Wide Angle Lens for Canon 7 RF

[JohnJos]

Folks,
Just obtained a Canon 7 and am ready to shoot my first roll. I only have the 50/1.8 lens currently. I would like a wide angle for some landscapes I think. Looking at the Canon 7 manual I see the 25/3.5 and the 28/2.8 as possibilities. So I'm asking for some real world experience with these lens and any suggestions on alternative good WA lenses for the Canon 7 LTM M39 screw mount.
Thanks,
John

 

[ruby.monkey]

How wide do you need? The various Voigtlander screw-mount wides are fine lenses, and I'd recommend the 21mm f/4 and especially the 28mm f/3.5, for being small, sharp, and free of distortion.

 

[ferider]

Both because of available frame-lines, and because it's better for landscapes, I wouldn't go wider than 35. Canon 35/2, Color Skopar 35/2.5 or Ultron 35/1.7 (lots of LTM version available, now that the VM came out) are all 3 outstanding lenses. If you have less budget, the Canon 35/2.8 is great as well.

Roland.

 

[job]

Model 7 is a very nice RF with great features at good price.
However, if you are using wide angle more than 35, you need to find the hard to get and very expensive accessory shoe to hold the extra view finder.
That's why I prefer the non metered model or you need to get a 7s

 

[JohnJos]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've been using an effective FL of about 22 mm on my Canon and Fuji gear and that's been working well for me. The Voigtlanders seem like good possibilities for a lens in the 20 to 25 mm range (although maybe a bit more expensive then I want to spend at the moment on this camera).

 

[Mackinaw]

Just be aware that there’s no “hot shoe” on the Canon 7 so there’s no way to put a accessory finder on the camera (unless you find the rare, and expensive, accessory bracket).

Jim B.

 

[JohnJos]

Thanks again folks for your insight. It looks like a 35 mm lens is the way to go with this camera. I'll check out all recommendations. John

 

[mcfingon]

You may want to consider a late-model Jupiter-12 35/2.8. I got a really good 1987 one for $90 US. Check that it will clear your light baffles online. It only just clears my 1957 L2 Canon. Result below on Sony A7S.

 

[mcfingon]

Checking clearance to upper light baffle. Note how close rear element comes to film plane!

 

[Bingley]

The lenses recommended by ferider are all terrific. (The Canon 35/2.0 is my go-to lens in 35mm for travel.) For landscape work, I'd also add the Leica Summaron 35/3.5 in LTM mount. These turn up from time to time on ebay at reasonable prices (check out Youxin Ye's ebay store). Very sharp, but more moderate contrast than the Voigtlander lenses (with their modern coatings), which works well if you're shooting black and white. If you're using the lens for landscape photography, you may not need faster than f3.5.

I should add that some years ago I had a Canon 7 and tried using a CV Skopar 28/3.5 on it. I found it difficult to frame properly using the entire VF and the absence of a shoe for an auxiliary finder ultimately proved to be a deal breaker so I sold the camera. It was otherwise a nice RF, though, very robust, w/ a nice viewfinder and easier to use framelines than the Canon P (IMO). Congrats on your purchase!

 

[JohnJos]

Thanks mcfingon...the Jupiter looks like a good inexpensive alternative.

 

[JohnJos]

Thanks Steve. I'm looking at both of those lenses. The Leica may be more than I want to spent right now but looks to be a great lens for my needs. I may go with the 2.0 or 2.8 Canon 35 for a somewhat more economical lens. John

 

[Fixcinater]

I found a great deal on a beat up looking Canon 35/1.8 and it's great for travel. I had to open it up and fix a few things but it's a lovely little lens. Would work well with a 50/1.8 and 100/3.5 for a tiny, lightweight travel kit.

 

[Bingley]

Thanks Steve. I'm looking at both of those lenses. The Leica may be more than I want to spent right now but looks to be a great lens for my needs. I may go with the 2.0 or 2.8 Canon 35 for a somewhat more economical lens. John

The earlier chrome version of the Canon 35/2.8 is a lovely optic and a worthy competitor to the Summaron 35/3.5. It's also like the Summaron in that it's very compact in size. High resolution, moderate contrast; color pix have a more desaturated look to them.

The Canon 35/2.0 -- a.k.a. the "Japanese Summicron" -- is very lightweight (aluminum body). Very sharp, more contrast than either the 35/2.8 or 35/1.8 Canons. I think it's a superb, all-round 35 and great for travel.

I've also had the Canon 35/1.8 that Fixinator recommends. I agree with his assessment. The "look" from this lens is more old-school than from the later 35/2.0. The one downside is that the lens flares very easily if you point it at a light source (e.g., a window or open door).

Finally, your original post mentioned the Ultron 35/1.7 LTM. I've always thought that lens balanced beautifully on a Canon 7. Here's a pic for you:

Canon-7-CV-Ultron-35-a by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[ForestCap]

Another vote for a J-12 as a cheap alternative. Mine is from 1976. The rear element clears the light baffle, which is flat and not deformed.

 

[JohnJos]

Thank you for your input nukecoke. Certain a lens to consider.

Steve, thanks for fueling the fire for the Ultron.

For the time being I'm getting a Canon 35/2. Let's see how it fairs before I step up and buy something different.

John