Summicron (v1) 35mm f2 vs. Canon LTM 35mm f1.8

pepeguitarra

pepeguitarra

Well-known
Local time
3:29 PM
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
817
Location
Los Angeles, California
View My Gallery
I recently purchased the Canon 35/1.8 LTM and found it to be really sharp and useful (besides very small). I get some flare when including light source in the frame (which I seldom do). So, I took my Canon and the Summicron 35/2.0 (8-element, version 1) and compared them shooting the same subject. Below are the photos I took straight out of the camera:

Summicron @f2:

Summicron35mmf2@f2-Orange-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Canon @f2

Canon35mmf1.8@f2-Orange-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Bonus: Canon@f1.8

Canon35mmf1.8@f1.8-Orange-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


-----------------------------------------------------------


Summicron @f2

Summicron35mmf2@f2-Fountain-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Canon @f2

Canon35mmf1.8@f2-Fountain-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Bonus: Canon @f1.8

Canon35mmf1.8@f1.8-Fountain-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

---------------------------------------------

Summicron @f2


Summicron35mmf2@f2-ChristmasFlowers-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



Canon @ f2

Canon35mmf1.8@f2-ChristmasFlowers-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Bonus: Canon @f1.8

Canon35mmf1.8@f1.8-ChristmasFlowers-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

--------------------------------------


Which one do you like more and why?
 
I see differences, but they are subtle and I doubt that I'd always notice if I were shooting with these lenses.

The Summicron renders out-of-focus points more smoothly. Look at the upper right corner - on the Canon, the bokeh balls are dark in the center and light on the periphery. On the other hand, I like the slightly swirly out-of-focus areas shot with the Canon that don't involve specular points of light. Look at the light green bush to the right of the orange in the Canon shot.

If it matters, the corners are softer in the Canon.

Thanks for posting. I've always wondered about these two LTM lenses. Maybe someday...

Mark
 
It's interesting that for years people have been repeating the internet mantra that the Canon is just a "so so" lens (while I've been using it and saying it's a great lens). And I've also read for years that the Leica 35mm Summicron is the most unbelievably fantastic lens ever made. I note the truth is quite different, as I suspected: Both lenses are about the same. I'm glad I have my $200 Canon, and never worried about a 35mm Summicron.
 
my lust for the 35 summicron has been put off indefinitely. I have the f2 version of the Canon and I love it.

The summicron is sharper in the corners but from these pictures it is hardly noticeable. I had to really look for difference but the most obvious is the price 😀
 
Now, now, I see some brand loyalty speaking here! And in that vein I appreciate noting the Summicron superiority as mentioned, slight as it may appear. 😀 The v1 Summicron 35 was my first Leica lens which I still have and use, bought it new at retail for $164.50. It was serviced by DAG a couple years ago and has performed well, I like the look. But then I have never had any Canon RF lenses...

Here's Larry administering a flu shot, for seasonal relevance... (Zeiss Ikon, Fuji 400H)
U77I1203233159.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I have the Canon 35/1.5 1.8 2.0 2.8 lenses. I also own the Summicron V1. There really is no match here.
 
The 8 element is killing the Canon across the frame at these apertures. The Canon is making far more swirly bokeh.

The first set of images is showing the bokeh of both lenses as harsh as it gets, I think, just because of the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that, but would be nice to see both shot fast with out leaves 😉

The other thing I would be very curious about is a long landscape at 5.6 or f/8. I would bet on the V1 in that sceneraio, but that's a pure guess.

I'd also love to see the 1.8 vs the Canon F/2, which I would think is stronger on the edges.

Love to see both of these lenses in action 🙂
 
Keep the comments coming, please...!

Keep the comments coming, please...!

I have the Canon 35/2, the CVNokton 35/1.2, Skopar 35/2.5, and the Zeiss Boigon 35/2. The Nokton is GREAT, but the weight limit the use to certain times. I also use it wide open only. The ones that stay on my M9 in the past few years were the Summicron 35/2 v1 and the Skopar 35/2.5 II. That is until few days ago when I bought the Canon 35/1.8. I also got recently the Canon 35/2, but I prefer the f1.8. That is why I posted the questions. I want to keep only two lenses and I know the Summicron is one of them.
 
In this thread I studied the Canon 1.8 quite a bit: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115625

I like that the OP of this current thread showed direct, exact comparisons. Yet a few still seem to be "seeing something" better in the Leica Summicron. I don't. The only thing I do different when doing a comparison to refute some lens worship is to NOT reveal which shot is from which lens. If he had done this, no one would have been able to tell which was which lens. I actually don't see any "swirly bokeh" (coma) from either lens, but the Summicron seems to have just as busy a background as the Canons, in the oranges pictures.
 
For some reason I never have gelled with the 35mm Summicron ASPH on either my M8 or M240 - but possibly due to the ergonomics (size, weight, lack of tab) I seem to enjoy using the Canon 35mm f/2 more.

A very light combination with the M8, and no slouch!

23754139030_012abb64bf_b.jpg


23754094750_b6078c8c1b_b.jpg


James
 
Seems to me that the two lenses are about equal in the center, but outside the center the Summicron has noticeably more resolution and less distortion. I wonder whether the Canon has greater field curvature than the Summicron?
 
Well....., the Summicron 35/2 Version 1, this one, is ......

Well....., the Summicron 35/2 Version 1, this one, is ......

The Summicron may be close to the Canons (this speaks highly of the Canons, not poorly of the Leica!) in this test. However, it excels in landscapes and large cityscapes. I am waiting for the rain to pass and have some comparison in the outdoors. Hera are some with the cron:

Pyramid Lake by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


McWay Falls, Big Sur, California by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Lake Tahoe by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Summicron 5mm f2 v1 - Chinatown Gate-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


LeicaM9-Summicron35mmf2-8elements-MTA-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


LeicaM9-Summicron35mmf2-8elements-Gardening-1 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
 
pepeguitarra said:
I have the Canon 35/2, the CVNokton 35/1.2, Skopar 35/2.5, and the Zeiss Boigon 35/2. The Nokton is GREAT, but the weight limit the use to certain times. I also use it wide open only. The ones that stay on my M9 in the past few years were the Summicron 35/2 v1 and the Skopar 35/2.5 II. That is until few days ago when I bought the Canon 35/1.8. I also got recently the Canon 35/2, but I prefer the f1.8. That is why I posted the questions. I want to keep only two lenses and I know the Summicron is one of them.
Click to expand...

Dante has a little write up, and implies, to my surprise, the 1.8 might be better on the edges WO but less sharp in the center. The lenses are apparently closely related with 7/4 designs.

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html

CV skopar, which many say is modeled on these lenses is 7/5.

The Canon 35/1.5 is 4/8! All these Canons are 1956 or later.

Perhaps my previous observation about the weaker edges of the 1.8 is pre mature, or does not apply as the lens is stopped down.
 
The images look similar at the resolution presented here. At higher resolutions - ~2kx1k - the differences become more obvious. If anything, its more significant than I really expected.

The Canon may be slightly sharper in the center in some images but the Summicron is significantly sharper outside the center. And as much as it may annoy some people to hear the constant bokeh talk, I much prefer the rounder look of the Summicron. The spherical look for the Canon is visually distracting to me.

Very interesting comparison over all!
 
I agree with what Brian has said above. Low resolution scans will not show such differences well, but at higher resolutions, the Canon lenses are no match for the Summicron. I have both.
 
Both are absolutely nothing to write about to home on digital sensor. Like any old lens. But OP's Canon copy is awful at the corners at 1.8-2.
 
I have a Summicron 35/2 Type 1. One day I shot it wide open inside the central markets here in Adelaide... The shot was wide open, and it showed a glow for sure, but then I zoomed in to the top my wife was wearing and to my astonishment - I could see detail in the fabric. Then I processed in Lightroom - bumped up the contrast. I could see super sharp detail and even the glitter in her top. In doors, no flash. Not much light either. There was a glow, but there was detail - and it was sharp - wide open.
I just need to use this characteristic to my advantage. At other apertures - the Summicron is sharp all over and hi resolution. It is one of the sharpest lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Fast mid-long zooms - why not?
Replies
18
Views
656
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
8
Help me Choose a 35mm for an Canon RF Article
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
wlewisiii
W
dexdog
Fuji 35/2 LTM and Canon 35/1.8 LTM
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
rfaspen
rfaspen
A
A day out with the SL2-S
Replies
7
Views
493
Archiver
A
Sonnar Brian
Collapsible Summicron with Haze-Penetrated coating- should not be so good
Replies
13
Views
888
Sonnar Brian
Sonnar Brian
Back
Top Bottom