Canon LTM Canon 35/1.5: A Tribute

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Thanks, it's my car under the rain :)
Shooting on film with a Leica, driving this car....for all the people around me i'm coming from the past with a time machine.

I was noticing a strong vignetting in my last few shoots with the Canon 35\1.5 i suspect it's the filter, i have bought this lens years ago with all the original accessories and the filter it's an UVa Canon filter 48mm...it look like the same period of the lens, but probably it's not the correct one, i don't know, anyway without this filter the lens doesn't show this black corner.
 
millus1974 said:
Thanks, it's my car under the rain :)
Shooting on film with a Leica, driving this car....for all the people around me i'm coming from the past with a time machine.

I was noticing a strong vignetting in my last few shoots with the Canon 35\1.5 i suspect it's the filter, i have bought this lens years ago with all the original accessories and the filter it's an UVa Canon filter 48mm...it look like the same period of the lens, but probably it's not the correct one, i don't know, anyway without this filter the lens doesn't show this black corner.
Click to expand...

People still wonder why i shoot film, as they see it as an inconvenience. I like it.
You have a lovely car by the way. Must be fun to drive!
 
millus1974 said:
I was noticing a strong vignetting in my last few shoots with the Canon 35\1.5 i suspect it's the filter, i have bought this lens years ago with all the original accessories and the filter it's an UVa Canon filter 48mm...it look like the same period of the lens, but probably it's not the correct one, i don't know, anyway without this filter the lens doesn't show this black corner.
Click to expand...


Nice lens, car and pix, there.

The correct filter is what Canon called "Slimline" and it is flat-fronted, only threaded on the rear. The complete set of original 48mm Canon Slimline filters came in color-coded, bakelite tube that screwed together, so very neatly organized and safe. I found a complete set on Ebay last year, for a good price.

Regular double-threaded filters -do- vignette. Hence the special "Slimlines".
 
Nokton48 said:
Nice lens, car and pix, there.

The correct filter is what Canon called "Slimline" and it is flat-fronted, only threaded on the rear. The complete set of original 48mm Canon Slimline filters came in color-coded, bakelite tube that screwed together, so very neatly organized and safe. I found a complete set on Ebay last year, for a good price.

Regular double-threaded filters -do- vignette. Hence the special "Slimlines".
Click to expand...

Thanks for these informations...i have checked mine and it's not slim at all...hahaha....as you can see from my pictures, i will take an eye on the market to find an UV for my canon 35 but i have to admit i'm not a great fan of filter on my lens...i always have a lot of flare and ghost image in my pictures when i use them with back light and evening shot.
 
Canon rfdr lenses

Canon rfdr lenses

I must have been very fortunate, in that I bought the Canon 19mm 3.5, 28mm 3.5, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 1.5 back in the '70s. I used them in serious photojournalism for years on my Canon and Leica rfdrs, and they show it although all of them still perform splendidly. My 50mm lenses were/are the Summilux and Canon f/0.95, and my "long" rfdr lens, Nikkor 85 2.0. Their capabilities have not changed, they are splendid, lovely things to use and delight with every image.
I did find that using some of them at small apertures with a protective filter over the lens could cause ghosting from the white letters and numbers on the front lens-retaining ring, and filled in the white with flat black paint. They are lenses that have been "there and back," and show it, but by god they've been used right.
Thank you for helping me appreciate these old friends.
Perhaps I should stipulate that I disdain using any filter over my lenses, but there are conditions which can destroy lens coatings in very short order, such as the silicate blast from a diamond drill used to rescue miners from a collapsed gold mine tunnel. For that, I considered a filter excusable. The 19mm lens still shows that assignment.
 
agiyo said:
I must have been very fortunate, in that I bought the Canon 19mm 3.5, 28mm 3.5, 28mm 2.8, and 35mm 1.5 back in the '70s. I used them in serious photojournalism for years on my Canon and Leica rfdrs, and they show it although all of them still perform splendidly. My 50mm lenses were/are the Summilux and Canon f/0.95, and my "long" rfdr lens, Nikkor 85 2.0. Their capabilities have not changed, they are splendid, lovely things to use and delight with every image.
I did find that using some of them at small apertures with a protective filter over the lens could cause ghosting from the white letters and numbers on the front lens-retaining ring, and filled in the white with flat black paint. They are lenses that have been "there and back," and show it, but by god they've been used right.
Thank you for helping me appreciate these old friends.
Perhaps I should stipulate that I disdain using any filter over my lenses, but there are conditions which can destroy lens coatings in very short order, such as the silicate blast from a diamond drill used to rescue miners from a collapsed gold mine tunnel. For that, I considered a filter excusable. The 19mm lens still shows that assignment.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have had some excellent times with these lenses. I'd love to see some of your works. I'd also take the beach as a place where a filter is required. nothing like that sandy salty wind leaving stuff in your lens!
 
Got a user condition 35 1.5 yesterday (with a 7S and 100/2) at physical auctions in Paris. Optics are clean but looks batterd.
Tried it on an hybrid camera and must admit I have been really impressed. Really another league than the Canon RF 35 2.8 I had until now.

Even been pleased by performance at full aperture. Creamy bokeh and still very sharp. Whites glow a bit in dark atmospheres but it is more character than a flaw.

Though what is strange is that yesterday aperture was pretty easy to action. It is now quite hard. Not sure what happened as the blades are oil free (unlike my 35 2.8)..

Does someone know if it is difficult to open and fix, knowing that I dont want to touch optics but only helicoid and clean the aperture trigger.. ?

(I have spanner, rubber rings, tweezers, helicoid grease.. as I open SLR lenses I put on my hybrid from time to time..)

 
I also use a W-50 on mine, but I really have to crank the thumb-screw hard to get it to clamp on securely. It's almost as if the hood was designed for a lens with a slightly thicker rim. (My 35/1.5 is very early, #10020, so maybe the hood was made when later production lenses, with possibly thicker rims, were available?)

And the W-50 is rare, but not uncontainable. I see 2 on eBay right now.

::Ari
 
After a few months using this lens, I can definitely confirm it doesn't really leave my Nex hybrid camera. (and sometimes goes on the P)
I really like it's sharpness and look which is not dated, and give great results even on digital.

Regarding it's flaws, I can confirm that direct lights reeeaalllly glow at f1.5. Incident lights and dim atmosphère give much better results at widest aperture, as sharpness is not really diminished.

Never had a Leica lens, but would be interested to know how it compares to the Summilux M 35 :)

below shots at f1.5 and 2.8 respectively. not PPed.



 
Does anyone use ND filters on the Canon 35/1.5? Would anyone be able to recommend which step-up adapter would be better to use?
 
Regular double-sided filters will vignette with this lens. As far as I know Canon did not make an ND filter in the "Slimline Style" which were designed to work with the lens. Perhaps you could reload the camera and put in slower film. I switch rolls back and forth in bodies and it's not difficult to do. I've tried using stepdown rings with bigger filters on Canon RF lenses, and the tested results were not a success.
 
Two sold recently for EUR 765 (ebay 261345183744) and EUR 571 (ebay 291028262668).

Something in the front group is radioactive by the way. I measured about 2,35 µSv/h with the copy I had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom