Canon LTM Canon 35mm f2 LTM: Is this the right hood?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Nokton48

Nokton48

Veteran
Local time
8:59 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
7,038
Hi All,

I've been looking for another 35mm lens, narrowed down to the 35mm Summicron V1 (spendy, I've had one before) or the Canon 35mm f2 (or f1.8). Just bought this one, what do you guys think? Is this the right hood for this lens, does it work OK? It's marked for the 35mm f2.8 so I would think it would work.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110279410384

I've read this lens is sometimes favored over the Summicron. What do you think?
 
Nokton48 said:
I've read this lens is sometimes favored over the Summicron. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I favor lemonade over limenade, but it has nothing to do with which one "is better". If limes are more expensive than lemons, then sometimes I'd prefer lemonade over limenade. If the limes are well grown, then I'd rather have the limenade over the lemonade.

What matters is what fits my taste, and if my taste fits my wallet, then that's where my wallet goes.

Having said that, I'd take a look at the 35mm f/1.7 Ultron. Cheaper than a Canon 35mm f/1.8 (or f/1.5), close-focuses a little closer, and 39mm filters fit it.

If you can afford the 1st version 35mm Summicron, you should get it. Easy.
 
Well said Gabriel, I like both lemonade and limeade, as well. I did just sell off my 35mm f1.7 Ultron, as I have also the 35mm f2.5 CV (which I am keeping), and a Jupiter-12 35mm f2.8, which I am also keeping.

If I could find the right 35mm Summicron, I'd buy it. I think this new Canon will nicely compliment my 50 f1.2 Canon
 
Last edited:
Hi Dan,

I was looking at this auction too! Looks like a real minty 35mm. But it was a bit more than what I was willing to pay, especially when there are no front or rear lens caps.

Anyway, the hood will fit the lens perfectly as it's a clamp on 42mm size. There is no dedicated hood in the Canon literatures that I can find. Perhaps as Joe said in the second post, the lens is recessed deep enough not to require a hood. No vignetting in the pictures from using this lens/hood combo when I use them. Hope that helps.

Cheers,

P.S. The 50mm 1.2 and this lens will be a killer combination!
 
i think that shade looks awful on it and i wouldnt use it.
i use no shade on mine and i get great results
 
i have that adapter as well. but my plan was to use it for 43mm filters. I bought 2 a red and a IR one, there are no IR filters in 40mm. the plan is to use Efke IR820 B&W Infrared film. shame about HIE :mad:.

i prabably wont get around to this for a while.
 
Thanks everybody for your very helpful responses. Here's my new Canon 35mm f2, on M5. Below that are the two 43 vented hoods from Heavystar (still waiting for the 40-43 adapter), and the Canon Hood that came with the lens:
 
Last edited:
As previously noted, there was no shade released for this lens. The front element is deep enough that Canon did not feel one was required. My experience with the lens bears this out. Take your choice, but just check that a shade does not vignette

Harry
 
Well, I'm surprised to find that combining the S&W 40-43 adapter, S&W 43mm UV, and Vented/Tilted S&W 43mm, vignettes rather severely with the 35mm f2 Canon at F22. Sooo, I'm trying the Canon Hood, with the 40mm (not Canon) UV that came with it. The filter does forward-mount the hood, by the thickness of the filter ring. Maybe I'll end up using it without a hood or filter, it's certainly very compact and stealthy.
 
Nokton48 said:
Well, I'm surprised to find that combining the S&W 40-43 adapter, S&W 43mm UV, and Vented/Tilted S&W 43mm, vignettes rather severely with the 35mm f2 Canon at F22. Sooo, I'm trying the Canon Hood, with the 40mm (not Canon) UV that came with it. The filter does forward-mount the hood, by the thickness of the filter ring. Maybe I'll end up using it without a hood or filter, it's certainly very compact and stealthy.
Click to expand...

i think the hood isnt needed at all. you may as well try it that way.
 
Many people keep asking for the hood of the Canon 35/2 because it flares with backlite.
It will not go away with a hood. You have to live with that. There is no Gaussian type wideangle lens without backlite flare. The newest design of that type, with modern coating, is the Hexanon UC 35/2. This is where flare is minimized. But it's still there.
For a 1960's lens, flare of the 35/2 Canon is pretty good under control. The older 35/1.8 shows more. The 35/1.5 shows less, but ghosting can be ugly. The 35/2 is free of ghosting.
I've tried a 50/1.5 hood on the 35/2 which is very tight and cuts off the outer edges of frames. If slides are framed you will not notice. The hood don't improve image quality. But even with this tight hood the flare is still there. It comes from light sources within the picture area where no hood in the world can prevent flare.
Enjoy the good pocketable lens, or if you want one that is free of flare, buy a ASPH.-Summicron or ZM-Biogon.
cheers, Frank
 
Last edited:
I am late to this party, but I bought a new Canon 35mm f/1.5 back in the '70s, with the dedicated lens hood. It is sitting in front of me as I type. The hood does impinge a bit on Leica viewfinder windows, but I use an auxiliary finder in the accessory shoe anyhow. I don't remember whether it blocked the view on my Canon P's or 7's.
It is a lens with "personality," not so sharp wide open but at f/2.8 it gathers itself and the quality of its images is quite lovely. Witness the fact that I've kept it about 37 years!
 
I, too, think that the 35/1.5 is sharper at f/2.8 than the 35/2.
(The 50/0.95, too, is sharper than any Canon 50mm at f/2.8 except for the 50/1.4)
So you have bought the 35/1.5 with the "W-50" hood from shop, and they said the hood was made for this lens? That's interesting. Some people think the (quite small) W-50 was made for the big 35/2.5 SLR lens, that's why they appeared that often. I think it was made for both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom