M8 who cares ?

You'd be much better off with the Nokton 35/1.4. :p
 
Last edited:
whew

whew

Thanks for saving me Roland, that bokeh is seriously horrendous (well in that specific lighting).

I will get the CV 35/1.4 someday. But it's no replacement for the lux, unless you're shooting the golden gate bridge or a a guy reading a newspaper :D

The lux 35 has a nice glow, and between f2 and 5.6 a potentially beneficial field curvature that can give more DOF than is indicated on the lens barrel. No discernable barrel distortions, and most of all, no ugly double line bokeh wide open, or wacky focus shifts, or wobbly barrels :D

ferider said:
It has bokeh far from pretty, Ted. Similar to the Canon 35/2. Optimized for resolution across the field at medium apertures.

Have a look (and check out the details in post 26, 36 and 37):

Also difficult to filter, since any normal 48mm filter will vignette - then again, on the M8 who cares ?

You'd be much better off with the Nokton 35/1.4. :p
Click to expand...
 
I'll think Canon had no intention to constructed a 35mm lens with good bokeh at that time (1958). It was more important to win "The fastest 35mm lens in the world" title.
I love this lens. I have welded my lens to my De Luxe.
 
The only reason it's not the only 35 I'll ever need is because of how far it's MFD is. The difference between .7 and 1.1 is huge.
 
Right, it is huge, but I cannot get the casual portraits I like sitting across the table from someone with a 1.1m MFD (thanks, I did mean Minimum Focusing Distance), but I can at .7m no problem. Even the .9m MFD of Nikon RF lenses is enought of a difference I don't run into problems with everyday use.
 
I perfectly understand the MFD problem, you're absolutely right about short focused portraits. You should think about the Summicron 50mm f/2 DR, don't you ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom