Canon 35mm lens samples

[venchka]

Can somebody point me to samples here from the faster Canon 35mm lenses? I have a 2.8 so I'm interested in 2.0 and faster. I know I remember a thread by a new owner sometime in the last year or so. There were photos taken in a pub or restaurant. Small lights in the window. Donuts & fishscale bokeh. I've searched with no luck.

"Bueller? Bueller? Anybody?"

Thanks!

 

[ferider]

Wayne, one of those ?

that's the 35/f2 v1.

I now use the 35/1.8 and it is much smoother. Raid got some great
low light pics pack from Portugal, I believe (taken with the 1.8).

Note that both lenses go down to 1m only.

Your UC Hex is certainly better than both in all respects.

Best,

Roland.

 

[venchka]

EDIT: DUH! It's one of yours.

You are the man! Yep, that's it. Couldn't find it and I tried hard.

OK, there is a Canon 35/2.0 for sale in eBay from Kobe, Japan. It may be the second version. I was asking for a friend who is interested in a 35mm LTM lens for a FSU body.

Thanks again! I do remember more samples. Where is the original thread? Did you take that picture?

I hope you're right about the UC-Hexanon. I really need to use it more. I need to use all of my stuff more. Or have a big sale.

 

[ferider]

Yes. That's my wife on the right. Part of my PAW last year:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/1900019

Also some tests of that lens:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/1693428

Under the bottom line, if it has to be a Canon, I recommend th 35/1.8.
Not too expensive either. If it has to be modern and sharp, I recommend
CV 35/2.5 or 35/1.7.

Best,

Roland.

 

[venchka]

True. I suggested the Canon 35/2.8 for image quality & budget concerns.

Take a look at the Canonet QL17 wide open samples thread. That lens does the same thing wide open. Makes donuts out of small light sources, natural or artificial.

I think I'll tell my friend to go for the CV 35/2.5.

 

[ferider]

True. I suggested the Canon 35/2.8 for image quality & budget concerns.

Take a look at the Canonet QL17 wide open samples thread. That lens does the same thing wide open. Makes donuts out of small light sources, natural or artificial.

I think I'll tell my friend to go for the CV 35/2.5.

Good pick. Interesting about the Canonet. These are really extreme
conditions, also my tree/gas-light photos in the test - they are normally
easy to circumvent. Created by lenses designed at a time when bokeh didn't matter
(no internet ...).

Most prominently, the Summitar and Summarit do it, too ....



Roland.

 

[ferider]

Another example, similar conditions, slight donuts and coma:

Canon 50/1.4. All these lenses were optimized for resolution.

The couple didn't care though 🙂

Roland.

 

[venchka]

Guess what? Canon's EF 50/1.4 modern auto focus lens does it too. See the W/NW Wide Ohhpen thread, page 3 or 4. I need to get my FD 50/1.4 S.S.C. lens out and see if it does the same. Maybe it's a Canon thing?

 

[venchka]

Grinning. Does the Nikkor 105/2.5 do it too? Just wondering. For informational purposes only.

Did I ever tell you about the BNIB Nikkor 105/2.5 LTM lens with caps, hood, everything I missed on eBay by $50? One reason I quit eBay.

 

[ferider]

Guess what? Canon's EF 50/1.4 modern auto focus lens does it too. See the W/NW Wide Ohhpen thread, page 3 or 4. I need to get my FD 50/1.4 S.S.C. lens out and see if it does the same. Maybe it's a Canon thing?

Naah. See here:

The "bad bokeh" Nokton doesn't do it, the 40/2 lenses do 🙂

 

[vrgard]

Perhaps not, Roland, but the Nokton 40 does seem to have some other issues. See the Nokton 40 pic Anton Bawab recently posted of his wife on this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=681911#post681911 Note the light footballs from the bright area over his wife's head. I know that you are a fan of the Nokton 40/1.4 but I just can't get excited about that particular lens after seeing too many shots like this from that lens. (And my apologies to Anton as his shot is otherwise very nice with effects that are actually milder than some of the other Nokton shots I've seen posted on this forum.)

-Randy

edit: P.S. Anton, I really do like the shot of your wife. The people in the background are almost impressionistic in that you see them if you look but yet they're almost not there at all.

 

[raid]

I like the Canon 35/1.8 a lot. It may flare, but it is an exellent lens overall. the Canon 35mm/2.8 is also a great lens. The 35mm/2.0 has a more modern look to its images.

 

[Bingley]

Hi Wayne -- That's probably my Canonet you're refering to in this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46399. The wide-open shot of the peaches has some surprisingly funky bokeh, which one poster thought was astigmatism. That was a tough shot, lighting-wise, b/c of the sunlight coming in through the glass doors in the background. Under less extreme lighting conditions the lens performs well wide-open.

I'd like to see more pics w/ the Canon 1.8 and 2.0 35s. In recent months both Roland and Raid have posted some v. nice work w/ the former, and I've also seen some great shots from William (WLewisIII) w/ that lens too. Still, I get the impression that it's an underappreciated lens. I've got the CV 35/2.5 classic, which suits my needs (at the present) just fine.

 

[venchka]

Canon 35/2.0 sold

Canon 35/2.0 sold

The lens my friend was watching sold for $205. Is that low? Average? I have no clue.

I think we all need to watch specular highlights in backgrounds with these old lenses. And the new EF 50/1.4 lens. I know my Nikkor 50/1.4 needs a lot of attention to the background.

 

[venchka]

Hi Wayne -- That's probably my Canonet you're refering to in this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46399. The wide-open shot of the peaches has some surprisingly funky bokeh, which one poster thought was astigmatism. That was a tough shot, lighting-wise, b/c of the sunlight coming in through the glass doors in the background. Under less extreme lighting conditions the lens performs well wide-open.

I'd like to see more pics w/ the Canon 1.8 and 2.0 35s. In recent months both Roland and Raid have posted some v. nice work w/ the former, and I've also seen some great shots from William (WLewisIII) w/ that lens too. Still, I get the impression that it's an underappreciated lens. I've got the CV 35/2.5 classic, which suits my needs (at the present) just fine.

Your photo wasn't the only one. There are others as well. No worries. The foregrounds are great. I'm still on the fence about my QL17. Keep it. Sell it. Not too sure.

 

[ferider]

205 is pretty low for a good sample. I would expect around 300 - 350.

It is quite "sharp". But you know, M8 users are quite bokeh conscious 🙂