butch
Established
I was looking at Kevin Cameras a few minutes ago. He has several 35mm Canon LTM's in f3.2 and f3.5. Appear to be very small and pretty in the old chrome finish. Do you have an opinion as to their quality and quirks? I really don't need another 35 but these are hard to pass up. See pages 7 and 8 in the lens album of Canon RF.
If I am not mistaken, joe (backalley photo) had/has a Canon 35/3.2, or maybe it was Scott S. You may want to do a search for "Canon 35mm" to see what comes up.
back alley
IMAGES
they have a 'lesser' reputation than the 1.8 /2 / 2.8
but i have not tried one yet.
joe
but i have not tried one yet.
joe
ScottS
Established
The 35/2.8 chrome is also just about as compact as the 3.2 (both 34mm filter, and according to the canon museum both the same weight).
Scott
Scott
FrankS
Registered User
Hi Butch, you still have the black Canon 35mm f2.8 from me, don't you? It will be better than the lenses you mentioned.
dexdog
Veteran
I have a canon serenar 35mm/3.5, would have to sum up it's perfomance as mediocre. Not especially contrasty, and overall "soft" image quality. It's nicest quality is that it is relatively small and light weight. I can't speak to non-serenar iterations of this lens, if there are any.
dexdog
dexdog
butch
Established
Frank, I use it often (mainly on my 35RF with a LTM adapter) the 40's frame line works fine. But I'm a sucker for the Canon's and would spend the $125.00 in a N.Y. minute. I probably will not since I don't like the external finder that's required on my M3 and the out of sight lines on my P's. But they do not seem to be too highly rated.