Canon LTM my 'new' 28 works!

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Nice work! More contrasty than I expected. Is that the HP5 in DD-X?

I thought you'd be knee-deep in snow by now.
 
ChrisN said:
Nice work! More contrasty than I expected. Is that the HP5 in DD-X?

I thought you'd be knee-deep in snow by now.
Click to expand...


yes, hp5 in ddx.

unusally warm weather for this time of year. the little bit of snow we had has melted.
no complaints from me...:)

joe
 
We have lots of snow here and I was riding this afternoon through the hills with my Bessa-R, Canon-P and my new 28mm f/3.5 (among others)... need some pictures more on my Canon until I develop my first roll Ilford-100...
cheers Frank
 
ya gotta pay better attention russ!
could be a test later...;)

i bought another sample of the canon 28/3.5 lens that is in better shape than the one i had.
i was just saying to everyone that it works, after a test roll. now i can send the other 28 off to it's new owner.

joe
 
back alley said:
ya gotta pay better attention russ!
could be a test later...;)

i bought another sample of the canon 28/3.5 lens that is in better shape than the one i had.
i was just saying to everyone that it works, after a test roll. now i can send the other 28 off to it's new owner.

joe
Click to expand...

I suppose us Darkside (Nikon) shooters, should check in to teh Canon room more often. I was wondering if it was a Canonet 28. I just gave one to Bobofish. I hope he enjoys it.

Russ
 
Russ said:
I suppose us Darkside (Nikon) shooters, should check in to teh Canon room more often.
Click to expand...
My eyes may be playing tricks on me, but is that Woooooohooo Hubba hubba hubba? I mean, Liv Tyler?
 
back alley said:
still giving away stuff eh?

;)joe
Click to expand...

Yeah. And come pick up your five rolls of Neopan 400CN! Actually, if I could UPS it from work, you would have had it decades ago. It's just a matter of getting her to the Post Office. :bang:

Russ
 
My 3.5/28mm works too! It's quite sharp, and very low light-falloff for a wide-angle ot that vintage! Probably better than a contemporary Summaron!

winter011.jpg


winter021.jpg


more here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Wideangles.html#28mm3.5_bilder

cheers Frank :cool:
 
Last edited:
great little lens eh frank?

i am starting to really like that 28 fov more & more.
i wish my finder was in better shape.

joe
 
This is a *strong* lens. Ever seen the "finder" Leitz sold for the contemporary 6.3/28mm Hektor??
I was aware to find one of these "window-glass" hole finder common in chrome (like with the 85 and 100mm). But this one is quite good. The eye-opening isn't as big as the new C/V finders (which are best for eye-glass wearers) but OK, my has a discoloration in the front glass but when looking through it's hardly visible.
It is a common saying that the 1.8/50 lens made CANON's as a lens maker (1951). I think the 3.5/28 was a strong lens at their time as well. Now I do believe the good reports for the 2.8/35. Should be easier to make a good wideangle with 63 than 75° angle of view...
The Canon lens designers at that time had made their homework 100%!

Today I had another great ride in the snow. LOTS of snow. I took the 2/35 and the 3.5/28 with me (not to mention the 1.5/50), two bodies (B&W and color) and I used them all!
 
'Today I had another great ride in the snow. LOTS of snow. I took the 2/35 and the 3.5/28 with me (not to mention the 1.5/50), two bodies (B&W and color) and I used them all!'

close...i have the 35/1.8 packed but the others are the same for me also.

joe
 
So does Mine!

So does Mine!

After much cleaning, my new (thanks Joe) Serenar 28/3.5 lens works well. There is a fair amount of flare even with a (generic) lens hood. Almost forgot: cheap film, 1 hr. lab processing, etc., f-stops: (left to right) 16, 8, 5.6, 11.
 
Last edited:
colours look good victor.
i never shoot colour so never know how my lenses do with it.

i never noticed that much flare...so you're keepin' her?

joe
 
I sometimes use cheap colour film to get a fast, inexpensive idea if something works. The flare isn't really that noticeable judging from the negs. The prints are really contrasty and the machine went for the average density. I know I can print b&w better than that. Also, one of the prints I thought was washed out because of flare is actually from an underexposed neg., leading to weak colours. My internal meter was fooled by the mid-winter sun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom