Canon LTM Canon 35 f2 1st and 2nd type

[kurotama]

A few years ago, I loaned a later model 35/2 for a few month and bought earlier model not knowing the difference... earlier model has "Canon Camera Co. Inc." and lens number written in smaller characters at the front of the lens.
I don't have any good samples to show differences of the two lenses, but my copy of the later version showed a far more vivid and rich color rendering than the earlier model, which has more vignetting, less saturation and murky blueish color shift that become apparent in shots taken in shadows. The later model has much smoother Bokeh than older model too.
The later model is in demand here in Japan and is very hard to find one at a reasonable price. One of the Japanese blogs described the difference as Canon improved its optics and coatings to better render the color as color negatives are becoming popular back in those days.

 

[stupid leica]

I've had multiple copies of both versions- no difference in use that i could ever see. Currently i have a mint version 2 that i have NO plans of parting with except for maybe a V4 Cron. Even then, only reason i want the Cron is .7m focus.

 

[menos]

A hood would be no help on a 35/2, and, as such, was not available by Canon. It has flare when used in backlite (like every Planar type wideangle do) but no hood in the world can help with light sources within the frame...
Even my UC-Hexanon shows some flare. To a lesser extend than 50 year old Canon, but it shows. With light sources out of the frame, the Canon behaves good even without a hood (at least far better than the 35/1.5!).
This said, flare ist much better controlled than with it's predecessor, 35/1.8. Probably this was one reason why the launched it anyway.

Hey Frank, interesting, you write this - and I do think similar about light sources within the frame.

Curious about this (new to me lens), I force it in some situations, to find out, how it reacts.
Here is a scene, I know, leads to no major issues with modern Leica glass (the Summilux ASPH is a very reliable lens in such light - even without hood, as tested here):

Canon 35/2 LTM @f2, no hood, no filter:

Maserati and Canon 35 f2 LTM @ f2 by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

Leica 35 Lux ASPH @f2, no hood, no filter:

Maserati and Leica 35 f1.4 Summilux ASPH - f2 by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

I do search for a nice screw in reverse conical hood, specifically cut for 35mm wide angle lenses (I saw, that there are Yama hoods with 40mm thread, but dislike the stylish, but impractical round hole openings).
I like the small size of the Canon 35/2, but do prefer, to shoot all lenses with hood for such issues, to be at least minimized.

I like, how far recessed the front element within the lens is, so finger prints even without hood are almost impossible, to achieve ;-) (main reason, why I use a hood with the 35 Lux ASPH).

 

[Sonnar2]

Ouh, a hard comparison for the Canon. It shows how lenses have developed in the last 50 years. For the price of the ASPH-Summilux you get approx. 10 Canons?

I wouldn't use the Canon for architecture and technical stuff, at least not wide open. The newer Gaussian 35mm designs (Summicron pre-Asph. IV, G-Planar, Hexanon) probably wouldn't look much better than the Canon here. The ZM-Biogon would do. This is where the limitations of the Gaussian designs are, like Mandler have stated back in the 70's....

 

[menos]

Ouh, a hard comparison for the Canon. It shows how lenses have developed in the last 50 years. For the price of the ASPH-Summilux you get approx. 10 Canons?

I wouldn't use the Canon for architecture and technical stuff, at least not wide open. The newer Gaussian 35mm designs (Summicron pre-Asph. IV, G-Planar, Hexanon) probably wouldn't look much better than the Canon here. The ZM-Biogon would do. This is where the limitations of the Gaussian designs are, like Mandler have stated back in the 70's....

Yes Frank, it is not really a fair comparison, just has been a test, to get a feel, how the Canon handles such light.
I really like, how the small lens makes the pictures look - an exception is the nature of the flare, it produces here.

It immediately made me think about the flare of the pre ASPH Summilux, while the Summilux flare, I have seen in pictures looks as dramatic, as this, but more pleasing, as it is more regular in geometry and less wild.

I really look for a nice lens hood, to fit the little Canon.

Do you have by any chance good information, which original Canon hoods could be fitted to the 35/2?
It is a 42mm outer Ø fit.

A nice tip, as it comes to mind - the original Leica 35 Summilux pre ASPH slip on lens cap fits the Canon perfectly ;-)