canon 35mm f2 ltm compare summicron....?

[BBNNE]

canon 35mm f2 ltm nickname "Japanese Summicron"
is it really as much as Summicron quality..? why people say that?
i want some information🙂

 

[wallace]

I have the little Canon . It's the best ltm lens I own. But I never had the opportunity to compare with any Summicron....

 

[35mmdelux]

yes, compares favorably. Good user..

 

[raid]

some claim that the bokeh of the Canon 35/2 is harsh

 

[BBNNE]

i found some information

35/2 Canon black - essentially a rework of the 35/1.8 and the model for the current 35/2.5 Skopar pancake. A world-class lens in its time (made until 1972). Extremely contrasty, very slight blue bias, well-made black enamel on aluminum body, like a little SLR lens. Very compact. Same full click stops. The cool thing about this lens is that like other Canon lenses, the focus mark and the aperture indicator are at the 2 o'clock position. With the 35/2 you can see the selected aperture in the Hexar RF's finder. This lens is hellishly sharp in the center and pretty weak at the corners wide-open. I suspect that Canon tweaked the 1.8 a tiny bit and optimized for contrast and center sharpness. Getting pricey. This lens can only be used with the Canon black clamp-on round shade.

quote by Dante Stella

 

[k__43]

I own my second 35/1.8 ltm and a cron V4. The cron wipes the floor with the canon (better sharpness, higher contrast and less vignetting). You have to go to f/8 to get a similar result. The canon is really weak on color negs wide open. You might ask why I bought a second lens when I don't think that highly of it. I do not really know either .. a slight bit of nostalgic GAS I guess. I wanted a lens for the vintage look or something.

The f/2 canon is supposed to be much better. It also looks better than the f/1.8

 

[Particular]

I have the late version of the Canon 35mm f2, as well as a 35mm Summicron v3. At some point I did a quick test comparing the two on a Sony nex.
Basically the Canon is sharper than the Summicron at f2 in the center only. The Summicron has more even sharpness into the corners. Stopping down, the Summicron overtakes the Canon even in the center. The corners do improve on the Canon the more you stop down, but they never catch up to the Leica. At f5.6 the Leica has very even high sharpness. I also looked at out of focus areas in the shots, but I honestly could not see any difference. Perhaps different subject matter would render differently than distant trees and buildings.
Compared to a lot of other lenses, even newer ones, the Canon holds up really well. Besides that it has great ergonomics, is light and compact. There really is a lot to like about it.
It is a very good lens, but don't expect miracles.

 

[Bingley]

I have the little Canon . It's the best ltm lens I own. But I never had the opportunity to compare with any Summicron....

I'm in a similar position. I have the second version of the Canon 35/2, dating from the early 1970s. It is a very, very sharp lens. I have never used a 35 'chron, so I can't say whether the Canon resembles a 'chron in iits rendering, but regardless it is a very, very good lens.

 

[JMQ]

The Canon 35/2 LTM is $400-600 for a clean copy or about 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the Summicron, depending on version. I agree with Cristian's assessment that it is avery good lens, and that it is not in the same league as the Summicron. I own the 35/2 Canon -- bought it at LHSA meet in St. Louis 10 years ago when I was walking the floor with Tom Abrahamsson, and he recommended it.

 

[Bingley]

I own my second 35/1.8 ltm and a cron V4. The cron wipes the floor with the canon (better sharpness, higher contrast and less vignetting). You have to go to f/8 to get a similar result. The canon is really weak on color negs wide open. You might ask why I bought a second lens when I don't think that highly of it. I do not really know either .. a slight bit of nostalgic GAS I guess. I wanted a lens for the vintage look or something.

The f/2 canon is supposed to be much better. It also looks better than the f/1.8

I have both the Canon 35/1.8 and the Canon 35/2. The lenses are VERY different. The 35//1.8 provides more a vintage look. It is not nearly as contrasty as the 35/2.0, and is also fairly soft wide open and at f.2. The 35/1.8 also flares easily when you point it at a light source (a window or open doorway, for example). That said, it produces lovely images in b&w and color, soft and dreamy wide open, and sharp stopped down, with moderate contrast.

The 35/2.0 is very contrasty, as has been said above, and is more flare resistent. Much more "modern" in its look.

 

[raid]

I have the Summicron and the Canon 35/2 35/1.8 35/1.5, 35/2.8
The Canon 35/2 is an excellent lens.
The Summicron is a better lens.

 

[Bille]

I have the 35/2 LTM on order. Paid about 100€ which was probably quite a good deal.

May post a few comparison images with the V4 cron soon.

These http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=21447632@N00&q=canon ltm 35mm look fine to me (not my pictures) and very sharp in the center.

 

[raid]

Congrats for such a super deal.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I own the 35mm 1,8 and find it a really nice lens (I paid £125) it isn't up to Summicron quality and is wide open not quite as good as the 35mmƒ2 version.

That said it is on my Leica more than any other lens because wide open it is low contrast with a touch of flare by ƒ4 it starts to be a really good lens possibly not as good as the 1980's 'cron I have used but so close.

This is the 35mm ƒ1,8 wide open in a dark church on Kodachrome 200

And at ƒ5,6 on Efke KB25

I don't think it's a Summicron beater for contrast and resolution, but for the price both the Canon 35mm are excellent

 

[Tom A]

The Canon 35f2 is on par with the v1 Summicron 35. Corners are soft at f2.0 and sharpens up by f4/5,6. Contrast is high - but what makes it so usable is the tiny size. Usually it is on a M2, no hood as it is surprisingly flare resistant, more so than the Summicron 35 vII/III.
As a user lens it is very good, with most shots at f2 and 2.8 corners are usually not that important anyway! I have also found that it is a bit better mechanically than other Canon lenses - less crunchy aperture ring and solid aperture control. No, it is not a Summicron 35f2 Asph - which I have too. But somehow I prefer the Canon!!!!!

 

[Fraser]

I had one for a short time and I was amazed at the quality I don't have the Summicron 35 but compared it to pre asph 35mm and my 28mm Summicron and there was nothing in it.

 

[goamules]

I've enjoyed the Canon 35/1.8 for years, but always wanted to compare to the F2.0 version. I finally got one, but it's just sent to DAG for a needed clean. I did like the firm fstop clicks, and the small size. I'm really looking forward to getting it back.

 

[raid]

I am trading my Canon 35/2 (plus cash) towards a Nikkor 35/1.8, which is a different animal. I have the 8 element Summicron 35/2, so I am happy with that lens. The Canon was hardly ever used by me.

 

[jammcat]

I rather like this lens-- I will probably never sell it.
It is the perfect combination of size, weight, focus throw, image quality, and price.

Here are some images taken with the Canon 35mm LTM at Toronto Pride, 2012:

All on Ektar.

Here's expired portra:

and here's neopan400 @ 1600 in rodinal:

 

[Tom A]

M2, Canon 35mm f2.0 @ f2.0. XX in Td 201 developer. Granville Island market here in Vancouver.