Canon 35mm/2.8 ?

[HuubL]

It was late last night and I'd had a glass or two. Before going to bed I looked through epay and saw this all chrome canon 35mm f2.8 LTM with a matching finder. I had been looking for a not too expensive finder for a while and this little finder looked rather appealing. Without the proper research I usually do when buying from the web I made an offer. This morning it appeared I won. The lens apparently has oil on the blades, but for the rest seems nice.
Anybody has any opinions on the lens/finder/purchase value?
Thanks,
Huub

 

[venchka]

Congratulations! I was watching that lens for some idea of what the one I own might be worth. You got a good price. Asssuming the glass is fine, it's a nice lens. The viewfinder is great! Enjoy using it!

 

[RayPA]

Odd, the description states a 50/1.8. Regardless, you got a very good deal on a nice lens. I paid almost twice that amount (mine is spotless, however--but still!). A classic RF lens. Small and well made, with a very good reputation.

🙂

 

[FPjohn]

Suffice

Suffice

Hello:

The 35mm F2.8 is a good performer(http://not.contaxg.com/document.php?id=14418 ) as would be the f1.8. The finder has distance correction and is reasonably accurate on a Barnack or M series.The CV Brightline has an advantage in that it allows one to see around the fov.

yours
Frank

 

[rover]

I have been watching that seller's auctions. He has been offering some nice stuff. Good luck.

 

[raid]

This begs the question how the Canon 35mm lenses compare;
1.8 vs. 2.0 vs. 2.8

I have the first and the last, and I love both of them.
The 35mm/2.8 is an under-rated lens which is a really nice performer.

Raid

 

[back alley]

the 1.8 and the 2 are near identical in performance.
the 2.8 is not quite as sharp and has much lower contrast.

 

[raid]

the 1.8 and the 2 are near identical in performance.
the 2.8 is not quite as sharp and has much lower contrast.

Joe,

It seems that the 35/2 is "rare"; as for the 35/2.8, it gives you a vintage look with B&W film. Its optical performance is different from the 35/1.8, and this made me keep this lens.

Raid

 

[back alley]

that 'vintage' look is from a good sharp lens with lower contrast raid.

i don't really think the 35/2 is all that rare. it goes for more money than the 1.8 but mostly beacuse of size and hype.
i've had all 3 lenses, i liked them all.

joe

 

[raid]

Joe,

The 35/1.8 is tiny. Why would the 35/2 be more expnsive due to its size?

Yes, the vintage look does come from such a combination.


Raid

 

[dexdog]

Joe,

The 35/1.8 is tiny. Why would the 35/2 be more expnsive due to its size?

Yes, the vintage look does come from such a combination.


Raid

Raid, I just placed my 35/1.8 and 35/2 side by side, and they appear to be identical in height and diameter, although the 35/2 is a bit lighter in weight. I agree with a previous poster- the performance of the two lenses are very similar.

 

[back alley]

Joe,

The 35/1.8 is tiny. Why would the 35/2 be more expnsive due to its size?

Yes, the vintage look does come from such a combination.


Raid

the 35/2 has more positive hype about it than the 1.8, combined with it's small size and nickname (japanese summicron) it is more popular than the 1.8.

 

[raid]

Mark,

This is good to know since I love my 35mm/1.8 lens with its look. It sits perfectly on my Canon P. I used it extensively last summer during a trip to Japan.

Raid

 

[dexdog]

The 35/2 has one advantage over the 35/1.8 IMHO- no annoying infinity lock. I know that some folks prefer such a lock, but I remove the things before I attach to the camera.

Must be my SLR heritage showin through.

 

[venchka]

My new lens test pattern

My new lens test pattern

Funny this should come up again and again.

I've just been playing with scans from my first roll of Kodak BW400CN. Also my first B&W of any kind in megadecades. I have also decided that I have a perfect lens test pattern which I can rely on to be consistent and repeatable. Great for sharpness, depth of field, bouquet (or is it Bucket?😀 ) ok bokeh...and it's right in my own backyard.

Name that lens.

 

[Alberti]

I bought the lens last week, but have mixed feelings.
Agree, it is seductive: the center is nice and allows very neat portraits. It can also be very sharp.
However the plane of focus gives sudden unsharpness and hence - - the images give me pain in the eyes, like a strain.

The lens has a warm effect. The yellow color is from thoriated radioactive glass . . . And it is F2.8 but compared to my M-Rokkor at F2.8 the Canon needs almost half a stop extra time. As things get old they become slower.

"soft focus effect":

Sharp now:

It sort of has a nice way of separating from the background.

My wife really liked this picture.

So it has its great points.
Still my copy has inconsistencies. One moment the focus is right the next it is just slightly off. This means it jumps.
And my rapairman Wil van Manen in Zoetermeer will say: it needs a CLA.

So altogether it will be half the price of a new ZM Biogon-C. I think I'll go for the latter.
Just return it. ? ? ?

 

[Alberti]

This shows the strong points again.

Mauritshuis museum, The Hague by Albert K., on Flickr

Look at how the fence stands out from the building, and compare left and right, top of the fence (astonishing) and bottom (poor).

I can see a slight shift in the focal plane. The M240-MP is soooo unforgiving. It is clear: even at F6.8 the center ring is sharp, with a slow but visible roll-off.

And look at the rendition of the gold.
That is kind of unique, just like the colour of the skin of the boy 'in China Town' , a bit up.

 

[f.hayek]

The 35 C Biogon has virtually zero distortion, wonderful color, resolution only bested by the ZM 1,4/35 and is one of the most flare-resistant lenses out there. Its modest price belies its impressive capabilities. You will not regret buying it.

 

[Alberti]

Thanks for the nudge. I am urged to buy the Biogon-C. It is on offer right now at several places.

Meanwhile, I have looked at the Canon 35mm images.

What is comonly known from MTF curves is that the wobble as the distance from the center increases, identifies some change in the focal plane. Many lenses go outward, sort of back-focus, towards the edges. Such as my Summicron 35mm Version one does. So one focusses on an object in the foreground, you open the dia to separate the work from the background, and then in the far corner all at once details show up . . . Many lenses have that, I have seen examples of older Noctiluxes doing that too.​

In the Canon 35mm it is quite different.
There is field curvature. BUT THE CURVATURE IS TO THE FRONT.

So here a scene I took : specifically for its 'brick wall'.

And here a crop. Not how nice it is that the lady with her dotted shirt with yellow birds 'appear to be' in focus. Pleasant surprise. Isn't this what is most pleasuable in a picture? No 'vague ghosts' in the foreground? The lady is sharp, while the persons to the left are in a range of out of focus, there the wall is short of being sharp too.

- [Another lens I have, the M-Rokkor 28mm has this effect of front-focus to the edges too, when stopped down rather far to F8.]

 

[bluesun267]

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).