voigtlander 35/2.5 CV VS canon 35/2

I also noticed on many of my early photos taken with my 35 CV Ultron that the lens is very prone to flare; when using relatively modern Leica glass this isn't much of a concern, so I hadn't given it much thought back then.

Since then I've put a B+W MRC UV filter on it, and it seems to have improved the flare issues a lot; they haven't been cured, but I've seen a noticeable improvement.
 
Thanks sonnar, very nice comment.
this 2 photos is a flare test: canon tents to flare more easilier than CV. And you are right whe say that canon is poor at f2
 
Those are *miserable* scans ...If one is forced to share bad evidence, one might at least look at one's own evidence before drawing conclusions for others!

The best of this lot (last pile of logs) demonstrates Canon flaring substantially LESS than the CV ... the first/worst scans (lawn & buildings and little person) do too. (note blown highlights in grass).

The rows of trees DO show the Canon flaring more, as one would expect from a lens that's almost a full stop faster (f2 Vs 2.5 is almost f2 Vs 2.8). That they're both stopped down is irrelevant to the test...Canon's facing the sun with much more glass because it's a faster lens.

My wild guess is that the 35/2 Canon would blow the 35/1.7 Ultron away :p
 
Last edited:
That's right, the scans are miserable (I've also a bigger scan at 300 dpi if someone want it)

In the photo with buiding you can't valuate flaring but only colour yield and in the last couple of photo

Why testing the lenses at stopped down is irrilevant?
I use both also at f8,f11,f16,f22 and the flare at f 11 is rilevant for my use
 
Stopped down does show stopped-down performance, you're right. If you have to shoot into the sun at f8, the CV's better for the purpose (I'm assuming you used shades on both lenses because that would make a big difference).

But I don't think there's a basis to say the 2.5 lens is less prone to flare than the 2.0 because of modern design, I think it's just as likely to be the size of the front element. As well, there's the question of condition when testing a 45 year old lens, though arguably in several of those shots the older lens may have flared less.

Comparing an old Canon 2.8 and new CV 2.5 would be interesting.

And it'd also be interesting to see the Ultron compared to the Canon f2

BTW, I apologize for my aggressive tone in the previous post. Not gentlemanly, sorry.
 
Don't worry for your prevoius tone Djon, your posts are always very interesting, you are very competent on photographics equipment. the photos was taken without shade because I haven't one for canon (but I have one for CV). You are right whe you say that 45 years must be considered

I'd like to compare Canon 35 2.8 with CV but I dont't have the first one. I made some test on this two lenses (35/2 and CV) and I'd like to submit my impression to the forum.

I think that someone are interested to compare this 2 lenses because canon 35/2 it's one of the best canon lens in his focal lenght, if not the best (for canon ltm mount obviously) and there are several peoples that want to buy a 35 ltm lens and are interested on this two. I hope that my reflection can help someone and also the confront can help me too


Thanks Djon
 
You guys also need to consider ergonomics and build quality. I loved the size of my Canon 35, but it broke during a trip to Spain. The aperture blades fell out of place, never to return, and they were loose in the lens. No one could repair it.

I am quite sure this lens was produced for a long time (into the 1970's?), but it may be of lower build-quality than the VC, which would be brand-new.
 
If the 35 CV is like my Nokton, any Canon is far-better-built. I think the 35 f2 was terminated in the early Sixties.

Hard to believe you couldn't find someone to repair that lens. Did you contact any of the repair people mentioned on this Forum? Sherry Krauter?
 
justins7 said:
You guys also need to consider ergonomics and build quality. I loved the size of my Canon 35, but it broke during a trip to Spain. The aperture blades fell out of place, never to return, and they were loose in the lens. No one could repair it.

I am quite sure this lens was produced for a long time (into the 1970's?), but it may be of lower build-quality than the VC, which would be brand-new.
Click to expand...

I have a great canon lens that needs a small pin according to Mark Hama (pls see old thread on http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5416&highlight=canon+35/2)

Do you still have the broken lens? If I can use it for parts (ie that was not the same pin that broke in yours), I would like to offer to buy it. My lens has been waiting a looong time for the necessary part to come along.
 
I have a Canon f2 35mm and the aperture blades collapsed too. Sherry Krauter made it as good as new for no more than the cost of a regular CLA and it has been fine since. I've used the Canon and the CV lens and thought the new lenses were at least as sharp but just a bit "harsh". That is a pretty subjective opinion!
 
Thanks for the info. Hama gave up on trying to fabricate the tiny pin, but if I continue to be unsuccessful at finding the necessary part, I may give Sherry a try.
 
Ray,
I'd be glad to help you out. I still have the lens somewhere. Give me a few days to find it and I'll let you know more.

Justin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom