I hav got my 35/1.8 and here are some...

[raid]

Paul -- You've got some nice Canon lenses there. I hope you'll post some photos taken w/ them over at the Canon Rangerfinder Lens group on flickr! The OP has some excellent shots over there.

I've got the 50/1.8, the 50/1.5, and the 100/3.5: they are all superb, and I agree w/ your comment about not paying $$$ for a lens b/c it has an L on it.

If it is a Canon FD SLR lens, then an "L" can be a good thing to get.

 

[Bingley]

LOL!! Touche, Raid! 😀

 

[raid]

My Canon lenses:

28/3.5
35/1.5 35/1.8 35/2.8
50/1.2 50/1.4 50/1.8
85/1.5 85/1.9

I like what I have.

 

[Bingley]

I have just tried putting a Summaron 35mm/3.5 on a Canon 7; it looks "wrong". The camera is built for larger sized lenses, it seems. Maybe a Canon 50/1.2 or 85/1.5 would feel better on the Canon 7.

I agree w/ you, Raid. May I suggest an Ultron 35?:

 

[raid]

Steve,

I am not a fan of CV lenses; I have only the CV 25mm/4.

 

[bennyng]

I agree w/ you, Raid. May I suggest an Ultron 35?:

That's a smart looking outfit Steve!

Cheers,

 

[Bingley]

Thanks! The Canon 7 is now en route to a new home in France, but I still think it's a great shooter w/ the Ultron 35.

 

[Paul C. Perkins MD]

I am confident that a CV25 would outperform a 52 year old design. That said - I've had no occasion or opportunity to compare them side by side. All I know, I like the images mine produces. - Paul

Paul, what's your experience with the Canon 25/3.5? Does it hold up as a good picture-taker the way some of the other Canons do, like the 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.8? Or is it too far surpassed by more modern glass like the CV 25?
::Ari

 

[Sonnar2]

The Canon 25/3.5 is quite sharp but not very high contrasty wide open. It's not a bad lens for it's time, but just has 4 optical elements, based on the prewar Zeiss Topogon design and therefore not highly corrected, also the Topogon was used in WWII as aerial photography lens. It is free of distortion, but, like all early wideangle lens designs, suffers from light falloff to the edges wide open.
The CV 25/4, in comparison, is known as one of the sharpest Voigtlander/Cosina lenses of the whole series, and is highly corrected for optical errors. It is sharper than almost every color films and literally squeezes the grain out of them.

 

[kermaier]

I just recently purchased a CV 25/4 (in the RF-coupled M mount), and hopefully I'll soon have a Canon 25/3.5, so I can do a direct comparison. Should be fun.

 

[raid]

The Canon 25/3.5 is quite sharp but not very high contrasty wide open. It's not a bad lens for it's time, but just has 4 optical elements, based on the prewar Zeiss Topogon design and therefore not highly corrected, also the Topogon was used in WWII as aerial photography lens. It is free of distortion, but, like all early wideangle lens designs, suffers from light falloff to the edges wide open.
The CV 25/4, in comparison, is known as one of the sharpest Voigtlander/Cosina lenses of the whole series, and is highly corrected for optical errors. It is sharper than almost every color films and literally squeezes the grain out of them.

I have only one CV lens: 25mm/4.0.
I am glad that my focused choice turned out to be a good one.
It really is a very sharp lens.