FrankS
Registered User
Can the Serenar 35f2.8 stand up to the Summaron f2.8?
Does anyone have comparison pics? In a few weeks I'll have both to compare myself, but am wondering in the mean time.
Does anyone have comparison pics? In a few weeks I'll have both to compare myself, but am wondering in the mean time.
FrankS
Registered User
Thanks Roland. If that turns out to be the case with the lens samples I have, I'll be able to sell off the Summaron for the much cheaper Serenar replacement.
raid
Dad Photographer
Frank,
I have kept my Canon 35/2.8 since it is an excellent lens overall. It is sharp and small, and it does not cost a lot.
Roland,
How would you compare the Nikon 35/2.5 with a Summicron 35/2? Do you prefer the Nikon?
I have kept my Canon 35/2.8 since it is an excellent lens overall. It is sharp and small, and it does not cost a lot.
Roland,
How would you compare the Nikon 35/2.5 with a Summicron 35/2? Do you prefer the Nikon?
raid
Dad Photographer
Would the V1 Summicron be closer to the Nikon?
I'd be surprised to see the Serenar in the same league as the Summaron, would love to see some comparisons.
raid
Dad Photographer
We have a 35mm-40mm lens comparison that I did with Roland:
http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-35-40mm-Lens-Test
One of the images shows the Summaron 35/2.8 and the Canon 35/2.8.
I also spotted some photos with the Nikon 35/2.5 .... here at 2.5:
Summaron 35/2.8 wide open:
Canon 35/2.8 wide open:
I got many portraits of Dana in my lens "tests".
FrankS
Registered User
Great, thanks Raid!
kermaier
Well-known
They're both very good performers. I have both, though I've never done head to head testing.
The Serenar is significantly more compact (e34 vs. e39) and maybe slightly heavier, but not as nicely built, IMO. The Summaron moves much more smoothly, and the ergonomics of the focusing and aperture rings are better.
The Summaron (at least the M-mount version) focuses down to 0.7m, while the Serenar stops at 1m.
For hoods, I like the IROOA on the Summaron and a FOOKH on the Serenar (much more pleasant than the original Canon hood).
The Nikkor 35/2.5 is smaller than either (maybe too small), but it has a single rotating barrel like an LTM Elmar, and takes impossible to find 34.5mm filters.
I enjoy using the Summaron more than the Serenar or the Nikkor, but any of the three will produce great results.
Ari
The Serenar is significantly more compact (e34 vs. e39) and maybe slightly heavier, but not as nicely built, IMO. The Summaron moves much more smoothly, and the ergonomics of the focusing and aperture rings are better.
The Summaron (at least the M-mount version) focuses down to 0.7m, while the Serenar stops at 1m.
For hoods, I like the IROOA on the Summaron and a FOOKH on the Serenar (much more pleasant than the original Canon hood).
The Nikkor 35/2.5 is smaller than either (maybe too small), but it has a single rotating barrel like an LTM Elmar, and takes impossible to find 34.5mm filters.
I enjoy using the Summaron more than the Serenar or the Nikkor, but any of the three will produce great results.
Ari
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Thanks Ari!
Brian Legge
Veteran
Keep in mind that there are two body forms of the Serenar/Canon 35mm - a small, chrome Summaron like version which takes 34mm filters and the later black barrel version which takes 40mm filters.
Ive handled both and would be happy with either. The filter ring difference would be the deciding factor for me. I haven't had any optical compaints about the lens.
Ive handled both and would be happy with either. The filter ring difference would be the deciding factor for me. I haven't had any optical compaints about the lens.
FrankS
Registered User
The one I'm getting is the earlier all chrome version.
Thanks Raid, very nice.
What tilts me in favor of the 'ron: 0.7m MFD (on my copy which is a convertible...thread mount/M mount) and standard filter size...
What tilts me in favor of the 'ron: 0.7m MFD (on my copy which is a convertible...thread mount/M mount) and standard filter size...
Brian Legge
Veteran
Pair this with a Summar and early Canon 100mm 3.5 and you have a nice 34mm filter based kit. 
fbf
Well-known
Summaron can't be this compact and the F2.8 M2 version costs way more than the serenar.
Repost Paid $50 for the hazy, dirty, focus ring stuck 35/2.8 serenar. It's from the old grease. Easy cleaning
Repost
Paid $50 for the hazy, dirty, focus ring stuck 35/2.8 serenar. It's from the old grease. Easy cleaning
Brian Legge
Veteran
I think every Canon LTM lens I've used has had had a fair amount of haze. Almost all of them have cleaned up wonderfully. One had some coating loss where the oil had been on it but I didn't see any issues from this.
Love working on these lenses - the ones I've dealt with have had fairly straight forward construction.
Love working on these lenses - the ones I've dealt with have had fairly straight forward construction.