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

[Doug]

My old v.1 Summicron was coded and serviced by DAG and seems to do very well on both the M8 and M240. This shot is certainly not great art but it does exercise the lens on the M240... here at f/4.8

 

[Erik van Straten]

Leica M2, Summicron 35mm f/2 v1, Tmax400.

Erik.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Not quite sure about that!

Not quite sure about that!

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.

The corners are not in the same plane the center is. Wide open, the depth of field is very narrow and does not include "the corners" unless they are in the same plane. This is true for any lens, Canon, or Leica. When dealing with landscapes, even wide open, the depth of field is a lot thicker, there is where the Cron excels. The Canon may not be there, but stopped down (like most people do for landscapes), the depth of field is thick enough to produce a "sharp" image. Coming from the fine art school (mainly painting), I have no problem with having the subject of the photo be very sharp while the rest of it not.

 

[goamules]

Hey Pepe, do what I've done before, when people are claiming they see vast differences in two lenses. Make them put their money were their mouth is. All your shots look fantastic to me anyway, I don't pixel peek and stare at a leaf in the very corner of a frame, comparing it with another shot with another lens. 99.9% of photograph viewers don't either.

But shoot a few good shots with both lenses. Post them here, without revealing which is which. Let the experts try to guess. In my experience, they never can, verifying my belief that the photographer's skill is more important that minuscule lens differences.

Very seldom will someone show side by side identical shots, as you have done. They'll show a single great shot of a rock or tree or pretty girl and say "See?! The Seranocronicar is the BEST lens ever made!" It's ridiculous. But even when you show comparison shots, some people start talking about the "sphericalness" or "bokeh" of the one they advocate. Or they'll say, "yes, they are practically identical here....but when you [print at 16x20, scan with an xyz...etc.] you'll see the difference then."

See this comparison I did between the Canon 35/2 and the Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140887 People started saying because my test was with a small APS-C sensor, my results (the Pen-F was sharper, with warmer colors) were not what you'd see on larger film/sensors. Sorry, but sharp is sharp, when I'm looking at a center comparison what you see is what you get. In that thread people were saying "yeah, it's better, but on a larger sensor it wouldn't be (even in the center!). Optics don't work like that. You have coverage, and towards the edge of the coverage you start to get aberrations. Some designs show more edge aberrations than others. By the same token, some designs are sharper in the center. And that's what most people are looking at.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Hey Pepe, do what I've done before, when people are claiming they see vast differences in two lenses. Make them put their money were their mouth is. All your shots look fantastic to me anyway, I don't pixel peek and stare at a leaf in the very corner of a frame, comparing it with another shot with another lens. 99.9% of photograph viewers don't either.

But shoot a few good shots with both lenses. Post them here, without revealing which is which. Let the experts try to guess. In my experience, they never can, verifying my belief that the photographer's skill is more important that minuscule lens differences.

Very seldom will someone show side by side identical shots, as you have done. They'll show a single great shot of a rock or tree or pretty girl and say "See?! The Seranocronicar is the BEST lens ever made!" It's ridiculous. But even when you show comparison shots, some people start talking about the "sphericalness" or "bokeh" of the one they advocate. Or they'll say, "yes, they are practically identical here....but when you [print at 16x20, scan with an xyz...etc.] you'll see the difference then."

See this comparison I did between the Canon 35/2 and the Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140887 People started saying because my test was with a small APS-C sensor, my results (the Pen-F was sharper, with warmer colors) were not what you'd see on larger film/sensors. Sorry, but sharp is sharp, when I'm looking at a center comparison what you see is what you get. In that thread people were saying "yeah, it's better, but on a larger sensor it wouldn't be (even in the center!). Optics don't work like that. You have coverage, and towards the edge of the coverage you start to get aberrations. Some designs show more edge aberrations than others. By the same token, some designs are sharper in the center. And that's what most people are looking at.

Thanks, I like your comment. I also like other posters comments. If I were doing product photography, for sure I would be using ASPH Leicas. However, for anything that is not going to be printed and marketed every other lens is good for me. I just discovered the Canons and I love them. The old cron 35/2 V1 is in my opinion the best 35mm for everything, mostly landscapes, even wide open. The subjectivity of what "we like" is what allows manufacturers thrive. Everyone likes something different.🙂

 

[kuuan]

The corners are not in the same plane the center is. Wide open, the depth of field is very narrow and does not include "the corners" unless they are in the same plane. This is true for any lens, Canon, or Leica. When dealing with landscapes, even wide open, the depth of field is a lot thicker, there is where the Cron excels. The Canon may not be there, but stopped down (like most people do for landscapes), the depth of field is thick enough to produce a "sharp" image....

much agreed, also with goamules reply and that the Pen-F 1.8/35 is stunning! btw. that little Pen-F even covers FF sensor, corners do get a bit weird. It's lively character makes it imo more similar to the Canon LTM 1.8/35 than to the f2.
I have just mentioned weak corners of the Canon LTM 1.8/35, to a lesser degree of the 2/35 in the thread comparing the two. But this is at wide apertures, focused at the centre and the corners at the same focus plane as the centre. This is a very, very unlikely scenario for a real photo. I also pointed at the fact that corners are already quite sharp even at wide apertures if focused there! Imo this has more relevance:
On a testshot of a brickwall taken at wider apertures corners will look bad but in a well taken photo they can be sharp 🙂