Canon LTM Canon 35/2.8 LTM vs. Leica Summaron 35/2.8

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
kermaier

kermaier

Well-known
Local time
3:50 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
1,679
Has anyone done a direct comparison of results from these two lenses? (I have the Canon and like it a lot, but was wondering about the Summaron.
 
haven't done a comparison but recently acquired the Canon 35/2.8 and it's sharp... smaller than my VC28/3.5 (though chromed brass and therefore very heavy)... it's a very good lens and I can't imagine the Leica version being so superior to justify twice the price (I got my Canon for $170 shipped and paypaled)...
2840595362_8afb23464a.jpg
2839667925_7a431342c6.jpg
 
kermaier said:
Has anyone done a direct comparison of results from these two lenses? (I have the Canon and like it a lot, but was wondering about the Summaron.
Click to expand...


I compared 26 35mm-40mm lenses recently, including the Canon 35mm/2.8 and the Summaron 35mm/2.8. Roland has the results posted on his website at smugmug. The Summaron 2.8 came out as one of the top contenders. A price increase followed shortly after ....:D
 
I had the canon 35/2.8 on an old canon III but then put it on a canon P and found it to be a great package. Mine gave a very cool color rendition and it was very high resolution, low contrast. I stupidly sold it thinking I need to buy leica glass but now I miss it. If anything I'd like to have the old canon kit back again, 50/1.8, 35/2.8 and perhaps the 28/2.8 too but they are not up on ebay as much lately.
 
Raid -- Yes, I imagine the prices must have gone up! I'm just wondering if it's worth paying over $500 for the Summaron when the Canon goes for under $200. Though I suppose I could always buy one, do my own testing and sell it if it doesn't make me happy...
 
I also have the summaron 2.8 and summicron (v2). I have had the canon 2.8, and have to say that it is indeed a contender with both. I think what people describe as its lack of contrast makes it produce better images if you go without a meter and guess exposure- this attribute of the canon makes it more forgiving and expose the shadows in an amazing way when you get your exposure right. The summaron seems sharper than the canon to me, and i just picked up the cron, so i do not have an opinion yet, but the summicron is supposed to be quite sharp- it's selling point.
 
Well, I just ordered a 35/2.8 Summaron in LTM. When it arrives I'll post a few side-by-side image comparisons with my Canon 35/2.8.

I'd love to include a 35mm Summicron ver. 1 or a UC Hexanon in the comparison, but I don't see myself being able to afford one of those any time soon. :-(
 
kermaier said:
Well, I just ordered a 35/2.8 Summaron in LTM. When it arrives I'll post a few side-by-side image comparisons with my Canon 35/2.8.

I'd love to include a 35mm Summicron ver. 1 or a UC Hexanon in the comparison, but I don't see myself being able to afford one of those any time soon. :-(
Click to expand...

I have the Summicron V1 but not your Summaron 2.8!
 
I'm just kidding, Raid -- the 35 Summicron v1 is the lens I covet more than any other (well, maybe a UC Hexanon), but I can't afford any I've seen on offer, and haven't lucked onto an affordable "user" yet.

::Ari
 
Bumping this old one.
I was wondering myself about the canon 2.8...
Is it good?
If you really like it, please PM me your answer in order to keep prices low :D
 
I have a Canon 35/2.8. It's a typical 1950's lens, meaning a bit soft wide-open but sharpens up nicely when stopped-down. Mine is the chrome version which has absolutely superb build quality. I enjoy using this lens for that reason alone.

Jim B.
 
Canon 35mm/2.8. I was hoping for good bokeh :) but then decided against out of focus here.

145182-R1-11-12Asmall.jpg
 
Mackinaw said:
I have a Canon 35/2.8. It's a typical 1950's lens, meaning a bit soft wide-open but sharpens up nicely when stopped-down. Mine is the chrome version which has absolutely superb build quality. I enjoy using this lens for that reason alone.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

+1 Owned the chrome version and agree w/Jim. Used it as a normal on an RD1 along with the Canon ltm 50/1.5 when I needed speed. The 35/2.8 is a pleasure to use and a great value. Especially nice for digital due to its lower contrast.
 
+2. I'm glad to see this thread bumped. I also have the little chrome version of this lens, and was shooting w/ it in SF last weekend as it turns out. I think it's been fairly described in the posts above. I've kept mine b/c it's tiny, I can use it on my LTM as well as M mount cameras, and the high resolution/moderate contrast combination is useful particularly in bright California sun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom