back alley
IMAGES
i'll start by saying that i have only shot 2 rolls of film with this lens so far.
one was today and it was a plain grey day, very grey.
the other roll was shot a few days ago and it was grey also but not as grey, there were a few clouds and clear bits of sky.
what can say about the 3.5?
it is very low contrast. the 3 examples here have been leveled in photoshop.
the 'arts' shot was from the other day, the 2 others from today.
i think it gives that old time feeling to the photos though.
and i look forward to using it on a sunny day with some contrast in the scene.
so far, the 35/2.8 is still my favourite.
joe
one was today and it was a plain grey day, very grey.
the other roll was shot a few days ago and it was grey also but not as grey, there were a few clouds and clear bits of sky.
what can say about the 3.5?
it is very low contrast. the 3 examples here have been leveled in photoshop.
the 'arts' shot was from the other day, the 2 others from today.
i think it gives that old time feeling to the photos though.
and i look forward to using it on a sunny day with some contrast in the scene.
so far, the 35/2.8 is still my favourite.
joe
laptoprob
back to basics
Is it very much prone to backlight Joe? Seems like flare on the tree. Nice soft contrast though. I find it's easier to boost contrast if I want than to reduce it.
Rob.
Rob.
taffer
void
I like the backlight effect, reminds me a bit of the one I got from the Bessa I folder. Looks like it could be a perfect lens for a retro-looking farmers/artisan's market.
VictorM.
Well-known
That's the kind of flare you'd expect from an uncoated lens from the '30's. Is the lens fogged? Did you shine a penlight flashlight through it?
back alley
IMAGES
i did look through it when i first got it. i used the lamp on my workdesk as a light source, it's very bright.
but i just did the penlight thing with the 3.5 & the 2.8 lenses and the 3.5 is fogged.
fogged more around the edges but a slight haze all over.
looks like this lens needs a good cleaning.
joe
but i just did the penlight thing with the 3.5 & the 2.8 lenses and the 3.5 is fogged.
fogged more around the edges but a slight haze all over.
looks like this lens needs a good cleaning.
joe
Sonnar2
Well-known
the 3.5/35 is a Elmar Type (4 elements) while the 2.8/35 is a Gaussian (6 elements). You cannot expect too much of an Elmar with 63° angle of view. This was the reason why Leica replaced the Elmar with a Summaron (with f/3.5 only) in 1948. So arguments can be made that the Canon 3.5/35 was quite outdated in 1950 while the 2.8/35 in 1951 was pretty hot stuff. It speaks for CANONs ambition that they replaced the older design so fast.
I'm happy with my 3.5/28, looking for a good 2.8/35 or 3.2/35 too now!
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Wideangles.html
I'm happy with my 3.5/28, looking for a good 2.8/35 or 3.2/35 too now!
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Wideangles.html