Other/Uncategorized What's out there in 35mm Lenses??

Other Screw mount bodies/lenses
Jim -- As Raid, Hacker and Wayne pointed out, there are a number of really nice Canon LTM 35s out there, and a number of RFFers use them. In addition to f1.8, f2, and f2.8, Canon also made a 35/1.5 (harder to find and pricier, but nice ones are terrific). All are ltm. Check out the Canon Rangerfinder (RF) Lens group on flickr to see sample shots from each of these lenses. Here's a link:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-rf-lenses/

I picked up a nice Canon 35/2.8 over the summer and I love it. It's the all-chrome version, tiny, very sharp (high resolution) but not so contrasty as the CV 35/2.5 skopar (which I've also got). It's a lovely little lens for b&w in particular. If you don't need a faster lens, I highly recommend it.

Here are a couple recent shots w/ the 2.8:

3120081538_2ee98a0f4e_o.jpg


3099686248_004a54bfca_o.jpg
 
I'm not sure where "Ultron's sharp wide open" is coming from. Maybe I've seen bad samples only..
 
raid said:
If cost is not a factor of concern here, then the Nikkor and the Canon lenses suggested by you are certainly very fine lenses.
Click to expand...

Raid, both lenses are cheaper than the Steinheil 35mm f/4.5 Orthostigmat and definitely the Canon 35mm f1.5 and f1.8 versions. Certainly cheaper than the UC Hex. The Nikkor can be had for less than $200 in mint condition :cool:.
 
Like 50mm lenses, I'm not sure whether there are really bad 35mm lenses also. I think there are good and really excellent lenses in the 35mm FL range.
 
Hacker said:
Raid, both lenses are cheaper than the Steinheil 35mm f/4.5 Orthostigmat and definitely the Canon 35mm f1.5 and f1.8 versions. Certainly cheaper than the UC Hex. The Nikkor can be had for less than $200 in mint condition :cool:.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of the relative low cost of the Nikkor. :cool: usually, Nikkor lenses are costly.
 
Could someone elaborate on the skopar?
could it replace a summicron in terms of quality and rendition?
Did someone had bad experience from it?
 
sanmich said:
Could someone elaborate on the skopar?
could it replace a summicron in terms of quality and rendition?
Did someone had bad experience from it?
Click to expand...

This is loaded question... :) There have been threads here in years gone by that went up in flames over comparisons between the little CV and summicron 35s. Tom A should weigh in on this (he's compared the little CV 35 skopar to a pre-ASPH summicron, but he should elaborate). I never had a 35 summicron. The skopar is v. sharp and contrasty, very modern in rendition. If you don't need f2, it may be just the ticket for you.
 
Bingley,

Thanks for the really nice samples from the Canon 35/2.8. I think I need to dust mine off and use it more often.

Happy New Year!

Wayne
 
Thanks, Wayne. I think it's a great little lens. I'll be using mine a lot more in the New Year.

Have a Happy New Year!

Steve
 
I have the Skopar Classic 35/2.5 and it is GREAT for color and verdant scenes.

I have the Ultron 35/1.7 and yeah, sharp and nice contrast, good for color OR B/W

I have the Canon 35/2.8 and like the "old fashioned" feel of less contrast and less perceived sharpness - probably good for portrait-type shots - as long as you don't get TOO close! ;)
 
I tried today a Komura made 35mm 2.5 in Exakta mount. In the end, lenses are there to be used and enjoyed, so having many different 35mm lenses available on the market is something that is very good for all of us.

For me, having a Summicron 35mm lens pretty much satisfied my need for any other 35mm lens unless it was "for fun". The Canon 35/2.8 falls into this category. It is an excellent lens that is for my needs a very usfeul lens to have. Is it the "best"? That will depend on what is the goal and what is in the bank account ...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom