HU on BIN Canon 35/2.0 on evilbay

[januaryman]

Just bought one myself from jiri_e and could not be more pleased. Someone (not me) is selling this as a BIN for cheap. Worth a look-see.

Don't know about the seller or the item offered, but a good specimen of this lens is like gold. (IMHO)

 

[rover]

That does look nice.

 

[JohnM]

That lens went through a seven-day auction last week with no bidders at $249. That would not have happened a year ago - even as grimy as it seems to be in the other pics.

Great lens - I highly recommend it to anyone who has a CL. It makes an especially tidy package with that camera.

 

[Platinum RF]

kind of rough looking

 

[ferider]

Looks a bit rough on the outside, but with clean glass ...

The best thing about it is that's the rarer 2nd version, supposedly with nicer bokeh (I have only used the 1st version).

Roland.

 

[januaryman]

I have type I myself. As you noted, the Glass is what counts. Looking closer, a lot of that is grime, except for the odd missing black area/plastic... but I could live with that. Maybe I'd slap on a bit of black epoxy. Maybe I wouldn't bother. I like the one I got from jiri, but it cost lots more than this one.

 

[jmilkins]

Jim - thank you very much. I bit. I have missed out on too many nice items through swallowing GAS. It just leaves you with a tummy ache. And down here down under we miss the choice items on RFF classifieds too because they go overnight.

This will make a lovely set with my P (no shutter curtain wrinkles and lovely condition!) and Canon 50/1.4.

thanks again.

 

[ferider]

Just a pointer to an on-going HU thread for members: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68925

I like the idea of having all HU's in one thread.

Congrats John.

Roland.

 

[januaryman]

Good fer you, John. If it's anything like mine, it will become one of your faves. I can't get myself to take it off my M4.

Let us know how it goes.

PS - I also have a Canon P, recently CLA and a Canon 50/1.4! You have good taste. If you're game for another great lens, the Canon 100/3.5 I picked up for under $150 last summer just blew my socks off! Amazing quality, great value while nobody knows about this gem. A tiny marvel.

 

[raid]

Congrats, John. I nearly bought it when I could as a back-up lens.
I agree with Jim that the 100/3.5 is a gem.

 

[Hacker]

Looks a bit rough on the outside, but with clean glass ...

The best thing about it is that's the rarer 2nd version, supposedly with nicer bokeh (I have only used the 1st version).

Roland.

I did not know that the 2nd version has a nicer bokeh. I'm stuck with a copy of the first.

 

[bennyng]

I did not know that the 2nd version has a nicer bokeh. I'm stuck with a copy of the first.

Let's do a comparison and find out! 😀

Cheers,

 

[fbf]

How do you tell if it is a 1st or 2nd version? I have one and I have used it A LOT. I love it and I don't think the bokeh is ugly at all (contax and zeiss fan here so either I have terrible taste or something is not right here...)

 

[ferider]

How do you tell if it is a 1st or 2nd version? I have one and I have used it A LOT. I love it and I don't think the bokeh is ugly at all (contax and zeiss fan here so either I have terrible taste or something is not right here...)

Have a look at Peter's web-site (http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=wide_angle_lenses&id=6). The front ring looks a little different, and you can check the serial.

I do not know about the bokeh - just assume. Because mine didn't look nice too me; it might have been the sample of course. And there are unconfirmed rumours about an optical change between the versions, too ....

Here is a sample photo of the one I had (sorry for showing this again):

Looking forward to a comparison, as Benny said 🙂

Roland.

 

[raid]

How can you tell by serial numbers which lens is from which version?
I now have such a lens in "never used" condition. It has never been mounted on a camera!

 

[sweathog]

That looked very nice, and the price seemed rather good.
If I had had the readies, I would have snapped that up, but I still haven't sold any of the "fast 35" fund...

 

[ferider]

The best part of the lens is how tiny it is ....

🙂

 

[raid]

Canon has several great RF lenses, including the 35mm/2.0.
The 35/2.8 is even smaller.

 

[jmilkins]

Thanks all for your good wishes - it's lovely to be receiving them for once instead of sending them. 😉

Recently I've been lurking happily in the Canon forum here (and the various Flickr groups) and have been on the lookout for the 35 / 2.8 becasue of the budget I had. But this is cheaper than the $265 Exc 35 / 2.8 at KEH though it is uglier. hopefully the glass will be good, and I'll clean the exterior. And of course the two lenses have a different signature.

Thanks to your previous raves I joined the 100/ 3.5 secret society with a bargin KEH model a couple of months back.

This is one of the specific joys of RFF - people are generous and genuine in their views as well as the wonderful comparisions that Raid and Roland and many others have done so wonderfully.

best to all

 

[bennyng]

How can you tell by serial numbers which lens is from which version?
I now have such a lens in "never used" condition. It has never been mounted on a camera!

Raid,

If it does not have "Camera Co" after the Canon word, and it does not have 'No.' before the serial number, it's the later version.

I have the impression that the difference between the two version is cosmetic and restricted to the front ID ring that bears the name of the lens as well as the aperture ring. The optics of the two variations should be the same.

Cheers,