Canon 35mm/1.8 compared to the F2.0

[aoresteen]

Stop it guys!!!!!!!!!!!! Please no more great photos! I feel a GAS attack coming on. My only 35mm M lens is the Voigtlander 35 f/2.5 Pancake II and I could use a faster 35mm.

I have the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 for my SP but I need (er, want) to fill the M gap with a faster 35mm lens. The Canon 35mm 1.8 is on my list.

Did canon make a lens shade for the 35mm f/1.8? If so, which one is it?

 

[kuuan]

The f1.8 and the f2 35mm Canon LTMs are quite distinct from each other. My observations are based on color photos taken on Sony A7 digital camera. If there is anything in particular anyone wants to have compared, even if only on Sony A7, please ask for it I may try to do sample photos

I'd say the f1.8 already is sharp wide open, but this sharpness is e.g. when focused in the middle limited to a quite small oval. strong light fall off. Corners on the same focal plane weak, only become ok @f8. However if focused at the corner sharpness is there starting from wide apertures! sharpness in the centre is gone then, my f1.8 shows very strong field curvature!
the f2 wide open is a tad sharper again and above all in a bigger area, even corners already quite sharp from wide open minus the very last corner which most likely is corner smearing of the sensor. light falloff is less pronounced. Corners again sharper when focused there, it also has some field curvature. ( I suspect that the field curvature could be due to sensor used, might be less pronounced on film )

bokeh of f1.8 swirly at wide apertures, f2 not so, oof highlights towards corners will be quite oval with both lenses

average barrel distortion, similar of both

the f1.8 gives pastel looking colours, the images have a distinct 'vintage' look. the f2 looks cooler, more modern.

the f1.8 easily looses contrast and flares, the f2 fares better

imo the f1.8 lends to being used at wide apertures for 'artistic' photos e.g. when contrast loss and flare even is desired: https://www.flickr.com/photos/63016562@N04/23275595796/ but it's not a landscape lens

and the f2 is better for general use. see e.g. Ron Schefflers take @f8: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronscheffler/10385183326/in/photostream/ ( click arrows to see pics taken at wider and smaller apertures )

the search results for 'Canon LTM f2 35mm' resp. 'Canon LTM f1.8 35mm' at flickr
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=canon LTM f1.8 35mm&view_all=1
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=canon LTM f2 35mm&view_all=1
( most photos are taken with the lens, some photos of the lens, cameras used will be all kind, digital with smaller and FF sensors and film. )

 

[raid]

In general, Canon RF lenses tend to build up internal haze over time. Start by checking this out.

 

[mingkookoo]

I've the 35/2 and realy like it's bokeh and I usually mount it on the A7. Here's one on the A7 at F2.

Sony A7s/ Canon LTM 35mm F2 by David Lam, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

I really hated to part with the Canon 35/1.8, but when push came to shove I felt the 35/2.0 is the more versatile lens. It does not exhibit the 1.8's propensity to flare when pointed at a light source. Here's the 35/2.0 in action:

By Rail by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

Some recent b&w with the Canon 35/2.0, on TMax 400:

Sunday pint by bingley0522, on Flickr

Trinity College by bingley0522, on Flickr

Nwe. Speigel Straat by bingley0522, on Flickr
Boules by bingley0522, on Flickr

Fotografiska by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[kuuan]

In general, Canon RF lenses tend to build up internal haze over time. Start by checking this out.

the black 1.8/50 and the 3.5/100 typically have this problem, it is difficult to find clean copies. Not sure if or which other Canon LTMs are reported to have this problem.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

the black 1.8/50 and the 3.5/100 typically have this problem, it is difficult to find clean copies. Not sure if or which other Canon LTMs are reported to have this problem.

50/1.2 is prone to this, too.

 

[uhoh7]

I was surprised how easy I cleaned the haze from My Canon LTM collection. They come apart very easy.

 

[kuuan]

I was surprised how easy I cleaned the haze from My Canon LTM collection. They come apart very easy.

they are easy to take apart but more usually I have not, and I read also others, found the haze easy but in the contrary difficult to impossible to clean. What's your secret? Had you been more lucky than others? Of the Canon LTMs with haze I have, all 1.8/50s and 3.5/100s, only one out of 6 was easily cleaned. It still a small spot remaining and more haze keeps on coming back but that's easy to wipe off. the 35mm seem not to be among the effected.

...I'd say the f1.8 already is sharp wide open, but this sharpness is e.g. when focused in the middle limited to a quite small oval. strong light fall off. Corners on the same focal plane weak, only become ok @f8. However if focused at the corner sharpness is there starting from wide apertures! sharpness in the centre is gone then, my f1.8 shows very strong field curvature!...

I am curious, can anybody confirm? or contradict?

edit: I found confirmation in a presentation of the 1.8/35 in a German forum. See this ingenious test photo taken with the 1.8/35 wide open on APS-C ( Sony NEX )

taken from: http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=18323

the author says, quote: "Trotz des merklichen Schärfeabfalls in den Ecken kann man übrigens auch außermittige Motive noch recht gut scharfstellen, denn ein guter Teil der Unschärfe scheint auf eine merkliche Krümmung der Schärfeebene zurückzuführen zu sein, wie dieses Testbild zeigt, bei dem ich in jeder Längsfuge die Stelle markiert habe, die subjektiv am schärfsten und kontrastreichsten wirkt"

my free translation ( split that typical long German sentence into three 😉 ): in spite of sharpness decidedly decreasing towards the corners one also can get decent sharpness on motives away from the centre. See the test image in which I marked the spots along the longitudinal grooves that I deemed being the most sharp and contrasty. Good part of blur towards the corners seems to be caused by a noticeable curvature of the plane of sharpness.

on the FF sensor of the A7 this must be even more pronounced and this is exactly what I had found.

 

[je2a3]

No experience with the f1.8, but here's a shot from a recently acquired f2
Canon 7s + TX400

 

[Film Daze]

I have had the Canon 35 1.8 for a couple of years as my only 35mm on a Ricoh GXR M mount (APS-C sensor so that crops it to about 50mm).
I'm sort of keen to buy the f2 version, but don't find the 1.8 that bad...

No post processing to either shot. These are straight jpgs from the camera.

Grant

 

[Dez]

I was surprised how easy I cleaned the haze from My Canon LTM collection. They come apart very easy.

Canon LTM lenses can be a huge bargain or a total loss. There appears to be something in the lube used for the diaphragm pivots that corrodes the element coating over time. If you are lucky, it cleans right off, otherwise the surface is etched, and it costs more than the value of the lens to repair. The problem appears to appear on the element immediately behind the diaphragm. At its worst the glass itself is significantly etched. I have seen this haze problem in 50 f1.5's, many 50 f1.8's, especially black ones, and just once in a 50 f1.4. Strangely, I have never encountered it in other focal lengths. John at Focal Point told me that oxidation of metallic elements in the coatings is a factor.
Happily, my 35 f2 is clear. I love this lens, which usually lives on my Ricoh GXR.

Cheers.
Dez

 

[beezerc15]

canon35nn f1.8 compared to the f2.0

canon35nn f1.8 compared to the f2.0

my f1,8 simply rocks it has that pop feture.i do not have the f2,0 and do not need to.

 

[Carey M]

Got a f/1.8 recently. Haven't finished my test roll yet, but shot a few frames with a friend's X-E1. Rather impressed by the central sharpness at full aperture. Nokton SC has smoother bokeh, but at f/2 it can't match the Canon, at least not in the centre.





I'm rather eager to try the f/2 now...