serenar 35/2.8 question

[back alley]

anyone have first hand info on the canon serenar 35/2.8?

there is one on ebay at an ok price and i just might go for it for the bin option.

how might it compare to the 50/1.8? (my 'known' factor)

any info greatly appreciated,
joe

 

[taffer]

No first hand info, and probably you've already been there, but just in case, remember that Karen Nakamura has that lens listed on her website.

According to what I read there, seems a sharp but low contrast lens, apt. for giving that old look mood to your images.

Oscar

 

[rover]

From Steve Gandy

"35/2.8 or 3.5 Canon: or Serenar. OK but not great reputations, chrome or black versions"

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have one that came with the L1 but have not had a chance to use it: lousy weather and a sick kid. It is one solid hunk of lems; very compact and NO protruding rear element. I will let you know, but it will not be in time for this auction.

 

[back alley]

thanks guys.
yes, i read all that stuff on the net but was hoping for personal experience here.
if i remember it's a 129. bin price.

seems good?

joe

 

[back alley]

no matter, i just looked and it's been bought.

too slow i guess.

joe

 

[bmattock]

Joe,

I have the Canon 35mm f2.8 - not a Serenar - mine is the "II" according to the Canon Museum. The only real difference that I can see from their specs is that the II has a 40mm filter size. From observation of the Serenar (the "I" according to Canon), the Serenar also had a completely chrome body - mine has the black like the 50mm f1.4. The Serenar was circa 1952, mine is from 1957.

I've never been entirely happy with mine. Nothing 'wrong' with it, just doesn't seem especially sharp - and not much for contrast, either. I mean, it is not bad, but it didn't even compare to my chrome Canon 50mm f1.8, let alone the black Canon 1.4.

I have an A. Schacht Travegon 35mm f3.5 and I use that instead. Also not as sharp as I would like - so I tend to skip 35mm and go to 50mm!

I could use a nice sharp 35 or 28 in LTM, but haven't seen one a price I like yet. My belief is that you didn't miss much on the Serenar - and that's coming from a Canon-loving guy. It's probably best for guys rounding out a collection. Just my 2 cents.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[back alley]

thanks bill, i feel better now.

i don't really need a canon 35 as i have the cv 35, but i would like to get one sooner or later anyway. maybe the f2 version if i can get a deal.
and possibly a 28 or 25.

will it never end?

joe

 

[bmattock]

Joe,

As far as I can tell, it never ends. But what the heck - it beats heroin as an addiction. And I smile now - having quit cigarettes in June - every time I buy a lens. Still cheaper than smoking - and I get to keep the stuff longer (hack, cough).

Everyone should have some horrible hobby that they can give up and therefore justify their camera/lens addiction! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[back alley]

still not smoking bill?
that's great.

i quit around mid july and am doing ok myself.
not one smoke since.

but i don't seem to have any 'extra' cash.

joe

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Sun came out for a few hours so I grabbed the Canon 7 and the new Nikkor 13.5cm f3.5 and Canon 35 F2.8. Mine is the older 34mm version, all chrome, but dropped the Serenar name. I should get the rolls back in time for scanning dirung the long weekend. Got a lot of shots of Fall colors and my favorite brick chimney at Leesylvania. It will be an interesting comparison with the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5.

A whole herd of deer came out to razz me when they say the Canon 7 with the 35mm lens on it.

 

[back alley]

looking forward to seeing the shots.

joe

 

[FrankS]

"A whole herd of deer came out to razz me when they say the Canon 7 with the 35mm lens on it." Brian

Yeah, well. What do deer know about rangefinders? Doesn't surprise me that they're Leica snobs too! (Or are they into digital? I can't remember.)