Canon LTM Which Canon 35mm LTM lens?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
The Kobalux 28/3.5 is also a wonderful lens. Match it with Reala 100 film, and magic happens.
 
So much depends on luck and the condition of the lens that, unless you are able to test the lenses yourself before purchase, you must rely on the laws of probability, plus the help of feedback.
My chrome/black 35/2.8 was a lucky purchase, coming with a VT and a chrome 135/3.5 plus a set of 7 40mm filters.
On my M6 the 35/2.8 lens is better in contrast and sharpness (at equivalent stops above f4) to my Voigtlander "M" 35/1.4 and close to the ver. 2 Summicron 35/2.0.
I hope this helps.
 
I have used many 35mm lens in past lens comparisons during which RFF members sent me their lenses to compare. Currently, I own quite a few 35mm lenses that I enjoy using.

Summicron 35/2 V1
Summilux pre-asph 35/1.4
Canon 35/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.8, 35/1.5
Kobalux 28/3.5
Nikon 35/1.8 ltm

35mm lenses are "easy to design", and you should expect excellent performance.
 
Hello

This is from my newly purchased Canon 35mm 2.8 on my Canon P
The film is expired Solaris 400 shot at 200IS0 and lab processed normally and lab scanned

413296712.jpg
 
35/2.8

35/2.8

I do not have vast experience with these, but here's a shot from the early chrome 35/2.8. Mine came in a leather case with the finder, and it's mint.

https://flic.kr/p/U4D73j

There are some other examples in my photostream. Scans are from a cheap 5MP scanner and I will have added some contrast in Paint Shop Pro, however. I love this lens - small and solidly built.

-Tom
 
I've had them all, and I like the Canon 35/1.8 best. It has a nice look, not too old fashioned, not to antiseptic and new.

21047403969_3c15a88885_b.jpg


14650257526_b154d5f529_b.jpg
 
I am happy with my Serenar 3.5 silver body. Not really much of a low light shooter so 3.5 is fast enough for me.

David
 
I would steer away from the f 3.5 35mm Serenar lens (at least my vintage). I have one and it has a haze problem. Some of our geniuses say that it is the glass that causes this. Or is it oil? I like the lens; it is small, and very well built. But I have to clean it a least every six months. I can now do this in about ten minutes. BUT it is a pain.

By the way, optically it is a not great but a very good lens:

EliteChrome Puerto Vallarta by John Carter, on Flickr

EDIT: this was before a needed cleaning.
 
Here is a couple of the 35mm f1.8 taken on a Leica M8:
 

Attachments

  • L1318565 (2) - Copy (1280x853).jpg
    L1318565 (2) - Copy (1280x853).jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 1
  • L1318597 (2) - Copy (1280x853).jpg
    L1318597 (2) - Copy (1280x853).jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 1
35mm f2 is a good lens. The 35mm 1.5 is also a good performer although slightly soft and low contrast wide open. Might be a little bit harder to find than the others.
 
I bought a Canon 35/2 on here for around $200... haven’t shot a lot with it but it’s f/2... I would recommend going by f stop rather than cosmetic bull****. That said, I own a 50/1.5. F2 is not bad, it’s not the quickest of lenses apertures but it’s also faster than most.
 
I've had the Canon 35/2.8 (chrome version), the 35/1.8, and the 35/2.0. The Canon 35/2.0 is the one I've kept, and it's an outstanding lens IMO.

The Canon 35/2.8 and 35/1.8 are both lower contrast lenses. They'll give you softer, more pastel-like shades in color, and will do exceptionally well with black and white film. Both are very small, if that matters to you. I found that the 35/1.8 flares very easily when pointed in the direction of a light source (such as a window or open doorway).

Here's a sample photo from the 35/2.8:
Koi-Pond by bingley0522, on Flickr

Canon 35/1.8:

Getting ready by bingley0522, on Flickr

Canon 35/2.0:

Sevilla by bingley0522, on Flickr
 
I would go for the early all chrome Serenar/Canon 35mm f2.8, these just look cool on Barnack type cameras and not a bad lens at all....very comparable to my Nikkor 3.5 cm f2.5 lens in LTM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom