how is the canon Serenar f:3.2 35mm

[heronop2003]

how is the canon Serenar f:3.2 35mm with case is it good? i found it about 250 USD in EXC condition

is it too expensive? and how is this lens?
thanks for any answer

 

[Kim Coxon]

If you search the canon thread, you will find some comments on the 3.2. You might find this link useful. http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm

From what I have heard, the 3.2 is only an average performer and $250 seems far to much to me. For this sort of price, you should be able to get close a 35/2 which gives near Leica quality.

Kim

 

[xayraa33]

that $ 250 price seems too high for the 35/f3.2
In good shape these go for $ 95 to the $ 145 range, most times with the 35mm finder included.

 

[Sonnar2]

Probably the 3.2/35 performs similar to the 2.8/35 which has a quite good reputation (sharp to the edges but not too contrasty, bad flare with backlight) because they are very close design-wise (Gauss-type). The 3.2/35 was the earlier lens, soon followed by the 2.8/35.
The 3.5/35 was Canon's first wideangle lens and as a Tessar type with its typical (when used as a wideangle) mediocre performance.

cheers Frank

 

[harry01562]

The lens is just an adequate performer, with quite low contrast. They sold well, and it's a common lens. The price should be about $60-75 in nice condition, with case, but no finder. If with finder, still just around $100.

Pass on this one, and add a few bucks, and go find a 35/2, as suggested. That's a very fine lens. For a cheaper alternative, I enjoy the 28/3.5, and it's one of the really tiny lenses. Makes a great street shooter with a Barnack or one of the earlier Canon's.

Harry

 

[VictorM.]

I had a mint 35/3.2 a long time ago...it wasn't very good...no where near as good as a 35/2.8. I replaced it with a 35/1.8 and still use it regularly. $250.00 is WAY to much for a 3.2.