Canon M39 28mm f/2.8 pics

CanonRFinder

CanonRFinder

Well-known
Local time
6:29 PM
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
371
Location
Melbourne Victoria OZ
View My Gallery
Some pics I took with my TYPE 1 28mm f.2,8 M39 lens on a Bessa-R. The event was to celebrate the 1962 Aussie GP held at the now defunct Caversham racing track near Perth. 83-year-old triple World Champion Sir Jack Brabham was the VIP for the day.

Photos are down below, originals may have been slightly bigger in length
 
Last edited:
I've never been impressed with the optical quality of this lens. It's quite impressive however as a collectible and certainly usable, but I think it was somewhat ahead of its time optically for critical work.

Note the flaring and scattering of the reflection of light from the Mini-Cooper fender in the second photo above. This is probably due to internal reflections, poorly suppressed by the way the elements are coated and baffled. I find this lens to have rather ho-hum contrast and marginally acceptable resolution. My test shots with it have indicated this as well.
 
nice shots

nice shots

Thanks to the OP for posting. I agree David, with this example, perhaps it could use a cleaning.

Which of the 3 versions of this lens do you use David?


David Murphy said:
I've never been impressed with the optical quality of this lens. It's quite impressive however as a collectible and certainly usable, but I think it was somewhat ahead of its time optically for critical work.

Note the flaring and scattering of the reflection of light from the Mini-Cooper fender in the second photo above. This is probably due to internal reflections, poorly suppressed by the way the elements are coated and baffled. I find this lens to have rather ho-hum contrast and marginally acceptable resolution. My test shots with it have indicated this as well.
Click to expand...
 
This is my first effort in using some of the lenses I have in my collection but I will try to compare the 28mm f/3.5 with this lens and see what the feedback is like. The pics were scanned from photos so I am not sure if that is a negative for the lens. I also tweaked the contrast a bit in the three pics as they were a bit washed out or so I thought. I have added two more from the day and these are unmanipulated. In addition, the day was hot and the sun behind me was harsh as can be seen from the cloudless sky. Anyway, I am open to suggestions, as most guys here seem to have tried many focal lengths of Canon RF lenses. Peter

Caversham 11-09 Whippet Wagon #2.jpg Old Whippet wagon partially restored

Caversham 11-09 Stinson Reliant Bi-plane #2.jpg 1935 Stinson Bi-plane
 
ampguy said:
Thanks to the OP for posting. I agree David, with this example, perhaps it could use a cleaning.

Which of the 3 versions of this lens do you use David?
Click to expand...
Yes the lens should be examined for haze or fungus - it might be improvable. The version I had was silver, not black, and seemed pretty old, but I'm unfamiliar with the version history of this lens except for hearing there was a rare late black model.

All said, I'd still love to own one again, but I can't see pay the $400 and up they now seem to command.
 
I had the impression that the Canon 28mm f/2.8 LTM was only available in Chrome. There is a black version of the Canon 28mm f/3.5 LTM which is definitely not quite as common. It uses a 40mm filter.

In any case, I do find the images from the f/2.8 version of this lens to be softer at the corners. Helps a bit when the lens is stopped down. Nevertheless, I love the form factor of this lens and it's one of the most compact 28mm lenses ever.

Here's one shot with the Canon 28mm f/2.8 LTM on the Epson R-D1s at f/8.0


Another shot with Canon 28mm f/2.8 LTM on Leica M7 on Fuji Superia 400.

The slightly higher contrast is due to the lab scan. Not a lens characteristic.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
I liked the copy that I had. Lower contrast and quite sharp when closed down a bit. At f5.6 and up competitive with a modern lens. Quite strong vignetting wide open. It's strongest point is size and built, IMO. I do think there is strong sample/performance dependence with this lens.

Hey, it was good enough to be Winogrand's main lens, right ? 🙂

Thanks for sharing, Peter.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Mine is sharp enough, on center, even at f2.8. For me.

It does vignette at f2.8. It's like a 28mm noctilux, just without the f1. Or f1.4. Or f2. But otherwise.....
 
not noticing vignetting on M8

not noticing vignetting on M8

With either Roland's v2, or a V3. In fact significantly less than a CV 35/3.5, for example (on digital).

Mike, what version do you have? If ver. 1, we should do some tests. I have a v2 and v3. I am thinking the differences are mainly in coatings?

MikeL said:
Mine is sharp enough, on center, even at f2.8. For me.

It does vignette at f2.8. It's like a 28mm noctilux, just without the f1. Or f1.4. Or f2. But otherwise.....
Click to expand...
 
The three versions described by Peter should be just comestic variations right? Other than the ID ring and it's engravings, I was under the impression that the lens optics were basically unchanged.

Cheers,
 
I'm not sure

I'm not sure

But as David mentioned, if the OP's sample is clean, and representative of a V1, then it flares - and differently than the V2. Thought it might be a nice look for some b/w.


bennyng said:
The three versions described by Peter should be just comestic variations right? Other than the ID ring and it's engravings, I was under the impression that the lens optics were basically unchanged.

Cheers,
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom