35MM F2 Canon LSM

[imagehause]

Who likes this lens? Is it as good as people say? Would like to see some pics

and any info would be apretiated.

 

I have a 50MM f1,4 Canon and I am complementing with this wide angle.

 

Thanks,

Peter

[vivek iyer]

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/

[jtk]

It's my favorite lens... impressive at f2. My (immaculate) Summaron 35/3.5 seems its equal at 5.6&8..but of course the Summaron is mechanically antiquated. Both, along with my 50 1.4 FD (F1) are significantly better optically and build than my CV 50 1.5 ...suggesting 35 CV would be an iffy substitute for Canon...might go with CV rather than Serenars, however....I just got a Canon 100/3.5 instead of CV and I'm pretty sure that was the right decision, though I'll only see first film today...a jewel, surprisingly small, focuses close.

[jtk]

...another 35 that's beautiful but isn't the equal of the Canon or Summaron is the Nikon 35/3.5, in my experience.

[frederick_muller]

I should be picking up a Canon 35mm f2 Black in a week or so. I have a Canon 35mm f1.8, which is its predecessor. While the 1.8 seems as sharp as a 35mm Type 1 Summicron, it seems to flare, or "glow" a lot more. If one is brutally objective about it, that "glow" degrades sharpness, although it can have a pleasing effect. I'm very curious to see if the Canon 35mm f2 Black has improved flare characteristics over the Canon 35mm f1.8. I would be amazed if it is not at least as good as the 1.8 if not better.

[frederick_muller]

>><div></div>

[frederick_muller]

>>><div></div>

[frederick_muller]

>>>>

[frederick_muller]

>>>>><div></div>

[frederick_muller]

>>>>>><div></div>

[frederick_muller]

Peter, here's a bit of a write-up on the "Japanese Summicron"

 

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Wideangles.html#35mm

[imagehause]

Thanks to Fred, Vivek and John.

Very helpfull.

Peter

[johnmarkpainter]

It is a great lens. Filter size is an issue however...imposssible to find.

 

Steve Gandy @ cameraquest.com sells a Metal Hood that fits it. Then you can attach

Filters to the Hood (58 I think?)

 

jmp

[al_kaplan1]

Leitz, Canon and Nikon were all competing in the rangefinder market in the 1950's. Leitz chose 39mm as their standard filter size for a bunch of different lenses, Nikon chose 40.5mm which became more common than 39mm in the overall lens market, but Canon went with 40mm. I don't think that anybody else made lenses that took 40mm filters. At any rate it discouraged people from having a kit with lenses from more than one company, especially when color for publication meant slide film, and you needed to carry a bunch of warming and cooling filters.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>Is it as good as people say?</em></p><p>Uncomfortably close to "Let's have a circular argument!"</p><p>Mine's the earlier design and it's ho-hum wide open but excellent at f4 and smaller. It's probably fine at f2.8 as well; I just don't know as I haven't measurbated it. I believe that, when they're wide open, the newer version is better than the older one.</p><p>New 40mm filters are easy to find in Tokyo.</p>

[jtk]

My first edition is beautiful and sharp at f2. The alternative, at anywhere near the price, seems CV ...even if a CV lens is comparable optically (maybe), it has no mechanical future... think budget Nikon/Canon/Minolta versus their professional counterparts. Also, think about relative size of CV 35/1.7 Vs Canon 35/2 :-)

[jack_wilber]

I used to own one of these lenses and I was very unimpressed. The sharpness and contrast were visibly inferior to the performance of the early 35mm Summicron. (Same thing goes for the "legendary" Canon 28mm f/2.8 and 25mm f/3.5 lenses.)

 

The Cosina Voigtlander 35mm, on the other hand, is a spectacular optic. I now own a Pancake I picked up for $150 and it simply is the best 35mm lens I've ever used.

 

I am also confused when people talk about Cosina's "inferior" build quality. I've had my Pancake for almost four or five years now and it hasn't fallen apart or screwed up on me yet. It keeps delivering razor sharp exposures with extraordinary contrast.

 

You can look at this scan and judge for yourself.<div></div>

[frederick_muller]

The Canon 35's are even smaller than Leica Summicrons. My 1.8 is smaller and lighter than the black 35mm Type 4 Summicron, which is lightest 'cron I've got. Can't compare in performance, though. Maybe the Canon 35 f2 is a closer competitor.

 

It's a shame that rangefinder lenses seem to be drifting away from earlier ideals of compactness in the search for marginal performance gains. The 35mm Summicron Aspherical is a case in point. It's a great lens, but it's materially bigger than the Type 4. Ditto the 35 Lux Aspherical (though performance gains wide open are considerable). Leica's done a good job in keeping size and weight down with the 50 Lux Aspherical though.

[jtk]

Other than bad color (crossed-over) and poor shadow detail, what are we supposed to see in that purported "6MP" scan?

[02Pete]

I have owned and used a Canon 35mm f/2 for some time. First produced around 1962, it is in my experience sharper, has higher contrast, and controls flare better than the Canon 35mm f/1.8 and the Canon 35mm f/1.5 of the 1950s. It is a very small, lightweight lens, convenient to use and carry. The various iterations of the Leitz 35mm f/2 Summicron may have superior optical qualities, particularly the more recent ones, but the Canon 35mm f/2 is an excellent lens with a deservedly high reputation. It would go very well as part of an outfit with a Canon 50mm f/1.4, and would work fine on a Leica M series body with a screw mount to bayonet adapter. If you bought one, I doubt that you would regret your decision to do so.

[al_kaplan1]

The biggest problem with the Canon lenses is the odd ball 40mm filter size. Leitz lenses took 39mm and the LTM Nikkors used the very common 40.5mm filters. It was like a plot to force you to stay with one brand if you used a lot of filters.

[mark-j]

Peter: You might look up Mark Wahlster on this forum. I believe he uses the Canon 35/2 extensively and has examples posted in some of his responses.

 

Mark J.