Canon 35/1.8 an underrated gem?

[TenEleven]

In search for a fast(er) 35mm lens I have recently acquired a Canon 35/1.8 in LTM mount. The lens is tiny and appears to be relatively well made. The design is the usual Canon for that era.

Optically the lens seems stunning: sharp already from wide open with only a very slight glow veiling the picture at infinity; even sharpness across the frame. The glow is reduced focusing closer making it similar to the Nikon LTM Sonnar lenses.

I can't detect any distortion and the bokeh is gentler than that of say the W-Nikkor or the Summilux which have those kind of harsh rings.

The corners appear to have better performance than the 2.0 Black (SLR lookalike) version - at least to my eyes - on film.

Last but not least, I found that the near focus is delimited by a pin-screw in the focus-mount. Removing it allows accurate close-focus down to about 0.85m. (2.8 feet)

 

[Timmyjoe]

Hi Manuel,

Congratulation on your new acquire.

The Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM lens is truly a gem. I've been using one for a little over a year and find it to be tack sharp in the center when shot wide open. There is veiling flare wide open, but it cleans up progressively and is completely gone by f2.8 and I find the lens to be edge to edge tack sharp at f4.0. It's also extremely lightweight, and I love the infinity lock and focus tab. It's a great 35mm for the LTM cameras and I've even been happy with what I've shot with it and an adapter on an M Monochrom.

Best,
-Tim

 

[goamules]

I've been saying for years the 35/1.8 is a great lens, I like it better than the vaunted 35/2.0 even.

 

[raid]

The Canon 35/2 is better corrected than the 35/1.8, and this may be the main reason why you see few articles praising the qualities of the Canon 35/1.8. Most likely, Canon designers viewed the 35/1.8 design as an overstretch, and they came out next with the Canon 35/2, which was more resistant to flare. I have both lenses, and I use them.