oldwino
Well-known
I’m looking for a more vintage era 35mm for my IIIc (I have a CV 35/2.5 now). I have the chance to pick up a Canon 35/2.8 later version, or for a bit more money, a later Nikkor 35/2.5.
Any thoughts as to which would be preferable? I’m looking for something with nice sharpness and decent contrast. I find the Leitz lenses of this era to be a little flat in their rendering, not to mention usually full of “cleaning marks”.
Any thoughts as to which would be preferable? I’m looking for something with nice sharpness and decent contrast. I find the Leitz lenses of this era to be a little flat in their rendering, not to mention usually full of “cleaning marks”.
Mjd-djm
Established
What about the Canon 35mm 1.8 LTM? Great lens as is the 35mm f2. What’s your budget?
oldwino
Well-known
I owned the Canon 35/2 LTM years ago, but never liked the ergonomics of it. It was actually too small, and I kept getting my knuckles in the shots! Plus, I didn't think the build quality was that great. Image-wise, yes, very good. The 35/2.8 I've handled seems built much nicer.
I haven't read that many great things about the 35/1.8 to be honest, so I have not actively thought about that lens.
I've never handled one of the Nikkor 35s, so I don't know how they are feel-wise.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Both great lenses, you cannot go wrong with either.
I have both lenses from each manufacturer and the earlier chrome styling of the Canon lens looks much better on Barnacks... in my opinion.
I have both lenses from each manufacturer and the earlier chrome styling of the Canon lens looks much better on Barnacks... in my opinion.
goamules
Well-known
I haven't used the Nikkor, but I've used all of the Canon 35mm, They're all good. Recently been shooting the 35/2.8 a lot and liking it.
Artingei
Established
What about the Jupiter 12? It's the least soviet lens of all soviet lenses I owned so far, build quality I fine and IQ is outstanding for a wide-angle lens design this old. Furthermore it's compact because you don't necessarily need a hood. You should find a top condition sample for around 50-125 €/$.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Unbelievable you lot.
Choose from two, don't add others into the equasion. How hard can that be?
I had both and I have the Nikkor 35mm 2.5 again. It's a smaller, yet heavier lens (means better build quality imho) and the contrast wide open on the Nikkor is better, translates into perceived better sharpness wide open.
If you find the Leica lenses flat, don't pick the Canon. It's similar.
Get the Nikkor, which also is a more expensive lens usually. If the Nikkor is close in price, it's either cheap, or the Canon was overprized...
Choose from two, don't add others into the equasion. How hard can that be?
I had both and I have the Nikkor 35mm 2.5 again. It's a smaller, yet heavier lens (means better build quality imho) and the contrast wide open on the Nikkor is better, translates into perceived better sharpness wide open.
If you find the Leica lenses flat, don't pick the Canon. It's similar.
Get the Nikkor, which also is a more expensive lens usually. If the Nikkor is close in price, it's either cheap, or the Canon was overprized...
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I've been using the Nikkor 3.5/f2.5 for a couple of months and while the lens character is everything I like, the ergonomics are a bit challenging.
raid
Dad Photographer
Both mentioned lenses are excellent overall. Choose the one that is in better shape for the glass. Make sure the lens is free of haze or fungus growth. I would give the Nikkor the edge here, but the Canon lens is excellent too.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
The Canon 35/2.8 is sharp in the center but gets softer pretty quickly when close to wide open. The Canon 1.8 is similar in this aspect. Definitely looks/feels vintage.
I don't have any experience with the Nikkor.
I don't have any experience with the Nikkor.