kknox
kknox
How do you like these lens. I have a chance to pick up a 35 3.2 and a 50 1.8 Serenar lenses. Clean and nice shape what are they worth?
Last edited:
Who has used Canon Serenar 35 3.5 & 50 1.8 ltm?
- Thread starter kknox
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 9
- Views 3K
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
The Chrome/Brass 50/1.8 is heavy, but a great lens. Very sharp. Compact enough - usually high on my "great bargain" lists.
I've never tried the 3.5/35. I have the 3.2, and it is a nice tiny lens. Interesting signature. I prefer the 35/1.8, but that's just me.
I've never tried the 3.5/35. I have the 3.2, and it is a nice tiny lens. Interesting signature. I prefer the 35/1.8, but that's just me.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 11:54 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,718
Serenars are identical to the later "Canon" screwmount lenses. A name change only.
Jim B.
Jim B.
charjohncarter
Veteran
My 35mm f/3.5 has not been the most fun I've ever had. It is well made, but had haze. I sent it out but it still has some haze like symptoms. I've check with a flashlight and I do not see haze; it still does this:
Right now I've tried painting the shinny metal that is inside the lens (the was a lot) and I've built a very restrictive lens hood.
Right now I've tried painting the shinny metal that is inside the lens (the was a lot) and I've built a very restrictive lens hood.
Last edited:
umcelinho
Marcelo
the chrome 50/1.8 is a fantastic lens. low contrast, sharp, fast, tiny (but quite heavy, it would make my M6 fall towards it when on a table standing up) and lovely tones. i love that lens, definitely a keeper.
fundos by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
rendezvouz by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
fishing by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
lazy jesus by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
fundos by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
rendezvouz by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
fishing by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
lazy jesus by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
John Shriver
Well-known
I don't have the Serenar 35/3.5, but as an over-stretched Tessar lens (like the Elmar 35/3.5 it's a copy of), I wouldn't expect a lot. It's the 35/3.2 and 35/2.8 where Canon's own designers strutted their stuff.
kknox
kknox
Sorry it is a 3.2. I put 3.5 in the title line and 3.2 the post.
Bingley
Veteran
My 35mm f/3.5 has not been the most fun I've ever had. It is well made, but had haze. I sent it out but it still has some haze like symptoms. I've check with a flashlight and I do not see haze; it still does this:
Right now I've tried painting the shinny metal that is inside the lens (the was a lot) and I've built a very restrictive lens hood.
OT, John, but was that shot taken in Ashland, OR?
charjohncarter
Veteran
Yes, this year, I think end of August. Were you there?
Inside the lens worked better.
Inside the lens worked better.
kknox
kknox
No I was not there. Looks like fun, good shot.