Kobalux and Canon 28mm

F

Fred R.

Established
Local time
7:46 AM
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
114
Greetings,
Prices are about the same for these two today, the Kobalux 3.5 and Canon 2.8. Anyone compare the two? Preference?
Fred
 
Fred R. said:
Greetings,
Prices are about the same for these two today, the Kobalux 3.5 and Canon 2.8. Anyone compare the two? Preference?
Fred
Click to expand...

LTM lenses, I presume?

The Canon is older, contrast is lower and as a result delivers nicely muted, pastellish colors. I own a Canon 28/3.5 from 1952 and will not ever sell it, its rendering is unique.

The Kobalux is more modern and as a result will likely have higher contrast, more bright colors. Maybe somebody else can comment on that.
 
I miss my Canon/Serenar 28/3.5, I lost it in a trade, but now I have a 28 Cron for a 28. It did have a very retro look that was charming.

I would add to the post above that the Canon 28/3.5 was made of chromed brass and had that 50's savage durability, and was a tiny lens. Also if you are lucky enough to get a Canon VF'er you would find it to be as bright as a Leica VF'er, but without framelines.

Good luck.

Cal
 
I asked myself the same, and although I was tempted by the canon 3.5 black that seems to be the best one, I opted for the VC skopar for several reasons:
I like short throw lenses.
I want 0.7m min focus
The VC is a relatively new lens, relatively easy to find in good shape.

Since I have it, there is one more thing that I really like about it:
the focus tab/screw makes it very easy to focus it quickly "by the feeling"

I know it's not one of the OP two options, but that would be my advice...
 
sanmich said:
I asked myself the same, and although I was tempted by the canon 3.5 black that seems to be the best one, I opted for the VC skopar for several reasons:
I like short throw lenses.
I want 0.7m min focus
The VC is a relatively new lens, relatively easy to find in good shape.

Since I have it, there is one more thing that I really like about it:
the focus tab/screw makes it very easy to focus it quickly "by the feeling"

I know it's not one of the OP two options, but that would be my advice...
Click to expand...

Good points. The Canon only can close focus to three feet and has a slow 180 degree focus throw, but it did have the distance scale marked exclusively in feet only which I found handy. BTW I wish all my lenses were marked in feet only. (Had a 50 Rigid V.1 that was marked in feet only, and currently own a 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM that is marked in feet only.)

For me I basically used the Canon/Serenar at mostly either F5.6 and F8.0 and zone focused effectively making my Leica a point and shoot. For this style of shooting it performed very-very well.

Cal
 
buzzardkid said:
LTM lenses, I presume?

The Canon is older, contrast is lower and as a result delivers nicely muted, pastellish colors. I own a Canon 28/3.5 from 1952 and will not ever sell it, its rendering is unique.

The Kobalux is more modern and as a result will likely have higher contrast, more bright colors. Maybe somebody else can comment on that.
Click to expand...

I used to have both lenses, Johan (the 28/3.5 Canon and the 28/3.5 Kobalux), but I sold the Canon lens because it was older. The Kobalux has more contrast, and it is better for colors. My 21mm lens is an old W-Rokkor and my 19mm lens is an old Canon 19mm lens, so I wanted a modern 28mm lens.

Both lenses are good lenses, and it is more a personal choice, in my opinion. I kept the Canon 35mm/2.8 though.
 
Appreciate the comments so far. There's always something to learn in a question/answer like this. Any photos from these lenses wide open?
 
Kobalux 28mm/3.5: (maybe) wide open

776079-R1-05-5.jpg
 
Thank you, Raid.
Any thoughts on the differences between the Canon 2.8 and 3.5. I hear more about the 3.5. here on rff.
 
Garry Winogrand used to shoot the Canon 28/2.8 and as a result it's pretty sought after and expensive. That's why you don't see it too much...

Recently I saw two of them pass through the classifieds here though.
 
Fred R. said:
Thanks, Johan. So, celebrity distinguishes the 2.8 from the 3.5! Haha.
Click to expand...

That, and a half-stop. ;)

But seriously, my subjective impression, having owned both the late black 28/3.5 and the 28/2.8, is that the f/3.5 was sharper. (I never compared them side-by side.) However, the results some here have posted using the f/2.8 make me suspect that some examples are sharper than others, lo these many years down the line.

::Ari
 
buzzardkid said:
Raid, I'd be interested in seeing some shots of that 21mm Rokkor of yours, is that a modern lens, or a vintage one?
Click to expand...


Johan,
It is a non-retrofocus lens. My lens is a vintage lens. There was also a 21mm/4.5. Mine is the 21mm/4. I have a Minolta-Leica adapter which I had for many years (unused by me), so I finally saw possibilities for the lens. I will find some images for you.

w-rokkor21mm40.jpg
 
The colors look like pastel, and the lens is reasonably sharp but not biting sharp. It is a good wide angle lens at a manageable cost. I may have pais $200 for this lens without the finder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom