msbarnes
Well-known
Is this lens good at wide apertures?
i had a 35mm f1.8 and it sucked at f1.8/f2.0. Anyone know if this lens is good at wide apertures?
i had a 35mm f1.8 and it sucked at f1.8/f2.0. Anyone know if this lens is good at wide apertures?
gustavoAvila
Established
I have a black copy of this lens in good mechanical condition (though with a bit of of edge separation around the front element).
Under the right conditions (stopped down significantly and no strong light sources in the field of view), this lens can produce acceptable results.
However, both wide-open performance and flare control is poor (at least in my copy of the lens).
As such, I cannot recommend this lens for "high expectations" photography. Much better lenses are readily available.
Under the right conditions (stopped down significantly and no strong light sources in the field of view), this lens can produce acceptable results.
However, both wide-open performance and flare control is poor (at least in my copy of the lens).
As such, I cannot recommend this lens for "high expectations" photography. Much better lenses are readily available.
kermaier
Well-known
The Canon 35/2.8 is a very good lens, if you get a clean example. I prefer the chrome version to the black, as I think the build quality decreased and tendency to develop haze increased with the later black examples. I don't have sample pictures handy that demonstrate its performance wide open, but it doesn't suck anywhere nearly as badly as the Canon 35/1.8, which is notably soft and flare prone at wide apertures.
Among the vintage 35mm lenses slower than f/2 that I currently own, I'd rank them as follows:
1. Summaron 35/2.8
2. Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM
3. Canon 35/2.8
Of course, price rank is also as above.
In terms of value for money it's hard to beat the Canon. If you want a modern lens for similar money, get a CV Skopar 35/2.5 -- probably beats all of the above handily, if you get a good sample.
::Ari
Among the vintage 35mm lenses slower than f/2 that I currently own, I'd rank them as follows:
1. Summaron 35/2.8
2. Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM
3. Canon 35/2.8
Of course, price rank is also as above.
In terms of value for money it's hard to beat the Canon. If you want a modern lens for similar money, get a CV Skopar 35/2.5 -- probably beats all of the above handily, if you get a good sample.::Ari
goamules
Well-known
No 35mm fast lens that is a half century old is going to be "sharp wide open". If that's what you need, you need to get something made in the last 15 years, not something made the same year the 57 Chevy came out. By F2.8, most lenses are sharp, and by F5.6 I have a couple pre WWII lenses that are pretty sharp. But the CV lenses made recently are going to be sharper.
enero
Killer of Threads
Its a great and sharp lens for the size and age! I'm actually selling mine in the classified right now. You should totally buy it
In all seriousness though, I like it a lot, its not anything special, its a pretty nice all around lens. I think at 2.8 its pretty sharp and doesnt have that "glow" that people either love or hate (I personally hate the glow). I have a bunch of samples up from 2.8-8 and its pretty sharp across the board. Nothing that will blind you, but still, quite sharp.
In all seriousness though, I like it a lot, its not anything special, its a pretty nice all around lens. I think at 2.8 its pretty sharp and doesnt have that "glow" that people either love or hate (I personally hate the glow). I have a bunch of samples up from 2.8-8 and its pretty sharp across the board. Nothing that will blind you, but still, quite sharp.
gustavoAvila
Established
In the end, it always comes down to one's expectations.
If your expectation is superb optical performance, than you are better off with a new CV Skopar or Zeiss c-Biogon.
(For the going price of a used Canon 35 F2.8 (I paid $200) plus a cleaning (typically $50-100), one is more than half way to a new CV Skopar (and at approximately 40% of a new c-Biogon).)
On the other hand, if you want to experience the unique rendition that only a classic lens can provide (and have no expectations with regard to absolute optical performance) than the Canon does have its positive qualities.
Just don't pay too much.
If your expectation is superb optical performance, than you are better off with a new CV Skopar or Zeiss c-Biogon.
(For the going price of a used Canon 35 F2.8 (I paid $200) plus a cleaning (typically $50-100), one is more than half way to a new CV Skopar (and at approximately 40% of a new c-Biogon).)
On the other hand, if you want to experience the unique rendition that only a classic lens can provide (and have no expectations with regard to absolute optical performance) than the Canon does have its positive qualities.
Just don't pay too much.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Exactly. While the Canon 35/2.8 isn't "biting sharp" wide-open it's not fuzzy either. Actually, you can get a perfectly acceptable picture at F2.8.
Mechanically, the chrome-on-brass version, which I own, is jewel-like. Silky smooth focus and aperture action with a beautiful appearance. It's one of my favorite 35mm lenses and one that I'll never sell.
Jim B.
ferider
Veteran
That is nonsense. From zero to 30, a 57 Chevy will outperform many modern cars ....
Take a well calibrated and clean 35 Summaron from the late 50s and compare it to a Summicron from the 80s, and you will find that the Summaron has higher center resolution, for the same f-stop. The more modern lens might have better corner performance, higher contrast, etc., but as a single qualifier, "sharp" is meaningless.
To the OP: the Canon 35/2.8 is a good lens, but make sure you get one without haze, and without coating damage (seems to happen often with old Canon RF lenses).
Roland.
pagpow
Well-known
As often the use, intended use comes into play.
You might enjoy
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml
if you don't want to read it all, skip to list of My Favorites
and
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
both mention the Canon 35/2.8 and compare it to others.
Giorgio
You might enjoy
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml
if you don't want to read it all, skip to list of My Favorites
and
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
both mention the Canon 35/2.8 and compare it to others.
Giorgio
goamules
Well-known
The OP said he thought the 1.8 was too soft. Opposite of soft is sharp. Yes, that's simplistic terms, but I didn't want to go into coma, spherical and chromatic aberration, and field curvature. Much less contrast. If he feels a 1950s lens is "soft", he should get a modern, multicoated lens that will look "less soft" because they've worked out all the aberrations 1950s lenses still had. (I'm talking small format. Large format probably got rid of all of them with the F6.3 tessar or F6.8 Dagor in the late 1800s)
But sharp IS a meaningful term, to the user and layman. Yes, I have Petzvals from prior to the Civil War that put most of these lenses to shame, in terms of sharpness, or resolution if you wish.
Iestrada
Well-known
Take good look at this thread and decide for yourself. I got one for myself based on what saw.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104354
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104354
msbarnes
Well-known
Whoa. A lot of responses, I will take a look into that thread for some samples.
Just to clarify,.
I have/had a few M/LTM lenses (but not nearly as many as some of you guys) and the 35mm f1.8 performed the worse wide-open; however, that is usually the reputation so it really isn't that surprising. I figured that it is easier to design a slower lens so maybe the 35mm f2.8 is better wide open relative to the 35mm f1.8 LTM wide open? The first speedsters seem to perform worse than their slower siblings wide-open.
Although debatable, my feeling is that the 35mm f2.8 Summaron is sharper than the V1 Cron and that the 50mm f2.0 DR Summicron is sharper than the V1 Lux wide-open. (OK off topic a bit).
Yes, the 35mm f1.8 LTM was a disappointing lens WIDE OPEN, but that does not mean that my expectations are really that high. I guess it is difficult for you guys to know my expectations, but I just wanted to get a feel for this lens.
Just to clarify,.
I have/had a few M/LTM lenses (but not nearly as many as some of you guys) and the 35mm f1.8 performed the worse wide-open; however, that is usually the reputation so it really isn't that surprising. I figured that it is easier to design a slower lens so maybe the 35mm f2.8 is better wide open relative to the 35mm f1.8 LTM wide open? The first speedsters seem to perform worse than their slower siblings wide-open.
Although debatable, my feeling is that the 35mm f2.8 Summaron is sharper than the V1 Cron and that the 50mm f2.0 DR Summicron is sharper than the V1 Lux wide-open. (OK off topic a bit).
Yes, the 35mm f1.8 LTM was a disappointing lens WIDE OPEN, but that does not mean that my expectations are really that high. I guess it is difficult for you guys to know my expectations, but I just wanted to get a feel for this lens.
roundg
Well-known
canon 35/2.8 is a very good lens even wide open.
