Canon 35mm f1.8 - the best 35mm lens in LTM?

[Nick De Marco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry for the controversial title (on this forum, perhaps), but I am pretty sure it is..

I finally got hold of this lens (after loving the Canon 35/2). I'm lucky, got myself an excellent version. I have just uploaded my first film taken with it on my Rangefinder Chronicles blog, where I also consider the lens...

 

Of course I put what I think it the best 35mm LTM lens on what I think is the best LTM camera (a Leica IIIf)

 

Please click on the link to see and read more:

Rangefinder Chronicles: Brick Lane with Leica IIIf and Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM

 

In the meantime, here are a couple of tasters:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[robert_parker]

This looks like a very interesting lens - personally I have a view about the 50mm pre-Aspheric Summilux and the 35mm Summicron ASPH, both of which exist in LTM versions, as being able to compete for the title () but the control of DoF and contrast in this older lens looks as if it is a real player.

Edited February 11, 2013 by robert_parker

[Nick De Marco]

You may be correct there Robert. I kind of discounted the 35mm Summicron ASPH because it's not really a traditional LTM lens, and is prohibitively expensive (at least compared to the Canon), but I am sure it has some advantages (such as flare resistance).

[robert_parker]

The biggest problem with the millennium LTM lenses is their weight - they're quite heavy and the whole dynamic of the camera changes, with some of the balance and natural smoothness of the camrea in use being lost - whereas with the vintage LTM lenses that natural balance and flow, (which I suspect then expresses itself to some extent in the type of street image taken), is retained.

[robert_parker]

Just thought that one advantage of the newer generation of LTM lenses can be their handling of colour - the earlier lenses can also be great but they were primarily designed for B+W photography - I'm not sure that is necessarilty a disadvanatge though as the character of the time, which might be lost in later modern technology, is retained.

 

It will be interesting to see what the new MM can do with the older lenses.

 

Ps. have a look at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/street-photography/271726-leica-iiif-non-leitz-lenses.html where Hakkalens has been experimenting with a range of non - Leica glass (2" Ross is interesting in colour).

Edited February 11, 2013 by robert_parker

[Nick De Marco]

Thanks Robert - I shall look at that

I took a roll of colour with the Canon 35/1.8 and was quite impressed. I shall upload it on the blog soon.

Nick

[andym911]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

for me the canon 35/ 2,8 is also superb...small and balanced with the IIf..and ergonomics and image quality are excellent...

 

never tried the 1,8 but can imagine its a killer too.

 

andy

[philipus]

The biggest problem with the millennium LTM lenses is their weight - they're quite heavy and the whole dynamic of the camera changes, with some of the balance and natural smoothness of the camrea in use being lost.

 

Hmm I'm not sure I agree

 

Leica II (1931) with Summilux 50 pre-asph LTM | Flickr

[Paul Reading]

What is "LTM"

[pop]

Leica Thread Mount

[robert_parker]

Hmm I'm not sure I agree

 

Leica II (1931) with Summilux 50 pre-asph LTM | Flickr

 

Given the weight of the thing I'm hoping that was irony...

[gyoung]

...and its not 35mm either......

 

Gerry

[philipus]

Pardon me, Gerry, for not being entirely on point.

 

Robert did, however, refer to both the 50 Summilux and the 35 Summicron in LTM and the discussion concerned then (as I understood it) the size and weight of these lenses on a Barnack. I thought, therefore, I could be permitted to show this combination. A Barnack with the Summicron mounted is, obviously, a smaller setup, so my intention was simply to show how the bigger combination looks.

 

If it were possible to remove my post, I would, in the interest of maintaining the required relevancy of the discussion, naturally do so. Or not.

 

Philip

[LucisPictor]

Don't forget the CV Ultron 1.7/35. I've got that lens and feel no urge for another 35 whatsoever!

[gyoung]

Pardon me, Gerry, for not being entirely on point.

 

Robert did, however, refer to both the 50 Summilux and the 35 Summicron in LTM and the discussion concerned then (as I understood it) the size and weight of these lenses on a Barnack. I thought, therefore, I could be permitted to show this combination. A Barnack with the Summicron mounted is, obviously, a smaller setup, so my intention was simply to show how the bigger combination looks.

 

If it were possible to remove my post, I would, in the interest of maintaining the required relevancy of the discussion, naturally do so. Or not.

 

Philip

 

No problem, I was being flippant

 

Its a lovely lens, I have an M mount version in black, and I am jealous, I wish I had something as good to use on my III

 

Gerry

[fotohuis]

Jupiter-12 2,8/35mm.

 

Most people in the Dutch Analogue Photo Forum can not see the difference between this lens and my Leica Elmarit.

[Nick De Marco]

Just uploaded my latest blog featuring the beautiful Canon 35 f1.8 but this time with colour - please have a look here:

 

Rangefinder Chronicles: Canon 35 f1.8 with Kodak Portra

 

Here are a couple and then a shot of the lens lined up with some other 35s (and a 40) - please read the blog entry on the link to identify what is what if you can't from the photo.

 

Thanks

 

Nick

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[robert_parker]

The old colours look nicely in place for street photography in London.

 

I'm going to get my LTM 8-elephant Summicron out of the sand in the back garden, where I bury it for safekeeping and see how that does with some Portra 400 on a iiif

[TomB_tx]

Very nice work Nick! I share your enthusiasm for the Canon 35 1.8. I recently added an identical one for my IIIf after using the 50 1.8 equivalent, and finding it gave better results than my 50 2.8 Elmar on the IIIf. The two Canons are now my preferred "kit" on the IIIf. The handling is especially nice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[menos I M6]

Nice writeup and accompanying photographs Nick! Those vintage lenses can be addictive ;-)

For one thing though I have to disagree respectfully.

 

The truly best LTM 35mm (and potentially maybe even "best" 35mm of them all) might be more likely the W-Nikkor 35/1.8.

It not only eclipsed the contemporary Canon 35/1.8 (which was the answer on Nikon's super fast 35mm lens, which was the worlds fastest 35mm for 135 film upon it's introduction.

 

The Nikon lens though is so impressively good, that only until Leica introduced the 35 Summilux aspherical in the 90's was it optically improved upon as a high speed 35mm faster than ƒ2.

 

The W-Nikkor in LTM mount is an expensive affair - thanks to Konica though, there is an less expensive, even better (user wise) option in the Konica 35 ƒ2 UC-Hexanon LTM.

It is a limited edition lens, going for a bargain price, compared to the overpriced pre ASPH Summicron lenses on the market.

 

The UC-Hex has a lot of similarities in it's rendering to the W-Nikkor - think of it as a slightly more balanced looking, smoother lens with a much more convenient barrel.

 

I am also a big fan of the black Canon 35/2 LTM, as you are.

This must be possibly the best bang for the buck 35/2 out there!

Compared to the much earlier W-Nikkor though, it pales though (as many other more modern lenses do as well).

There is a reason, why the W-Nikkor has such a strong following (and prices even for the much more common Nikon S mount version are ever growing).

 

Unfortunately the originally sold Leica mount version is the only option, to use this on a Barnack - no conversions or adaptions are available for LTM mount.