Serenar/Canon 28 f3.5 comparison?

[iphoenix]

Has anyone compared the performances of the Serenar and Canon versions of the 28/3.5 LSM lens?

In particular sharpness and contrast, based on clear and undamaged glass.

I have a Serenar s/no 12380 and, whilst reasonably satisfied, am considering whether or not it is worth updating to a Canon version.

Alternatively, are there any better options (even different makes 😱) in the same price range and of a similar era to these? I want to keep my cameras and lenses within similar time frames.

Thanks in advance,

David

 

[mennovanw]

Hi David, although I cannot say much about the optical differences between the different variations of the Canon LTM 28 f3.5 I can say that at least my version (a type 4 - it says CANON LENS and has the 34 mm filter thread and is in mint condition) was a disappointment on the optical front (both on B&W film and on the Sony A7).

Center sharpness is acceptable but outside of that it is a total crapshoot. I bought the Canon LTM 28 f2.8 (which is supposed to be less competent optically than the f3.5 version) and it is miles ahead of the older lens.. Sharp from edge to edge starting at f5.6 (also on the Sony A7).

YMMV

 

[kbg32]

I had a Canon 28/3.5 Serenar. I loved its small size, but thought it was one of the most under performing lenses I have ever used.

 

[Mackinaw]

Has anyone compared the performances of the Serenar and Canon versions of the 28/3.5 LSM lens?.......

You’ll see no differences at all. The Serenar version of the 28/3.5 lens is optically identical to the Canon version. The only thing they changed was the name.

Jim B.

 

[Calzone]

My experience with a chrome 28/3.5 Seranar was just the opposite of Keith's experience above. My version was sharp enough in the center, but had the signatire of a 50's lens with the soft corners wide open. I basically shot the lens almost always at F5.6 on a Leica IIIG. The rendering was low contrast. I liked this lens, but the compact size offered awkward ergonomics even though the build quality was high. Supposably the 28/3.5 is a sharper lens than the Canon 28/2.8 which was Garry Winnogran's favored lens on his M4. Both Keith's and my experience suggests a bit of sample variation.

Today I own a rare black version of the Canon 28/3.5 which has updated coatings, is a little larger but remains a pancake lens, and has much better ergonomics. Even though this newer version has an updated coating it still somewhat retains a bit of a retro look of a vintage lens that I very much like.
I own a 28 Cron which is plenty sharp. I really like how the Canon 28/3.5 renders at F5.6 which I think is it's sweet spot. Plenty sharp for use on my MM.

BTW the Canon 28mm external VF'er is a nice VF'er. Even though I own a Zeiss 25/28 VF'er (the best) I still keep the old Canon around and use it.

Cal

 

[Livesteamer]

I have a Canon 28mm f3.5 Serenar just a little bit newer than yours and I like it very much. I am not an expert or professional but I've enjoyed film for over 50 years now. In the last ten years I have started shooting my Leica IIIc a lot. The size and the thought required to use it works for me. I got the little Canon several years ago. It was a bit dirty so I sent it to John Van Stelton at Focal Point and it looks like new. It makes lovely photos to my eye and I love the small size. The finder works well and along with the Canon 100mm f3.5 I have an excellent, small travel kit for my IIIc. My 28mm Summicron is a much better lens but I find the little Canon just fine for most things. The Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 would be better optically than the Canon but it is a much newer lens. Joe

 

[iphoenix]

Thank you to all; looks as though the general opinion is that there is no advantage to getting the Canon version.

I might save a bit longer and get a 25/3.5 instead.

Regards, David

 

[mennovanw]

I might save a bit longer and get a 25/3.5 instead.

Regards, David

Which I found to be an absolutely marvelous lens, especially in B&W film. On the A7: not so much because of the very dark corners.. But on film I just love it. Size wise it's also very small. Make sure you get the original deep rear cap though, quite hard to come by..

 

[iphoenix]

Thanks for the advice about the cap. I may not have thought about that otherwise.

 

[mennovanw]

Thanks for the advice about the cap. I may not have thought about that otherwise.

No probs. It is like a 'half'-deep black metal rear cap. You can easily find a generic full depth version but it makes the lens a lot bigger to store. A normal depth one won't fit becasue of the quite recessed rear element..

 

[padam]

The Kobalux 28/3.5 is an underrated lens, but shhh... 😛

I do have the Canon 28/2.8 LTM and the handling is kind of interesting, great if one learns the appropriate angles for certain distances (which I haven't figured out yet so it is a bit slow). And of course it has plenty of field curvature, which can be a good or a bad thing. I guess most people simply dismiss some lenses, instead of trying to really know their speical attributes and that is why the 28/2.8 got plenty of bashing here.

 

[raid]

I sold the (excellent) Canon 28/3.5 and I kept the (even better) Kobalux 28/3.5.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Thank you to all; looks as though the general opinion is that there is no advantage to getting the Canon version.

I might save a bit longer and get a 25/3.5 instead.

Regards, David

I read somewhere in the Internet (must be true!) on another forum that the latest versions of the Canon ltm lenses have some problems associated with cloudiness, fogg, etc., not present on the Serenar lenses. Not sure. My Serenar 28/3.5 is wonderful, and my 28/2.8 (not available on Serenar) is also excellent. Here are couple of shots with them on a Leica M9:

Serenar 28/3.5:

CanonSerenar28mmf3.5-ltm-Lauren5 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr





Canon 28/2.8:

L1022911 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Canon28mmf2.8LTM-PassengerWaiting1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[css9450]

Center sharpness is acceptable but outside of that it is a total crapshoot.

That's my experience also. Canon lens, not Serenar. I have a mixed bag of 50s-era lenses from various manufacturers and this one is really the only one with that kind of performance. A pity too since its such an attractive, well-built and compact gem of a lens otherwise.

 

[FrankS]

There must be significant sample variation.

 

[02Pilot]

I've had a Serenar (Type 2) for a little while. Mine certainly has a very low contrast look to it (it's completely clean and undamaged, so this is strictly a function of the glass), and the corners are never get really sharp, but I'm quite happy with it. Color rendering is quite muted - it makes Kodak Gold 200 (seen below) look Portra-like (at least in terms of color, not grain obviously).

-

 

[Trius]

There must be significant sample variation.

And/or condition - CLA could make a big difference.

 

[kermaier]

I've owned and used the 28/3.5 chrome, 28/3.5 black, 28/2.8 and 25/3.5.

The 28/3.5 black has better ergonomics, better coatings (richer colors) and crappier aperture linkage (vs. the 28/3.5).

I haven't done controlled comparisons between the 28/3.5 and the 28/2.8, but my general impressions are that the 28/2.8 is less sharp until you stop down to f4 or f5.6, and it has more light fall-off in the corners at wide apertures. Apart from that, the major differences in image quality will be more dependent on sample variation between various 55-year-old lenses than on inherent optical design differences.

The 25/3.5 is a great lens. Look closely for scratches/coating damage on the front glass, as the lens element is very tiny. Note that this lens has the whole barrel rotating with focus. The original metal rear deep cap is nice if you can find one, but the modern plastic CV caps from their earlier LTM lenses fit nicely too.

All of the above lenses take 40mm filters except for the 28/3.5 chrome, and none of them need a hood, unless you're using a filter.

Cheers,
Ari

 

[charjohncarter]

Canon used the wrong aperture oil on my Serenar 35mm (f3.5)(I've heard others complain about this too). It hazes every year so I clean it before every use. I would be careful to try not to upgrade to a lens that also may have this problem.

Haze producing flare:

TriX HC-110h Rodinal by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[jonmanjiro]

Canon used the wrong aperture oil on my Serenar 35mm (f3.5)(I've heard others complain about this too). It hazes every year so I clean it before every use. I would be careful to try not to upgrade to a lens that also may have this problem.

That's a common misconception with Canon LTM lenses. You could completely relube the lens with modern grease and you'd still get haze. Thats because the cause of the haze is the type of glass used in the element that hazes up. I have no idea what Canon added to the glass used in that element to achieve the desired refractive index, but it must be pretty dodgy stuff.