goamules
Well-known
I wanted a very small, chrome 35mm LTM lens. I have the Canon 35/1.8 and 2.0, so thought I'd try one of the slower ones. Though the internet lore is that the 3.5 isn't very good, I've found people often just repeat what "they've heard." I wanted to see for myself. I also know that slower lenses are usually sharper lenses, it's the fast ones you have to worry about.
I got this for way under a hundred bucks, and it arrived in great cosmetic condition, with a perfect leather case, 35mm Canon viewfinder, and both lens caps. So far, what's there not to like?!
But upon holding the glass up to my desk lamp, I saw horrible haze. It's a simple design to take apart, in less than a minute I had the front element unscrewed, and perfectly cleaned clear. The rear required a spanner, and unscrewed easily too. It cleaned nicely also. Less than 10 minutes, and the lens is clean and clear and focus/iris move smoothly.
Results:
I got this for way under a hundred bucks, and it arrived in great cosmetic condition, with a perfect leather case, 35mm Canon viewfinder, and both lens caps. So far, what's there not to like?!
But upon holding the glass up to my desk lamp, I saw horrible haze. It's a simple design to take apart, in less than a minute I had the front element unscrewed, and perfectly cleaned clear. The rear required a spanner, and unscrewed easily too. It cleaned nicely also. Less than 10 minutes, and the lens is clean and clear and focus/iris move smoothly.
Results:
goamules
Well-known
Beautiful workmanship on these old Canon lenses.
awbphotog
Well-known
Excellent work! Your copy is a handsome one, as are the images your making with it. I love Serenars and would buy one of each if I could. Post more images!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
SCORE!! Nicely done
02Pilot
Malcontent
I always wondered about the Serenar 35/3.5; everybody talks about the 35/2.8, but you rarely hear or see much about the 3.2 or the 3.5. I'm curious about your impressions in general use, especially as far as image quality (the sample you posted shows great promise - what aperture?).
I have the 35/2.8, which interestingly has a slightly different barrel design than the 3.5 you have.
I have the 35/2.8, which interestingly has a slightly different barrel design than the 3.5 you have.
goamules
Well-known
Thanks folks. Sure, I just walked outside to test it some more, all at F4 and a little towards F5.6. Nothing wrong with this lens, from what I can tell. Looks a little better than my 3.5 Summaron actually.
goamules
Well-known
Here is my 10 min usage review. But I'm pretty good at figuring out a lens fast, I've got dozens of them!
The chrome is fantastic, easily up to Leica standards of the era. The Focal scale and the red dot is easy to read, there are no click stops, so you do have to look at it to see. The two little ears are easy to grip, to adjust the iris. The scale is in feet, which I highly prefer. I was surprised that even wide open, there is quite a depth of field separation on the scale - it's easy to set up for zone focus. It's a tiny little thing, pretty much a "pancake" lens.
The focus itself is smooth, (I cleaned it a little with lighter fluid) and goes around exactly 180 degrees from infinity to up close. Close focus is a little far for what I like, just out of arms reach. But better than a Canon 35/2, which seems to only close focus at like 6 feet!
Images seem a tad low contrast, as expected for this era. Sharpness is surprisingly good. I did not do any sharpness tests yet, but I've seen worse. I see no problems in the corners, though this is a smaller than 35mm film sensor (Fuji XE-1). Overall, for $50 to $100 I'd say get one!
The chrome is fantastic, easily up to Leica standards of the era. The Focal scale and the red dot is easy to read, there are no click stops, so you do have to look at it to see. The two little ears are easy to grip, to adjust the iris. The scale is in feet, which I highly prefer. I was surprised that even wide open, there is quite a depth of field separation on the scale - it's easy to set up for zone focus. It's a tiny little thing, pretty much a "pancake" lens.
The focus itself is smooth, (I cleaned it a little with lighter fluid) and goes around exactly 180 degrees from infinity to up close. Close focus is a little far for what I like, just out of arms reach. But better than a Canon 35/2, which seems to only close focus at like 6 feet!
Images seem a tad low contrast, as expected for this era. Sharpness is surprisingly good. I did not do any sharpness tests yet, but I've seen worse. I see no problems in the corners, though this is a smaller than 35mm film sensor (Fuji XE-1). Overall, for $50 to $100 I'd say get one!
bmattock
Veteran
Very nice!
Livesteamer
Well-known
Your lens looks very much like my Canon 28mm f3.5 which I have found to be a very nice lens. The Canon finder that came with it is very good and when all is mounted on my IIIc it still fits in the pocket of my jeans. The Canon LTM lens's are good stuff. Nice Nicca You have there also. Joe
goamules
Well-known
Thanks Joe, have a good W-S Christmas. Get some Moravian sugar cake or thin cookies for me.
aoresteen
Well-known
Nice! I've been looking at Serenars lately. I bought a 1951 Serenar 85mm f/2 last week. Asking prices for the 35mm f/3.5 are way up there on eBay - $200 range. Sold prices are anywhere from $67 to $175 so you did well.
goamules
Well-known
I think the description of haze scared people off (I went back and saw he did reveal this). I took a chance I could get it apart and clean, and was able to.