LTM Canon 28mm f3.5 vs LTM W-Nikkor 28mm f3.5

[filmtwit]

Technically speaking both are similar, but not really the same.
So which one do you like better and why?

 

[02Pilot]

I've never used the Nikkor, though I've heard good things generally. I've had the Canon for a little while now (an early chrome one) and I'm increasingly pleased with it as I grow more accustomed to using it. Soft corners until f/5.6 (arguably until f/8, if you're very picky), medium contrast, notably pastel color rendering typical of early Canon double-Gauss lenses. I typically use it on a Barnack body, and I like the small size; it feels tiny on a Canon P or similar.

A couple samples:

 

[css9450]

I have both, in LTM. My personal opinion is that the Nikkor is sharper, but I have to admit I've not done a one-on-one comparison. Maybe today will be the day; its going to be beautiful out! I have film in my Tower and in my Leica CL so I'll shoot a few with each. Maybe some quick and dirty snaps with my Sony mirrorless too but its a 1.5 crop, so it won't be the whole picture...

 

[css9450]

OK I did a few quickies using both lenses. This is with my Sony A6000. I also shot some with my CL but that roll is a long way from being finished. Straight out of camera. All are at f5.6 and Aperture Priority.

Nikkor 28mm/f3.5:

Canon 28mm/f3.5:

Nikkor again:

Canon again:

As I expected, the Canon continues to have some corner (or edge?) sharpness issues. Actually, both are a little soft on the sides but the Canon noticeably more so. This is with a Fotodiox M-to-NEX adapter and a Fotodiox LTM-to-M adapter, Focusing here was using the camera's EVF (which I am no fan of) so who knows, maybe they should be sharper.

 

[xayraa33]

They both give very similar 1950s results.

The Canon produces more " Abraham Zapruder in Dallas" colours than the Nikkor does.

 

[css9450]

Out of focus background details, at 100%:

Nikkor:

Canon:

 

[css9450]

They both give very similar 1950s results.

The Canon produces more " Abraham Zapruder in Dallas" colours than the Nikkor does.

Indeed! I kind of like the effect; my modern lenses are so contrasty (on digital) that these less-contrasty lenses are nice on occasion, such as in harsh lighting like mid-day sun.

 

[kermaier]

With these 60-year-old lenses, I think performance differences between the two will be more dependent on condition than on the original optical differences, especially if you plan to shoot mostly at f/5.6.. I've owned both, and sold the Nikkor for reasons unrelated to sheer performance: The whole barrel rotates with focus, making aperture operation a bit tricky. The Nikkor needs and LTM-M adapter with infinity lock cutout, so cannot be 6-bit coded. The infinity lock interferes with the frame line preview tab on some Leica M-mount bodies. The Nikkor takes extremely uncommon 34.5mm filters.

 

[02Pilot]

Interesting comparison. The shots from the Canon show similar characteristics to mine, particularly with regard to softening toward the corners. To my eye at least, the Canon also seems to have slightly sharper rendering in the center, whereas the Nikkor is more uniform across the frame.

 

[Calzone]

I've never used the Nikkor, though I've heard good things generally. I've had the Canon for a little while now (an early chrome one) and I'm increasingly pleased with it as I grow more accustomed to using it. Soft corners until f/5.6 (arguably until f/8, if you're very picky), medium contrast, notably pastel color rendering typical of early Canon double-Gauss lenses. I typically use it on a Barnack body, and I like the small size; it feels tiny on a Canon P or similar.

P,

Well done examples displaying the retro look of the Canon.

I do not have any experience with the 28/3.5 Nikkor, but have owned two chrome versions of the 28/3.5 Canon and presently the slightly bigger black version of the 28/3.5 Canon.

Not sure if the coatings are the same between the two versions of the Canon, but it is reported that the optics are the same. The black version has better ergonomics for me and is slightly bigger, yet slightly lighter, and is still a pancake sized lens.

Understand that other than haze on an old lens be aware that the grease gets stiff on the Canon lenses, so a CLA for the haze and lubing the helocoil needs to be factored in.

Cal

POSTSCRIPT: The Canon 28mm external VF'er is really nice.

 

[css9450]

To my eye at least, the Canon also seems to have slightly sharper rendering in the center, whereas the Nikkor is more uniform across the frame.

I was thinking the same thing. Its also possible I may have back-focused with the Nikkor.... Focus peaking on an EVF is not one of my better talents, and both lenses have such a generous depth of field (and long focus throw) I may be off by some amount, one way or the other.

Not evident in the photos was the strong headache I was suffering from at the time - I got out of my car and stepped over a curb and banged my head into a sign that was right there over the curb, right at forehead level! Today I have a bruise on my head and a big gash on my nose; it looks like I lost a bar fight... :bang:

 

[jonmanjiro]

How does the Canon 28/2.8 LTM compare with the Canon 28/3.5 LTM? Being a slightly newer optical design than the F3.5 version, I'd expect performance of the F2.8 version to be on par or slightly better aperture for aperture.

Not evident in the photos was the strong headache I was suffering from at the time - I got out of my car and stepped over a curb and banged my head into a sign that was right there over the curb, right at forehead level! Today I have a bruise on my head and a big gash on my nose; it looks like I lost a bar fight... :bang:

Woah, that sucks. Feel better!

 

[02Pilot]

How does the Canon 28/2.8 LTM compare with the Canon 28/3.5 LTM? Being a slightly newer optical design than the F3.5 version, I'd expect performance of the F2.8 version to be on par or slightly better aperture for aperture.

That's not what I've read. Opinions seem quite mixed, with some saying it's equal to the 3.5, some that it's inferior at wider apertures. Seems to be a lot of sample variation, more than with other Canon lenses of the period. This is all second-hand internet information, of course, so take with however many grains of salt you think are necessary. I opted for the 3.5 because it seemed to be more consistent (based on the same sort of information, so...), it was cheaper and more readily available, and I didn't need the extra speed. I've been happy with my decision.

 

[jonmanjiro]

That's not what I've read. Opinions seem quite mixed, with some saying it's equal to the 3.5, some that it's inferior at wider apertures. Seems to be a lot of sample variation, more than with other Canon lenses of the period. This is all second-hand internet information, of course, so take with however many grains of salt you think are necessary. I opted for the 3.5 because it seemed to be more consistent (based on the same sort of information, so...), it was cheaper and more readily available, and I didn't need the extra speed. I've been happy with my decision.

I have a Canon 28/3.5 and Canon 28/2.8 on loan to try out so will do a comparison and post the results. Both Canon lenses look to be optically in excellent shape. I also have a nice S-mount Nikkor 28/3.5 I can mount on an M body via an adapter so I'll include that in the comparison too.

 

[02Pilot]

Interested to see the results. Are you planning to test in both color and B&W?

 

[jonmanjiro]

I intend to use an M9 so the default is colour. After a few quick shots yesterday, I can already see that the Canon 28mm F2.8 is sharper overall and definitely better in the corners than the Canon 28mm F3.5 (at least with the copies I have on hand).

 

[02Pilot]

I intend to use an M9 so the default is colour. After a few quick shots yesterday, I can already see that the Canon 28mm F2.8 is sharper overall and definitely better in the corners than the Canon 28mm F3.5 (at least with the copies I have on hand).

I've read enough about the 28/2.8 to make think the effects of sample variation may be more pronounced than with some other lenses, but then with any such old lenses with unknown histories, there's bound to be different results from lens to lens.

 

[jmanivelle]

I intend to use an M9 so the default is colour. After a few quick shots yesterday, I can already see that the Canon 28mm F2.8 is sharper overall and definitely better in the corners than the Canon 28mm F3.5 (at least with the copies I have on hand).

Was happy with the Canon 28 3.5 LTM on the M8 yet found the lens too soft with heavy fall off when I moved to the M9.

 

[pepeguitarra]

I love the Canon Serenar 28/3.5

I love the Canon Serenar 28/3.5

Zeiss50mmf2-YL2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Zeiss50mmf2-NewBldg by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[jonmanjiro]

Ok, here's the results of a quick comparison at infinity. Equipment used:

Canon 28mm F2.8 LTM
Canon 28mm F3.5 LTM (both Canon LTM lenses used the same L-M adapter)
S-mount W-Nikkor 28/3.5 on Amedeo S-M adapter
Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH

Leica M9 with quite a few dust bunnies ( lens detection turned off so all lenses were on a level playing field), tripod, soft release.

The full image looks like this (Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH at f8, click to see full size):


100% crops from just to the right and above the center (click to see full size):

@ f/2.8 (f/3.5 for the two slower lenses)

@f/4

@f/5.6

@f/8