Canon LTM 28mm f2.8 - anyone have feedback on this lens?

[tim_taylor3]

Anyone have any experience with this lens or any of the Canon ltm

lenses?

[Troll]

I've used it for 40 years. It's better than the early 28mm Elmarit-M.

[tim_taylor3]

Billy, thanks for your response. What do you do for a lens hood? What filter size does it take? I have a chance to get this lens or an Elmarit (prior to newest version) that may have an element seperation beginning. Both may be in the $300 range.

[al_kaplan1]

I think that 40 years ago the main reason a lot of us didn't mix Leitz, Nikon and Canon lenses in our kits was filter size! Leitz lenses used 39mm, Nikkors used the still common 40.5mm, but Canon took 40mm. For many years I had an excellent 35mm f/1.8 Canon with the 40mm thread, and a the very sharp 135/3.5 Canon which took 48mm filters. As bargain buys came along I got a 35mm Summicron and 135mm Tele-Elmar, both of which took the good old 39mm filter!

 

For a few year I did have a 28mm first model Elmarit, and it was a decent but not outstanding optic, not as good as my 28mm Rokkor CLE was before it grew the infamous spots.

[john_shriver]

I don't have a Canon lens manual that covers the 28mm f/2.8, but the lens manual that covers the 28mm f/3.5 says that no hood should be used. I suspect the same applies to the 28mm f/2.8. Very small bit of glass, deeply recessed.

 

Filter size is 40mm, a size used by many Canon RF lenses, and now quite hard to source (outside of Japan). Most practical solution for filters on Canon 34mm and 40mm ring RF lenses is to get an appropriate Canon Series VI adapter, and hold in a Series VI filter with a hood or retaining ring. (Not that the adapter rings are easy to find...)

 

I have the Canon 28mm f/3.5. Nicely built, no obvious vignetting, no distortion. In my casual brick wall test, the corners never really get especially sharp, even stopped down. Perfectly respectable, however.

 

None of the Canon RF lenses have dissapointed me, optically. Perhaps I'm not "Leica" fussy...

[Troll]

The newer Elmarit would definitely be a better lens (Except, how you gonna use it on your IIIf?), but the impending seperation could be a problem.

[tim_taylor3]

Bill, I am using an M4 for these lenses. Would have to get the 28mm ltm to m adapter for the Canon.

[Troll]

Here's a comparison with a 35mm Summaron. Note the deeply recessed element of the 28mm Canon.<div></div>

[Troll]

It's much smaller than a second series Elmarit.<div></div>

[tim_taylor3]

Do you think the Canon 28mm is a better lens for the money versus say the Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 lens? They are both about the same cost, one used, the CV new.

[al_kaplan1]

The build quality of the Canon lenses from that era is second to none, although the cosmetic finish might be one small grade below Leitz. You aren't going to wear it out, for sure! The Voigtlander may have a slight advantage in using newer glass, newer optical design, and being multi-coated. On the other hand all the "newer/better" is oft times used by the designers to get by with one less element, so the performance is only maintained, not improved, and they save on expenses. One lens might be better wide open, the other when stopped down. The Canon glass is starting to become collectible so might hold value better over the long term. I think that it really comes down to Heads-it's-Canon,Tails-it's-Voigtlander. And lastly, those bastard size 40mm filters, not a concern if you don't use filters.

[peter_evans4]

<p><em>those bastard size 40mm filters</em></p><p><a href="http://hoary.org/toys/40mm.html">A whole page</a> about the sons of bitches (oh, and 40mm hoods, etc., too).</p>

[mark_rutledge]

I had one and it was a nice little lens...as was said i thought it was pretty soft with

some noticeable falloff in the corners wide open as well. It also had that "glow" wide

open..you may like that or not. Maybe mine was a sub-par example. The biggest

drawbacks for me were that it was a little too compact...too fiddily to focus, even with

the tab plus the focus was too stiff for my taste(even with a CLA). I could have

probably learned to live with these drawbacks but the 1m min. focus really did this

one in for me.

I'm actually looking at the CV lens as well as a replacement.