Canon 35f1.8 LTM

[tennis-joe]

I tried to use a step down ring from 40mm to 40.5 and then a shade on top of that this past weekend on my Canon 35f1.8. I got very rounded corners on the prints that showed the shade. Does anyone know if there is a 40mm shade that would not show on the prints? It may have been discussed before and if so please post the results.
Joe

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

You don't need a shade--the front element is already deeply recessed. This is a good lens! It's my only 35.

 

[Mablo]

Ditto. The last one I tried had step-up ring 40-43mm and a wide hood - but it still did vignette. Canon never made a hood for this lens so I guess it's made to be used naked.

 

[pagpow]

Can you tell if the vignetting is from the step up ring or the shade?

If it is the shade and you still want one after all the naked advice, perhaps cutting down a rubber shade will avoid intrusion.
Caution: I have used this successfully with other lenses, but not with this one -- AND prior threads have indicated the vignetting issue w. step-up rings (40 ==> 40.5 and now 40 ==> 43).

 

[airds]

Just use it bare with a nice 40mm flat face skylight filter - my last one is still in the 'Items Totaling $100 and Less' section ....... 🙂

 

[tennis-joe]

Thanks for all of the advice and I think I will not put a shade on it. I can't tell if it was the step down ring but for sure the hood. I will post a picture on my Flickr account tomorrow.
Joe

 

[David Murphy]

It's really as superb lens. I prefer it to the Canon 35/2 (an unorthodox viewpoint I know).

 

[Rene Apilado]

My 35 f/1.8 came with an original Canon slip-on hood designed for the 50/1.8 and 35/2.8. There's slight vignetting but hardly noticeable.