Canon LTM Canon 35mm F2.8 in M Mount

[JPSuisse]

Hi all,

does anybody have any experience with the Canon 35mm F2.8 in M mount.

What kind of comments can you offer?

What framelines will it bring up on an M?

I think the lens is from the 50's, or?

Thanks for any input. I'm thinking on picking one up that I saw used the other day.

Kind regards,

JP

 

[Revolucion Artistico]

No such lens ever existed with an m mount. The thread mount lens, probably with an adapter is a great little, and I do mean little, lens that produces great images. Well worth the cost of what they usually go for. In fact I'm regretting recently selling mine.

 

[Strangeluv]

Or, if you got the cash, you could go for the Canon 35mm f/2.0 🙂

 

[Krzys]

I have a newer black and chrome version up on ebay. Didn't sell here.

 

[JPSuisse]

Hmm. I wasn't aware about the F2. Can you post the link? I'll take a look at it.

Are there adapters for an M-mount then? I didn't have a chance to look at the mount on the 2.8.

JP

 

[Rogrund]

Here is excellent info on all Canon RF lenses. They're all LTM, except for the 50/0.95. And yes, you need a LTM/M mount adapter. Go for a Leitz or Voigtländer one.

 

[Benjamin]

LTM lenses can be used, fully RF coupled, with an inexpensive LTM-M adapter.

You'll need the 35-135 version.

 

[JPSuisse]

Thanks for the tips, guys. I'm excited to try it now!

JP

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I currently have the Canon 35/2 and 35/2.8. I sold the 35/1.8.

Overall, I prefer the rendering of the 35/2.8 over the other 2. It is lower contrast than the 35/2, and I like that.

 

[raid]

I find myself "stealing" words from Brian ....

I currently have the Canon 35/1.8 and 35/2.8. I sold the 35/2.0.

Overall, I prefer the rendering of the 35/2.8 over the other 2. It is lower contrast than the 35/2, and I like that.

 

[wallace]

Can't speak about the 35/2.8 but I own the 35/2.0 and the Skopar 35/2.5.
The Canon 35/2.0 is a very very good lens with lower contast than the Skopar.

wallace

 

[FPjohn]

Good resolution, moderate contrast and small. I find images to be similar to the f3.5 Summaron. Yours
FPJ

 

[Mablo]

I'm stealing words from Brian, Raid and Wallace: I own the 35/1.8 and the Skopar 35/2.5. The Canon 35/1.8 is a very very good lens with lower contast than the Skopar, and I like that.

I wouldn't mind having the 35/2.8 too I might add.

 

[venchka]

I have owned my copy of the Canon 35/2.8 first version, all chrome, 34mm filters, since about 1975, give or take. Everyone above was reading my mind. The lens works equally well on the Canon VI-T it came on or the Leica M5.

Enjoy.