Canon 35mm F2 versions

I have read that the second version of the LTM Canon 35/2 is superior to the first - Is this true ?

I'd like to hear from actual users with first hand knowledge - ideally from those who were able to test

both lenses. Thank you.

This is a very interesting question for me. I have a Canon 35mm f2 Black and it is one of my best performing and favorite lenses. If one checks the Canon On-Line Museum, the second version was introduced just a year after the first, and if one checks the specs (there are no block diagrams I could find on the site, and neither is there a photo of the Type 2 version), the specs in terms of elements, groups, aperture blades, etc are exactly the same. So I certainly would like to know what the difference was between the two versions. Further, it would be great to find a reference for Canon serial numbers.

Take a look at this site. They have the serial numbers for the two types.

 

http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=wide_angle_lenses&id=6

 

Mark J.

I have an example of the earlier type. There can be quite a bit of

flare when you're tempting flare. It's also not so hot wide open. A

friend has the later type. He's fairly demanding and says it's good

when wide open. There's an optical redesign between the two. Stay

tuned; I hope to post more within the next 24 hours.

Could somone compare the f/2 to the f/1.8?

And both to the early summicron?

Thanks

Mark J, thank you! A very useful site. Based on the serial number list, I now know I have one of the earliest, Type 1 Canons. the only inconsistency I see is that the date issued range for the Type 2 Canon on Kitchingman's site is different from that posted on the Canon museum. Kitchingman's site looks very credible.

 

I've compared the Canon 35mm f2 Black to the Canon 35mm f1.8, the Type 1 35mm Summicron in screw mount, and the Type 4 Preaspherical Summicron. All four are good lenses, but have different characters.

 

The Canon 35mm f2 Black is very sharp ... its performance is comparable to the Type 4 Summicron. Quite honestly, I think my Canon Black beats my Type 4 Summicron at black and white, but I like the Type 4 better for color.

 

The Canon 35mm f1.8 and the Type 1 35mm Summicron both have wonderful "glow" ... read "flare", which can be nice for some pictures, but for others will represent some degradation of performance.

<p>Block diagrams for the two versions appear on pp. 36 and 38 of 世界のライカレンズ (''Sekai no Raika-renzu'') Part 2 (ISBN 4879560650). One person writes an essay about each; there's no direct comparison of the two.</p><p>I can't think of any reason why Canon would bother to redesign the optics other than to improve performance. Certainly it wasn't to save size or weight: external size is identical (unless perhaps you're armed with a slide rule), and the newer one weighs just five grams more.</p><p>I'm told that the newer one is rare outside Japan. It's not common within Japan, but it's not rare either. Shops seldom bother to mention the new/old distinction, and even when they do they don't fuss over it (cf the distinction between older and newer ["Z"] versions of the 7s body).</p><p>I hope to find time a bit later to look for and upload a photo of the pair of lenses.</p>

Here's the earlier one.

Er, let's try that again.<div></div>

as opposed to<div></div>

Here you see them.<div></div>

Great stuff Peter. Thanks!

I'm not struck by any flare tendency with my first version, though I do always use an aftermarket shade (wish I could find something vented!).

 

I use it frequently at f2 and find it very sharp.

 

One likely reason for redesign would be to save money (one less element, one less surface to glue, consequent reduced quality control risk). Canon's always been very perceptive about $$.

Both are seven elements in four groups.

<p>It's entirely possible that my particular example of the lens is slightly out of whack somehow, or that I've attributed my own failings to it. Also, I've seldom used it wide open. Anyway, I don't say it's bad wide open, merely that it is (or seems) mediocre.</p><p>If one doesn't use a filter, the lens looks as if it ought not to need a hood: the front element is very well recessed.</p><p><em>One likely reason for redesign would be to save money (one less element, one less surface to glue, consequent reduced quality control risk).</em></p><p>Yes indeed. But this hardly applies here. (Just count the elements.)</p>

My first version Canon Black is very sharp wide open. Neither does it have a tendency to flare. In fact, compared to the Canon 35mm f1.8 and the Type 1 Summicron, it is far less flare prone, and actually lacks the "glow" in the highlights these lenses produce. If I want glow, or an otherwise veiled, dreamy look, I will go to the Canon 35mm f1.8 or the Type 1 Summicron.

I have it on good authority that there are two versions, and the

examples presented there had the different external designs as shown

in my photo. I assume that the minor change in external design

corresponded to the change in optical design. That assumption may be

wrong: it's imaginable that the cosmetic change came after the

optical change, and thus that many lenses that appear to be older

are in fact of the newer and (I presume) better optical design.

Clearly two versions. However, it's not clear from the photograph that they are distinguishable externally. A sideview comparison would be useful.

They look the same from the side.

 

Sorry I can't examine the newer one for you; it was in my possession for a week or so and I believe that it's now in China. Perhaps I'll email the happy owner.

There is a definite difference from the front in appearance between the 1st and 2nd 32/2 as evidenced by the different profile in the scalloped focusing ring and more obviously in the lens information engraved on the front of the lens. The new version is similar to the way Canon did it for the FL series slr lenses made in the 60's and 70's.

"Both are seven elements in four groups."

 

Not if one counts elements for the first on his toes and for the second on his fingers. :-)

When carefully looking on the diagrams (where are they from?) you may discover that the rear elements of both versions are of different size (~96% of front element diameter with the older version vs. 93,8% with the newer version). A back view of both lenses would answer all questions.

 

Obviously the differences between the versions are very small (the same goes with the Leitz Summicron 2/35). The later version looks like it was easier to manufacture/ mount.

 

cheers, Frank

 

About f/2 performance. My own lens (http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2.html#CANON_P) is, according to P.Kichingman, the first produced of the later series. It has the new writing. At f/2 it is sharp but not up to newest standards, when compared carefully. It's excellent at f/5.6-8 where I use it most.