Leica LTM Canon 35mm/2.8 ?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
What I did:
I tested the Biogon-C.
But:
I kept the Canon - look at that portrait! And the lens has a good sharpness and vintage look because of the yellow tint. I don't care anymore about the corners being soft.

Also found a Summicron version IV KOC. King of Colours, that is. Wide open, King in coma ;)
I think the Summicron IV surpasses a Biogon-C in image quality.
 
You are quite right. Thecontrast of the Biogon-C is unsurpassed, shadows are darker whhile they can be brought up easily.
But it is a question of liking low contrast; yes. That also includes: no CA/purple frindge on edges. I also use my Zeiss ZM 28mm very infrequent. But it is camera dependent. On the M8 the lens was superb.
The Summicron has coma (blurred highlights when out of focus) at the larger apertures. Sometimes it is called the Leica Bloom.
Well, while I do not like it particularly, it is not something I hate. The Biogon-C of course has nothing of the like . .
 
This is an interesting point. I have the Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 screw mount lens. Lots of ticks: sharp, contrasty, small, 39mm filters etc...but I found the high contrast and even the sharpness a bit disconcerting in bright conditions. I bought the Canon 28mm f3.5 screw mount lens. Yes, if you look, not so sharp in the corners (although I have never noticed it in an actual photograph) but more pleasing in bright conditions. Overall I preferred the Canon although I accept the Voigtlander is higher spec.
 
A while back I bought the Serenar version of Canon’s 3.5/28 lens. It had a bit of internal haze so I sent it to Youxin Ye for a CLA. He did a good job but told me he could do nothing about the lens separation I thought was haze. After seeing how that lens works I am over my separation anxiety.


2021-07-08 Stage Canon L1 Canon 28-35 LOMO 800 224000014 by newst54, on Flickr

2021-07-08 Stage Canon L1 Canon 28-35 LOMO 800 224000007 by newst54, on Flickr

2021-07-08 Stage Canon L1 Canon 28-35 LOMO 800 224000004 by newst54, on Flickr

2021-03-02 Trooper Bessa-T Canon 28-35 Rollei Retro 400S 000436420034 by newst54, on Flickr

2020-06-15 Stage VL2 Canon 28-35 P3200 000216810022 (2) by newst54, on Flickr
 
Your photos illustrate the point well, Newst. You would not want them to be any more contrasty and they look sharp enough...
 
jcb4718 said:
This is an interesting point. I have the Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 screw mount lens. Lots of ticks: sharp, contrasty, small, 39mm filters etc...but I found the high contrast and even the sharpness a bit disconcerting in bright conditions. I bought the Canon 28mm f3.5 screw mount lens. Yes, if you look, not so sharp in the corners (although I have never noticed it in an actual photograph) but more pleasing in bright conditions. Overall I preferred the Canon although I accept the Voigtlander is higher spec.
Click to expand...

You can always dial down the contrast in post. Can't undo an inherently lower-resolving optic. But then, we are always reminded that "sharpness is bourgeois".
 
I always fine tune my film images in Photoshop. Generally I find that a slight increase in contrast is beneficial...but with high contrast scenes recorded using a high contrast lens I often cannot get an image I'm entirely happy with. The image seems to go from 'contrasty' to 'dull'.
 
bluesun267 said:
I've used both the black and silver versions of the Canon 35/2.8 and noticed no strange behavior on film, at least nothing that would leave me feeling 'out of kilter' vs other vintage 35s or 50s. In the end I did not keep them because I already had the Nikkor 35/2.5 but if I had to make a choice I would always go for vintage Canon over new Zeiss or Voigtlander. But that's just one of my quirk (and also that I shoot film on a Barnack 90% of the time).
Click to expand...

I have owned and used both the Nikkor 35mm f2.5 and the Canon 35mm f2.8 lenses and never did find a big difference in lens performance and photo quality, both are very nice lenses and I myself prefer the older lower contrast producing lenses.
 
High resolution is one thing, with bland backgrounds - not intended negatively, just that it is as it technically should be, not harsh, just out out of focus: that is the Biogon-C.
The Fence picture might be illustrative of something else : "bad" background and far distance but with a good separation of the element in focus, here the small tree hanging over the fence. It is that kind of presentation I like.

The effect in the Canon 2.8 to me is jaw dropping.
I have read about the larger early Canon 35's, or the Simlar predecessors having this effect with even more. If I remember correctly, that is the lineage. So it was a design choice. The sign of a master.
 
Alberti said:
High resolution is one thing, with bland backgrounds - not intended negatively, just that it is as it technically should be, not harsh, just out out of focus: that is the Biogon-C.
Click to expand...

The backgrounds are rendered in an unobtrusive manner. Matched with negligible file curvature, ultra high-resolution and rich color saturation, the objects in the plane of focus pop out at you.

This too is the sign of a master.
 
In and out of the the water with the 1959 Canon lens
U31687I1631602790.SEQ.0.jpg


U31687I1631602793.SEQ.2.jpg


U31687I1631602792.SEQ.1.jpg
 
Range-rover said:
Hi all,
Their are two types of the 35mm F2.8 and all chrome and mixed black and white which ones better?
Click to expand...

Optics are the same between the two variations, but there was a coating change on the black & chrome models. The chrome model is made of brass (heavier) , the black & chrome is brass and aluminum (lighter). Personal choice as to what you may prefer.

Jim B.
 
In recent months I've been sampling a variety of 35 lenses (CV Ultron f2; Canon LTM 35/2; CV Color Skopar 35/2.5 and the Nikkor 35/2.5)
I decided I liked the Canon 35/2.8 (mine is black version) the best out of all of them--even more lovely than the Nikkor 35/2.5 which I've owned for some time and will never sell. It took me years to realize what a gem this Canon lens is. It's hard to put my finger on what exactly is the quality that I like so much. There were shots on the last few rolls that I thought were not that interesting but were somehow rendered more interesting by the use of this lens. That doesn't happen very often for me.
The real eye opener is that I prefer it to the Canon 35/2 which is probably the sharpest 35 in the bunch.
 
I like using Canon 35mm RF lenses they are built very well. I mostly use the 35/2 and now also the 35/1.5. The 35/1.8?is prone to glaring up when hit by a strong light source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom