I may be partial, since I own one - but despite being obviously poor at the edge of the frame until f8 (where it overtook the Nikon), the 2.8 Canon did pretty well overall. And in the places it did not do objectively well, I like the look of the flaws.
Thanks for posting this. I'm most surprised by the Canon 2.8 (see my comments above for reasons) and most impressed by the Nikkor, though I prefer the slightly warmer rendering of the Canons. Do we know definitively that the LTM Nikkor has the same optical formula as the S-mount?
Yes, the LTM and S-mount versions have the same optical formula. All the LTM Nikkors have the same optical formulas as their S-mount equivalents.
The Nikkor did well, but I'm most impressed with the Canon 28/2.8 here. The lower contrast makes it look less sharp, but to my eye its actually resolving slightly more detail than the Nikkor.
Just picked up a Canon 28mm f2.8 LTM lens from a fellow RFF member and popped it on my M9. Very pleasantly surprised by how sharp it is even wide open. It's got some haze and will need to a CLA, but I think afterwards it's going to get a lot of use.
Well I took the lens apart and cleaned the haze off all the elements, now she's pretty much spotless.
Here a few images, all shot at f2.8, the first at a stained glass window backlit by the sun. It's soft around the outside, but she doesn't flare bad for a lens this old.
I did exactly the same thing when I finally bought my own copy of the Canon 28/2.8 LTM. I looked a few weeks later and the haze was back. Its the glass. Nothing you can do about it except clean it when needed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.