What would you buy? Advice wanted.

Bill wrs1145

Bill wrs1145

A native Texan
Local time
6:13 AM
Joined
Nov 12, 2022
Messages
212
I've got a Canon Model P and need some experienced advice. I use T-max 400 pushed to 1600 and I want either a vintage Leica 35/2.8 Summaron or a silver Canon 35/2.8 ? I've also got a Canon 35/2.0 and a Jupiter 12 35/2.8 now, but wanted something a little more vintage/ aged.


Thanks,
Bill
 
Last edited:
Canon. No ifs, ands or buts about it. I've personally almost always been happier with my Canon lenses than with my Leica lenses. The exception was my Summitar. Should have never sold that beauty ;)

If you can find one? Get a Canon 35/1.8. There are those who look down their nose at it but I dearly loved mine. Quirky as hell but worth learning those quirks. Some my favorite shots of my son were taken with it.
 
Plus 1 for Canon. Much cheaper than anything Leica, and razor sharp. Just beware the vulnerable aperture ring- you might take a lot of photos at f22 in error.
 
I like my Canon ltm lenses. In 35mm I have 35/1.5 35/1.8 35/2 35/2.8. The 35/1.5 is a wonderful lens but it has gotten very costly to buy one. Some movie makers used the Canon 35/1.5 and 85/1.5 to shoot cult movies with a success. Prices for these two lenses can exceed $20k for a modified lens that fits cine. The 35/1.8 is small and it can flare when shooting into a light source. Else it is a good performer. The 35/2 is sharp and "modern" even though it is not a newly released lens, of course. The 35/2.8 is excellent and it will be a good pick for a vintage look lens.
 
More Vintage/ Aged: The 35/1.8 Canon is that. The Canon 35/2.8 is lower contrast than the Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5. The Summaron is at least 3x the cost of the Canon, and same basic formula.
 
I have a Canon 35 mm f3.5 Serenar that makes pretty nice pictures. I've never seen the faster Canon 35s. So, can't compare. But the truly tiny f3.5 is a joy to use. Similar is size to the Canon 25 mm rangefinder lens, which I use a lot. The 25 is nice and makes good pictures.
 
Another vote for the Canon 35mm f2.8. I've had both the silver version and black and chrome version. Both were very good lenses -- gave the Summaron 35mm f3.5 a run for its money -- and will give you a lower contrast, more vintage look.

Canon 35mm f2.8 black and chrome:

Thunderheads by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Interior by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
The Canon 35/2 and the 50/1.4 both are great lenses and inexpensive too. They are very sharp and contrasty for such old lenses.
The 35/2.8 is an excellent overall performer and it has that "vintage look" in its images. I would say, consider it.
 
Oh. Nobody recommended an Elmar 35/3.5? The ultimate vintage look and I think competitively priced with Canon 35/2.8. Perhaps the speed was a requirement, otherwise the Elmar35 gives way more "vintage".
 
rfaspen said:
Oh. Nobody recommended an Elmar 35/3.5? The ultimate vintage look and I think competitively priced with Canon 35/2.8. Perhaps the speed was a requirement, otherwise the Elmar35 gives way more "vintage".
Click to expand...
It's a great lens. I bought mine in 2018 for $75 USD on Ebay. Tiny and tremendous lens.
I
45460231785_2830893428_c.jpg

43524758324_d6c2769ea6_c.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
$75? Wow. Quite a steal for a really nice little gem. I have the summaron 35/3.5, but much prefer the Elmar after having an opportunity to try one. Such a unique and beautiful image quality. If I ever come across one for $75......😎😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom