Canon 35's

[mynikonf2]

Which of the Canon 35mm LTM lenses is the best overall performer? To start with, I've read negative reviews on the 35/1.8 & rave reviews on the 35/2.0 but what do you think, the mainstream RFF photog? Do you have a favorite 35, other than the 2 most talked about??? 😎

 

[Bill58]

Most "experts" say it's the 35/2 late, black one. I like mine, but I also like the 35/2.8 chrome one.

 

[sanmich]

Mike
I have the 35mm 1.5.
despite a bad reputation, I measured it as being sharper than an 1.8.
In fact, in the corners, at f/2, it was kind of midway between the 1.8 and a cron asph.

 

[kermaier]

The only one I've used is the 35/2.8 -- I have both the chrome (34mm filter) and the black/chrome (40mm filter) versions. Great lens: very compact (especially the chrome one), quite sharp, medium-low contrast, solidly built. And relatively cheap.

::Ari

 

[Al Kaplan]

I had a Canon 35/1.8 for years and the main reason for going to a 35/2 Summicron was because I had several other lenses that took 39mm filters back in the days whan color meant chromes and chromes meant filters.

In "real world" situations you won't see much difference. In Raid type situations, same film, camera, location, exposure, daughter, etc. direct comparison between two prints, there still isn't enough difference to really matter that much. Lighting, composition, subject, timing, are much more important. A boring photograph exhibiting technical perfection is still a boring photograph.

 

[sanmich]

There is one significant difference for me at least and it's the min focusing distance...

 

[Mackinaw]

I had the 35/2.0 but sold it. A good lens that I just didn't use that much (preferring my Summicron 35/2.0 asph). I still own a 35/2.8. Great little lens, and I love the "classic" construction (chrome on brass).

Jim B.

 

[Tom A]

I have the 35f2 and the 35f1.8 (and a 35f3.5). I prefer the 35f2. The 35f1.8 was basically "throttled down" to f2.0 and in most aspects is similar in performance. Wide-open the 35f1.8 is a bit soft in the edges - but no more than a I st version Summicron.
The 35f2 is very nice little package on a M2. Without the hood it can slide into a jacket pocket easily.
The 35f3.5 is rather pedestrian in performance - and it tend to flare!
At the moment i dont have a 35f2.8 - but I liked the ones I used to have - however - given a choice - I would get the 35f2.

 

[raid]

I usually favor using a 50mm lens, but I also use 35mm lenses. In Canon, I have the 35mm 1.5, 1.8, 2.0, and 2.8. If the 35/1.8 had been really a bad lens, I would have sold mine a while ago. It is a very good lens, with its own occasional flaring and character. I always use ahood with it. The 35/2.8 is sharp and overall quite good of a lens. It is very difficult to poorly design a 35/2.8 lens after all. I like the first version Summicron 35/2 because it is first version after all and it is built first quality Leitz as the rest of the lenses should have been built. The Canon 35/2 came to me in "new" and unused condition, which it still is.

The 35/1.5 is kinda special. It gets a bad wrapt in general, but it is actually an excellent lens or I would not have bought it on top of having several other 35mm lenses. My 35mm lens comparison showed images from such a lens to be very well received here. I could swear that the asking prices went up after the lens test was over.


Just today, and as I was proctoring a final exam, I was daydreaming of which 35mm lenses to sell.

I will exclude the Summicron, but all other lenses are game.

 

[Sonnar2]

The 35/2.8 is an early (1951) design and very sensible for backlite flare, but resolution and colors elsewhere are excellent. contrast is on the lower side. The Nikon 35/2.5 shows much higher contrast here.
The 35/1.8 is a bit overstretched for speed. It was (together with the Nikon) the highest speed 35mm lens in the world back in 1957. It acts on the same niveau as the 35/2.8 when closed down a little. Contrast is better.
The 35/2 is the last, and best overall use lens. But contrast wide open is a bit pushed too far, and boke and color rendition wide open a bit ugly. With B&W no problems. The best lens at f/5.6-8, up to modern standards except for the Gaussian wideangle typical backlite flare (can be seen at the 1979' Summicron in the same amount)
The 35/1.5 is the sharpest Canon 35mm at f/2.8, and gives the best color rendition, IMHO. It's overstretched wide open too (again, it was the fastest 35mm in the world back than). With sidelite it shows unpredictable ghost pictures at most apertures even with a hood, but worse with none. But backlite flare i.e. tree twigs on a bright sky are a bit better than with the 35/1.8. It's surely not only faster but better corrected. It has a bit a bad reputation while it was too cheap. Probably it's as "bad" as the first-gen. Summilux 35/1.4 which users be calm about bad results for sake of resale value. Canon users typically are not as clever. Obviously the bigger glass of the Canon 35/1.5 will result in less light falloff wide open than with the Summilux, at the price of ghost pictures and coma wide open. the same goes for the 50/0.95 when compared to the Noct. 50/1. Leica decided the easier way to cut off glass size and edge light rays, allowing more light falloff with mostly B&W usage of their lenses in mind. With color film, probably more in mind of Canon designer JIRO MUKAI (all the lenses except the 35/2.8), light falloff is less tolerable. Sharpness at f/1.5 is just in the very center. Leave it wide open only if you don't get the picture otherwise or when taking cute kids/cats. But then, be sure have them placed in the center of the picture. After all a 35mm at 1m minimum distance usually is a bit too wide for cats portraits...

 

[ferider]

I haven't used the 35/2.8. From the ones I've used

- the 1.8 has the best bokeh; but wide open is quite sensitive to flare.
- the 35/2 has the ugliest bokeh; And resolution/contrast is not so different from the 1.8, from f2.8 or so on.
- the 35/1.5 felt like the best user, and was very very sharp a bit closed down.

I stopped using them since it's quite difficult to find a small filter/hood combo without causing vignetting on film. And 1m min. focus is inconvenient. Also, for vintage look, I like my Nikkor 35/1.8 better.

For the same or less money, the CV 35mm lenses (2.5, 1.4, and 1.7) run circles around the Canon lenses.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[raid]

what Roland said

what Roland said

- the 1.8 has the best bokeh; ==> that's why I kept this lens

but wide open is quite sensitive to flare. ==> this can be romantic looking in night images

- the 35/2 has the ugliest bokeh; And resolution/contrast is not so different from the 1.8, from f2.8 or so on. ==> maybe that's why I kept my lens unused for sale as "new lens"

- the 35/1.5 felt like the best user, and was very very sharp a bit closed down. ==> I got such a lens after our 35mm-40mm lens test!

 

[pagpow]

I have the 1.8, 2, and 2.8. The 1.8 blooms when there is a bright object in an otherwise dark field -- for example shooting in a cave towards the opening.

The 2 does not seem to do that.

I haven't shot the 2.8 yet.

I was going to get rid of the 1.8 but shooting it inside w/o bright/dark contrast mentioned above, I thought it yielded an image with greater plasticity, 3D character, sense of space -- whatever we want to call it.
I haven't yet shot more to explore that sense.

Is it there, or was I smoking something when I thought it was? If there, is it more pronounced than the 2?

Finally, you might be interested in Dante Stella's view on various Canon ltms as well as Sean Reid's on Canons on the RD1.

 

[Sonnar2]

For the same or less money, the CV 35mm lenses (2.5, 1.4, and 1.7) run circles around the Canon lenses.

You think so, Roland?
I've sold my 35/1.7. Always low contrast, and some of the ugliest sidelite or backlite ghosts ever seen in my pictures. NO landscape lens. Quite good performance wide open - better than the Canons - but less improvement when stopped down. Maybe my example was a bad one but I bought it new, and it always was in focus. In terms of handling I always hated it (where I love the Canon 35/1.5 for short size and good grip)

The 35/2.5 (I have the 1st version pancake) is the much better user. High contrast, virtually no backlite flare (thanks to Biogon type design), some ghost pictures too but not as bad. A landscape lens. Good for the price.

At the moment my favorite 35mm LTM lens is the UC-Hexanon. The best traveller lens. Small, sharp, contrasty (except for f/2 which is a "reserve" stop), very light flare (from what I've seen, less than the 1979' Summicron, but of course more than the ASPH-Summicron), NO ghostings at all even with no usage of the hood. A true advantage over the Canon 35/2 but of higher price tag too...

For the vintage of Canon lenses (and the prices), they doing quite well. The C/V may do better wide open, but they are not world class when compared to other new lenses. The Canon lenses actually were when issued.

This to said: the 35/2.5 Nikkor is also a great user (I have a black one in Nikon RF mount). Contrasty and sharp (except the outer corners). It was world class too in the 1950's...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I like the look of the Canon 35/2.8 the best- lower contrast preserves shadow detail. The colors are "muted" compared with the Nikkor wides. I recently picked up a Canon 35/2 and a Voigtlander 35/1.7. Both are sharp and higher contrast. I'll be getting a number of rolls back from the Voigtlander from Vacation soon. It is a much larger lens compared with the Canon 35/2.

 

[flip]

Among Canon 35's I only have the 2.0 and I agree with so much: it flares and has poor bokeh, but it's small and I enjoy it for B&W. But it has to fight now; with the UC Hex and Voigtlander 1.2 it's a discouraged sibling.

 

[kermaier]

Of course, a modern top-quality lens like the UC-Hex will perform much better than the old Canons - it's reputed to out-perform the Summicron v4 as well. My UC-Hex is great, but there's another I like better: the Summaron 35/2.8.

::Ari

 

[Bingley]

I also like the little chrome Canon 35/2.8, for a lot of the reasons stated above. It's tiny, sharp, and the lower contrast works well under bright California sun. The lens also produces very pleasing color tones with films like Portra and Superia. If I want a sharper, more contrasty look, I use my 40 Rokkor-M or CV Ultron 1.7.

 

[chris00nj]

I love my 35/2. It is small and sharp. Any smaller and it's hard to use (like my 35/3.5 summaron). Considering quality & price, it is a great alternative to a Summicron if you can't afford it. I'm sure the Summicron is better but that'll run $800+, while the Canon 35/2 is about $250-$350 in excellent condition.

I like the bokeh. Is there a bokeh tutorial or something? What makes bokeh bad or good? I can't seem to tell the difference between what people say is good and what people can say is bad. The only time I can tell is when I think it's really horrible (see 2nd photo)

Here is the Canon 35/2 wide open:

Seen in the Flickr Canon RF Lenses Group


This, I think, is bad bokeh. (It's forcing bokeh with a D-Lux 4)

 

[raid]

Hi,
The first photo looks better than the second. Thanks.

Bokeh [effects] show strongly with highlights in the background. Your second photo has a dark background with uninteresting objects [door and furniture]. For daytime photos, shooting a flower close to the lens and having many flowers as a backdrop will bring out bokeh. The bokeh of such a photo can be used to compare bokeh of lenses. At available light, take a photo inside a dark room with a few lights. The lights appreaing in the background will dominate the bokeh effect. Some lenses leave a beautifully smooth effect while other give a harsh and doughnut like bokeh effect.