Leica LTM Which 28mm f/3.5 LTM lens for IIIf & M4-P

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
aoresteen

aoresteen

Well-known
Local time
11:40 PM
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
507
I'm considering getting a 28mm lens for my IIIf. I have the Voigtlander 28mm f/1.9 LTM but it's HUGE on the IIIf and I only use it on my M4-P.

I'd like a small 28mm LTM lens to use on both the M4-P and the IIIf. So far I've come up with the Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5 and the Canon LTM 28mm f/3.5 lenses. My budget is $400 or less so the Minolta 28mm f/3.5 is out as they are $1,000 plus.

I have a spare 28-90 M adapter & a 28mm viewfinder so I will not need those items.

I think that there were 3 versions of the Canon 28mm f/3.5 - the 1st Serenar, the chrome Canon, and the last black Canon version. There may have been more, I'm not sure. How do these Canon 28mm f/3.5 lenses compare to the Voigtlander 28mm f/3.5?

Any others that I should consider?

Thanks!
 
Leitz Summaron 28/5.6 is an era-appropriate match, and tiny, but they are hard to find. Plus, the prices have crept up to $1K. Perhaps you shuld consider an MS Optical 28 triplet.
 
The little Voigtlander Skopar 28/3.5 LTM is an extraordinary lens and within your budget. I would look no further.
 
The skopar 28 is an extraordinary lens!
but it depends on your 50. the skopar has a modern contrast rendering.
 
karlin said:
The skopar 28 is an extraordinary lens!
but it depends on your 50. the skopar has a modern contrast rendering.
Click to expand...

I have four 50mm lenses:

1. ZM Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar M-mount
2. Canon black 50mm f/1.8 LTM
3. Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
4. Industar 55mm f/2.8 LTM

I tend to use the Planar the most, next is the Canon 50mm f/1.8.
 
Rico said:
Leitz Summaron 28/5.6 is an era-appropriate match, and tiny, but they are hard to find. Plus, the prices have crept up to $1K. Perhaps you shuld consider an MS Optical 28 triplet.
Click to expand...

The 28mm Summaron is what I'd consider a collector's lens and not a user's lens. If I were to spend $1k I'd get the Minolta-G 28mm or a Nikkor 28mm in LTM.

I'll look into the MS Optical 28 triplet.

Thanks!
 
I have owned the chrome Canon Seranar 28/3.5 and now own a black Canon 28/3.5. The chrome lens is both smaller and heavier, but the black version has the best ergonomics. Some say that the black version has different/improved coatings, but I cannot verify if this is true. I paid $450.00 with a case for the black version that is remarkably clean. The chrome versions can be found for around $300.00.

I like the black version for ergonomics, but know that it is rare. I still consider the black version a pancake lens, even though it is about a 1/4 inch longer. Know that the front element is recessed and that no filter hood was ever offered, but I use a heliopan step-up ring as a hood and for 39mm filters.

Cal
 
The tiny (chrome) Canon 28/3.5 is sharper than the Canon 28/2,8. I recommend the 3.5 version if you want a classic lens for B&W. If you prefer color, and if you don't mind a more modern look, then the Kobalux 28/3.5 with some Reala film (or similar, whatever is available) gives pastel like colors in the images. Just awesome.
 
Canon 28/3.5 (34mm filter thread) or Nikkor 2.8cm/3.5 (need a push on filter) for classic rendering (low contrast, high resolution). Color Skopar (39mm filter) or Avenon/Kobalux 28/3.5 (43mm thin filter) for modern rendering (both render very similarly). Can't go wrong with any of those.

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Canon 28/3.5 (34mm filter thread) or Nikkor 2.8cm/3.5 (need a push on filter) for classic rendering (low contrast, high resolution). Color Skopar (39mm filter) or Avenon/Kobalux 28/3.5 (43mm thin filter) for modern rendering (both render very similarly). Can't go wrong with any of those.

Roland.
Click to expand...

I had a Nikkor 28/3.5 that was threaded for 34.5mm screw-in filters. Admittedly, not an easy size to find -- but Leitz A36 clamp-on filters fit well, as does a SOOGZ A36-to-E39 adapter.
The Nikkor is a great performer, but note the following:
To use the Nikkor on your M4P, you'll need an LTM-M adapter with the cut-out (Type I) to accommodate the infinity lock.
The aperture ring turns the opposite way from Leica and Canon LTM lenses.
The entire lens barrel rotates as you focus, which can make setting the aperture quickly a skill to be mastered.

If you want modern rendering in a compact lens with great ergonomics, and rock-solid build, go straight for the CV 28/3.5 -- I've seen a few available on eBay and other places for under $400 (not planning to sell mine).

If you want vintage rendering in a super-compact lens with rock-solid build and good ergonomics, go for the Canon 28/2.8 or 28/3.5 (I have both) -- the f/3.5 will typically sell for less than $400, the f/2.8 for $400 or a bit more, depending on condition.

::Ari
 
While the 28 Skopar gives a modern rendering, I don't find it overly contrasty. With appropriate development, it can capture a wide range of tones while giving the flare protection that comes from modern coatings. I think it would pair well with your Canon 50/1.8 (I'm familiar with that lens). Don't know about the others.
 
raid said:
The tiny (chrome) Canon 28/3.5 is sharper than the Canon 28/2,8. I recommend the 3.5 version if you want a classic lens for B&W. .....
Click to expand...

Raid,

Does your assessment include the Serenar chrome 28mm f/3.5? Is the Serenar version optically the same as the chrome Canon labeled 28mm f/3.5?

Thanks!
 
I have the little chrome Canon 28 f3.5 lens, and am very happy with it. It is truly tiny, and extremely solidly built. Excellent results, but like most vintage wides, there is potential for flare if you aren't careful. It looks a bit funny on my M5, it's so small.

You will want the 90mm adapter for it to bring up the 28mm frame on your M4P. If you are handy or brave, you can convert a 50mm adapter to a 90mm one with a little bit of filing on the part that sets the frameline index.

Cheers,
Dez
 
raid said:
The tiny (chrome) Canon 28/3.5 is sharper than the Canon 28/2,8. I recommend the 3.5 version if you want a classic lens for B&W. If you prefer color, and if you don't mind a more modern look, then the Kobalux 28/3.5 with some Reala film (or similar, whatever is available) gives pastel like colors in the images. Just awesome.
Click to expand...

Raid, I think that, at this point, variations in condition/maintenance for these 50-plus-year-old lenses probably overwhelm any original differences in optical design, as far as relative image quality is concerned. At any rate, I don't recall having seen any convincing side-by-side comparisons of these two lenses that would support the common conception that the f/3.5 is sharper than the f/2.8.

Hmm, now that I think about it, I have nice examples of both lenses, and an M240 with live view to ensure consistent focus -- now all I need is the time and energy to produce a rigorous comparison! :rolleyes:

::Ari
 
aoresteen said:
Raid,

Does your assessment include the Serenar chrome 28mm f/3.5? Is the Serenar version optically the same as the chrome Canon labeled 28mm f/3.5?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this question. My copy may have been a Serenar lens.
 
kermaier said:
Raid, I think that, at this point, variations in condition/maintenance for these 50-plus-year-old lenses probably overwhelm any original differences in optical design, as far as relative image quality is concerned. At any rate, I don't recall having seen any convincing side-by-side comparisons of these two lenses that would support the common conception that the f/3.5 is sharper than the f/2.8.

Hmm, now that I think about it, I have nice examples of both lenses, and an M240 with live view to ensure consistent focus -- now all I need is the time and energy to produce a rigorous comparison! :rolleyes:

::Ari
Click to expand...

Go for it Ari. Roland used both lenses over time, and he also concluded same as I have suggested. Show us your side by side tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom