Thoughts on LTM 35mm; Canon vs Leitz ?

[Luddite Frank]

This question was inspired by the "Hazy Elmar vs Jupiter" thread....

So, my "everyday kit" contains my 1934 Leica III (s/n 1336xx), and my "prime lens" has been an uncoated Elmar 35, s/n 4001xx.

It stays on the camera mainly due to it's small size.

I also have a Canon 35mm f:1.8 s/n 1015x, that I don't use too much, after one experience with an entire roll out-of-focus ( may have been due to floccus between the mount flanges.)

After reading John Shriver's comments on the Elmar 35, and it really "stretching the limitations" of the Tessar design, I'm curious as to the user opinions on the Canon 35 f:1.8.


Perhaps I've been unjustly neglecting the Canon 35 ?


I've been fairly happy with the results from the Elmar 35, bearing in mind its slow speed , softness, and tendency to flare.

Thoughts ?


Luddite Frank

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Canon 35/2 is not big; not as small as the Elmar though. It is improved over the 35/1.8 in my opinion. Higher contrast, and a bit sharper overall wide-open. I like the Canon 35/2.8 more than either of them.

On the 35/1.8: soft wide-open, bt certainly not out of focus. I would suspect the shim was off, or something was not right. I just repaired a misassembled 35/1.8, and can see how it could happen.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Any suggestions as to where the Canon 1.8 achieves peak resolution ?


Thanks,

LF

 

[raid]

I sold my Canon 35/2 but I kept the 35/2.8 and 35/1.8. The 35/1.8 is an excellent lens when used appropriately. I always use a lens hood, and I expect some flare when shooting into a light source. That's why I kept this lens. The 35/2.8 is a little jewel.

 

[wlewisiii]

I regret selling the 35/1.8 I had. It's my feeling that the Canon wides of the 50's were far superior to anything from Leica until they caught up with the Summicron. I'd suggest that sending your Canon lens to your favorite repair person because it should perform better than what you describe.

I tended to use it either wide open or stopped down. The main thing is to be sure to have a hood as appropriate.

William

 

[Al Kaplan]

I finally got rid of my 35/1.8 Canon because it too 40mm filters while my Leitz 50mm, 90mm, amd 135mm all took 39mm filters. It had nothing to do with image qulity or build quality. It was a great lens.

 

[raid]

Al,
I never use filters with RF cameras, so the filter size is unimportant for me.

 

[ferider]

Hi,
Have you thought about the very nice Nikon 35mm f2.5 in LTM fitting,it is small,of superb build quality,with Nikon "hard" coating and I believe it is a very fine performer.
Regards,

The Nikkor 35/2.5 is a killer lens and tiny.

And not expensive. Usually runs around US 200-250.

I personally love its bigger sister, the Nikkor 35/1.8.

Roland.

 

[John Shriver]

I had to have the shimming fixed by DAG on my Canon 35/1.8. I have no complaints at any aperture.

If you want small and good, consider the Canon 35/2.8 or Summaron 35/3.5. (Well, the Summaron 35/2.8 is purportedly very good, but genuine screwmount ones are pricey!)

But, recognize that while the Canon 35/2.8 is smaller than the 35/1.8, it is a couple of ounces heavier. That's why I favor the 35/1.8. Well worth the investment in repair.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

that was in 2009... back in 2013, 35f2.5 nikkors have doubled in prices....

The Nikkor 35/2.5 is a killer lens and tiny.

And not expensive. Usually runs around US 200-250.

I personally love its bigger sister, the Nikkor 35/1.8.

Roland.

 

[raid]

The Canon 35/2 is still affordable.