Wrong lens? Canon S - 35mm f/1.5

Haydn23

Haydn23

Member
Local time
8:21 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
25
Hi

I bought the above lens online when drunk (about 450 Euro) and then read Sean Reids review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml

including comparisons with other lenses and now I wish I'd bought the Voigtlander f/1.7 and sacrificed half a stop. What do you guys think? I have a documentary project in a months time and I can't afford another lens. On top of all that, it seems like I may need to do a few alterations ot get the lens focusing properly according to another link on this site. Nightmare! Don't drink online.

Your thoughts would be appreciated (about the lens not my drinking)....

Haydn
 
Why don't you take some pictures with it and see how you like it?

I think the Canon has a much more pleasing look, though the CV is better by more calculating standards.
 
Haydn - a nice example of the 35/1.5 dropped on eBay yesterday for over $500 so your price was not out of line. Even at that price I was VERY tempted, but low on funds.

You didn't mention what your project goals are. The CV and Canon are very different lenses. For what I am trying to achieve in my photos - which revolves around wide-open softness - the Canon would be my choice. It is also smaller, if that makes a difference to you.

If you are having second thoughts, post it here in the classifieds. I bet it sells in an hour, tops.

- John
 
Haydn, I once had the Voigtlander 35/1.7. Never liked it, neither the pictures - colors, contrast - nor the handling. It's all but a "general usage" lens. The Canon 35/1.5 isn't either, but at least it's smaller. It keeps the Bessa-R a waist pocket camera. If you ever need to photograph a newspaper 1m in front of the lens wide open, please don't use it. Instead, take a Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55 for 60 EUR. The performance of the Canon 35/1.5 wide open may not be great, but improves significantly when stopped down. The C/V isn't bad wide open, but stopped down there is no big improvement. The Canon flares with sidelight but not worse than the C/V f/1.7

The lens is rare in Europe so 450 EUR isn't a bad price, when comparing USD plus customs fee. My was 400 incl. caps and I wasn't drunk but looked 3 years after it.
 
To All My Replies

Thank you for taking the time respond.

My project is a reportage of one of the many countries having a politcal crisis so and unobtrusive camera (RD1) and lens - the Canon 35mm f/1.5 - was and is a must.

One the focusing is set up I will be happy judging from the mail I have. If this lens has a feel of its own that suits me. I am not a sharpness fanatic but I am a 'feel fanatic'. Newspapers love sharp photographs and for sport its become dull in my opinion. Super sharp, super bright images, where you can see individual fibres in the shirts leave me cold, if only because its (often) the camera being showcased not (always) the photograhers skill (or dare I say it - how the deeply photographer was moved by what he saw).

I went for this lens after using Leitz Elmar 50mm on a Leica IIIc. It was my grandfathers and I love it. I have the original 50mm finder on top with a push over Wetzlar hood. I have had no significant flare probelms and the images have a feel of their own which I am keen to emulate with a digital analaogue camera.

I've been a press photographer for 15 years, but after shooting a feature on my Leica recently I realised that was where my heart was. going back to Canon 1D cameras felt so sterile and unconnected to what was going on around me. Eight frames a second means I don't really have to worry about getting SOMETHING.

I'll post a few shots when I'm in business - the RD1 auction I was bidding on fell through so if anyone wants to sell for considerably less than a new one I'm interested.

Kind regards

Haydn
 
Haydn, I'm looking to sell mine and am based in Lonon, so not a million miles away. I have sent you a private message.
 
I tested such a lens recently, and it was viewed by many here as a great performer. On the other hand, a few users of such a lens were surprised that the lens tested by me did so well. Maybe there is a need to have someone quickly adjust it/re-shim it ...

Raid
 
Charles

Thank you for showing me your examples which is greatly appreciated. How does the lens perform for you wide open? And does it enlarge OK with reasonable sharpness across the fram at say f/5.6. Finally, did you need to make any alterations to the lens to get it to work with the rangefinder. I read that you have to file the brass ring under the back plate, take it out and file it down bit by bit on a mirror. I have a genuine Leitz adaptor but I don't know if that will make any difference to front focussing issues.

Thanksa again for the reply and images

Kind regards

Haydn
 
35 f1.5

35 f1.5

Hi Hayden,

My example is every bit as sharp as the Nokton 40mm 1.4 (shooting the Nokton almost but not quite wide open to give f1.5 and the Canon wide open, both close up, both on the R-D1). I can't yet vouch for the far corner performance vs. the Nokton as I have not yet shot film with it.

When I got it was a bit soft wide open close up. So.... (warning: before going further, if you have worked on lenses before this is superfluous. but if not, be aware that you can mess up a very expensive piece of equipment. Work over a white towel --to catch the tiny screws--and work carefully and slowly and with a good set of precision screwdrivers. Be sure you understand how the lens is put together, and if something seems not right stop and do something else and ask someone on the forum about it).

First, check the length of the rangefinder cam on the lens against a 35-50mm lens you know to focus correctly. You can often do this by putting the two lenses back to back but offset to measure their cams against each other at infinity. Also check on a distant power-pole or tree that the lens truly brings the rangefinder to infinity (the images completely coincide). If the focus is off on the lens you will need to adjust the focus mount before getting started. My mount was off a little and did not bring the images to coincide fully.

Second, once satisfied that the focusing mount is okay you will need to determine whether best focus is in front or behind where it should be (there should be some threads here somewhere that can tell you how to figure this out). It quickly became clear that the optics of my lens were positioned a bit too far away from the sensor for a given distance on the rangefinder and tape measure. In other words, the shim on the lens optical block was a hair too thick. I then removed the shim and gently and carefully rubbed it against emery paper, reassembled, shot, dissassembled, etc., until rangefinder, tape measure and sharpness were all in synch.

Caution--if you remove too much you will have to fabricate a new shim (or try to get a local machine shop to do so)!

In my case I did the test on the R-D1 for convenience because I know it is spot on with several different lenses with one of my screw to m adapters. If in doubt, another way to do this is to mount the lens on a film body and tape a matte screen in the film gate (I keep an OM screen around for this purpose). Then put the rig on a tripod and examine the focus with a 10X or stronger loup.

All in all it is not hard, but it is a bit tedious. Also, I'm sure that if you don't want to risk it someone on the forum knows who you can send it to.

Hope this helps,

Charlie

PS: Warning: do not remove or disassemble the diaphram--these are a pain to reassemble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom