Canon 35 2.8 vs Voigtlander 35 2.5 Skopar

[Louisianaman]

I have a Canon 35 2.8(not the silver) that I purchased off ebay that has a small amount of haze and dust and instead of getting it cleaned I was thinking about a more updated len. Camera Quest has some 35 2.5 Color Skopar lenses but I don't know how much sharper or contrasty they would be. Y'all have any advice?

 

[das]

The Color Skopar is a really good modern lens that will outperform anything from the 1950s or 1960s. It has sharp rendering and a touch of barrel distortion that all modern 35s seem to have. There is significant light fall off at f/2.5, so I would really consider it a f/2.8 lens instead. One of the best bangs for the buck in the 35mm focal length.

 

[Louisianaman]

Thank you very much

 

[David Murphy]

The Canon is one of the finest vintage 35mm Leica thread lenses. The Skopar is an outstanding lens for the price and will outperform almost any lens from the 1950's or 60's.

 

[jcb4718]

I have the 35mm Color Skopar and the Canon 35mm f2 lenses. I prefer the latter and almost never use the former. The Skopar is probably a 'better' lens in terms of sharpness, contrast etc. but I just prefer the look of images taken of the Canon. I don't have the Canon 35mm f2.8.

 

[xayraa33]

I have a Canon 35 2.8(not the silver) that I purchased off ebay that has a small amount of haze and dust and instead of getting it cleaned I was thinking about a more updated len. Camera Quest has some 35 2.5 Color Skopar lenses but I don't know how much sharper or contrasty they would be. Y'all have any advice?

Horses for courses as they say in the UK....CV lenses are excellent modern lenses and I own and use a couple of them, but I also own and use many vintage lenses from the 1930s to the early 1960s in LTM.

Look at them as different colours on a painter's palette, it is nice to have a selection of modern and vintage glass to give your photos the colour, contrast and OOF areas that you are looking for in a particular photo shoot...both types of lenses have their use and if you can afford a nice selection of different lenses from different eras then it might be a good thing.

 

[Mackinaw]

.....Look at them as different colours on a painter's palette, it is nice to have a selection of modern and vintage glass to give your photos the colour, contrast and OOF areas that you are looking for in a particular photo shoot...both types of lenses have their use and if you can afford a nice selection of different lenses from different eras then it might be a good thing.

Well put. Any modern lens will outperform a classic lens, but the uncorrected aberrations found in a classic lens will often give the image a lot of "character." I've never tried the Skopar and see no need to. I'm perfectly happy with my chrome Canon 35/2.8.

Jim B.

 

[das]

At the end of the day, this type of discussion gets everyone nowhere. Modern lenses are better in almost every objective metric than classic lenses. The flare reducing coatings alone are 1000% better. But if we are going to talk about whether any lens is capable of taking a good picture, that's a different story altogether, and a different discussion based on subjective preferences. The OP asked about sharpness and contrast - and the Skopar is sharper and contrastier than the Canon.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Skopar is modern, tiny, economy lens.
It is your friend for more contrast.

Sharpness... With Skopars 35 2.5 I learned about sharpness and amount of micro details (micro-contrast) to be not always the same on bw darkroom prints.

Ultron 35 1.7 LTM gives sharpness and micro-contrast, while overall contrast is really not lens function, but contrast grade of SG paper, enlarger contrast filter for MG or just post processing in computer.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

At the end of the day, this type of discussion gets everyone nowhere. Modern lenses are better in almost every objective metric than classic lenses. The flare reducing coatings alone are 1000% better. But if we are going to talk about whether any lens is capable of taking a good picture, that's a different story altogether, and a different discussion based on subjective preferences. The OP asked about sharpness and contrast - and the Skopar is sharper and contrastier than the Canon.

Just in case. Modern 35 2.5 Skopars still benefit from the hood. A lot. With exception of original "pancake".

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've shot with both. The Color-Skopar is sharper, especially at the edges; but it is too contrasty for black and white work in my opinion, though it is nice for color. Has a lot of vignetting, even stopped down.


The canon has wonderful tonal rendering and less vignetting but is less sharp, especially at the edges and especially wide open.

 

[David Murphy]

At the end of the day, this type of discussion gets everyone nowhere. ...

Maybe, but a lot of us here love discussing lenses - maybe most.

 

[Louisianaman]

Maybe, but a lot of us here love discussing lenses - maybe most.

I know I do! How else can one learn.?

 

[agentlossing]

Just in case. Modern 35 2.5 Skopars still benefit from the hood. A lot. With exception of original "pancake".

I've gotten that exact same flare with my LTM 35 2.5 Skopar, with the small factory hood.