Help picking my next lens

[Simon Larbalestier]

Always a pleasure conversing with you KP 🙂

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Hi Stewart

OT but summer seems to be going going gone in Yorkshire...........

Simon

 

[venchka]

Where was I?

Where was I?

Does anyone remember my original question? 😉

Bear with me, this will take two posts because we're only allowed 3 attachments per post.
Oh yes, I might, maybe, someday be in a position to acquire a wide angle lens for my M5. I expressed some concern that my current 35mm rangefinder lens was somehow lacking in overall quality. I have since come to a few conclusions regarding my current pair of 35 mm lenses.

Some technical background on the full size scans and crops I am about to post.

B&W film: BW400CN exposed at 320
B&W Scan size: 1800x1215

Color film: FujiFilm Reala 100 exposed at 80
Color Scan size: 4535x3035

Both originals have been reduced to comply with the RFF guidelines for attachments. Despite what the upload screen says, you can't upload 1,000 Kb files. So, the full size image files are 640x432. B&W first.

 

[venchka]

Color now

Color now

Now the color images. Full frame image is 650x971.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[venchka]

The rest of the story...

The rest of the story...

B&W-

Canon EF
Canon 35mm f:3.5 lens
Both purchased new, June, 1975

Bright sun, midday and clear actually
f:8 (+ or -) as determined by the EF body meter.

Color-

Leica M5
Canon 35mm f:2.8

Mixed daylight and bounce flash
f:5.6 or f:8 @ 1/50 (I think, I can verify that by looking at the flash)

Both rolls of film processed and scanned in the same Fuji Frontier 380 at the same time.

I mentioned that I had come to a few conclusions. Without boring you further, here is what I feel at the present time.

1. This is the first time I have actually made a close comparison of two lenses. I am surprised to see that there are noticable differences between two lenses. I hadn't looked that closely before.

2. While the two lenses yield different results, I don't feel that either is bad. Different, yes. Bad? No. It's almost a masculine-feminine thing. The dainty little 35/2.8 records and presents all the information before it. The presentation is subtle, rounded, smooth. A smooth lens for smooth subjects. I like it.

Meanwhile, the SLR 355mm/3.5 grabs everything and says, "Here it is. Like it or else." Warts, knot holes and all. Nothing is smoothed over. Nothing is subtle. It's a gritty lens for gritty subjects. I like it.

3. I reckon they are both keepers. They serve different situations and purposes. They will be used!

4. I may at some distant time in the future wish to add a wide angle rangefinder lens which equals or exceeds the good qualities of the Canon 35mm SLR lens. Which lens? I haven't a clue. I'm sure my budget will make the final decision. I do lean toward something wider than 35mm. 24mm perhaps. We shall see.

Thanks everyone. What a long strange trip it was.

Cheers!

 

[Sparrow]

Hi Stewart

OT but summer seems to be going going gone in Yorkshire...........

Simon

Hi Simon, Yep.. got back last week, not got warm yet
regards

 

[venchka]

Lost interest

Lost interest

bumpity bump bump bump

 

[FrankS]

bumpity bump bump bump

Hi Wayne, tell me if I've got this right: You took the b+w shots with a Canon slr and 35 lens, you took the colour shots with a Leica RF and Canon 35 lens, and you like the slr results better?

If that's so, I think the obvious difference is that you are comparing b+w shots to colour shots. If you want to compare lenses, at least use the same film.

I have no bias or vested interest here, I'm just trying to help you compare lenses fairly.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Wayne,

Have you looked at the color shots after conversion to b/w in photoshop? Maybe that will level the playing field.

On the other hand, if sharpness is what you are after, the 35/asph/cron will give you the sharpest results across the field and across apertures.

regards

 

[venchka]

Hi Wayne, tell me if I've got this right: You took the b+w shots with a Canon slr and 35 lens, you took the colour shots with a Leica RF and Canon 35 lens, and you like the slr results better?

If that's so, I think the obvious difference is that you are comparing b+w shots to colour shots. If you want to compare lenses, at least use the same film.

I have no bias or vested interest here, I'm just trying to help you compare lenses fairly.

Right on, Frank. I'll start working on that this weekend. Until now, I had not payed much attention to my 35mm lenses. Certainly not side by side. I don't dislike the RF 35mm lens. It is, afterall, a decade or more older than the SLR 35mm lens. Everyday you read on this forum about the "classic" look of the older lenses. I'm just now seeing it first hand with my own equipment.

My goal now would be to have both a crisp, sharp, "hard edged" wide angle as well as the creamy, smooth version. The crispy lens may or may not be a 35mm lens.

Thanks for your insight.

 

[venchka]

Wayne,

Have you looked at the color shots after conversion to b/w in photoshop? Maybe that will level the playing field.

On the other hand, if sharpness is what you are after, the 35/asph/cron will give you the sharpest results across the field and across apertures.

regards

...and the smoothest, emptiest wallet. 😀

Not having Photoshop and not liking the Lightroom conversion at all, I will load both cameras with either BW400CN or XP2 Super and have a go under similar conditions. I have shot a roll of BW400CN with the Canon lens recently, but the subjects were too cluttered to make sense of what the lens was doing. Heck, I can stop in Anderson & Bedias next Friday morning and shoot the courthouse & steak house again with both lenses. Sounds like a plan.

Thanks to your inquiry about the 1st & 2nd-3rd twins version 35mm Summicrons, I may lay in the weeds and pounce on a 2nd version someday.

One more time: I don't want to leave the impresssion that I dislike the Canon 35mm f:2.8 lens. I like it. I just want another wide angle RF lens with more brawn in it's drawing qualities to compliment the older Canon lens. Wanting is one thing. Having is budget dependent. 😀

Man can not live by bread alone. He needs peanut butter. It's our job to give him some peanut butter.

A. Jones, Design teacher, USL, 1966

I have smooth. I would like to add some chunky.

Clear as mud?

All the best!

 

[FrankS]

Right on, Frank. I'll start working on that this weekend. Until now, I had not lpayed much attention to my 35mm lenses, and certainly not side by side. I don't dislike the RF 35mm lens. It is, afterall, a decade or more older than the SLR 35mm lens. Everyday you read on this forum about the "classic" look of the older lenses. I'm just now seeing it first hand with my own equipment.

My goal now would be to have both a crisp, sharp, "hard edged" wide angle as well as the creamy, smooth version. The crispy lens may or may not be a 35mm lens.

Thanks for your insight.

You're msot wilcome. If you are looking for a sharp contrasty lens and like me, can't afford the latest asph Summicron, look no farther than the CV 35mm f2.5 at a very reasonable cost.

 

[venchka]

If I ever find my Round Tuit for another lens, it will be on my list.

 

[venchka]

Much ado about nothing

Much ado about nothing

I coulda saved myself much anguish if I had remembered reading this a few months ago,

For the sake of comparison, I also tested my old Canon 35/2.8 at the same time as the other three 35mm lenses. This lens, of course, has a very different look from the other three tested because its overall contrast is much lower than the more modern lenses. Its histogram has a very different shape from that of, for example, the Voigtlander 35/2.5, and its tonality is warmer overall. Interestingly, the shape of the Canon 35's histogram (for the test pictures reproduced here) is more similar to that of the Leica 35 than it is to that of either of the Voigtlanders and the Canon's color rendering is very similar to that of the Leica. On center, it is as sharp as the Voigtlander 35/2.5 but the Voigtlander is much sharper in the corners at F/2.8. The corner sharpness difference between the two lenses largely disappears at F/8. The Canon, however, shows almost no vignetting at any aperture, likely because its rear-most element barely projects inside the lens mount.

Sean Reid

Full article here: Wide angle lenses

I thank the day in the late 70s when a friend invited me to join him "to look at some old cameras a relative had for sale". It was a very good day.

35mm lens non-problems solved. Moving right along.

Thanks for humoring me, y'all!