Are Canon 28mm 2.8 LTM lenses rare?

nightfly · 05-01-2006

Thinking that I'd like to pick one of these up but the one I was watching on eBay went for about $350. Is that about the going rate for these? Are they pretty uncommon or very desireable? I don't know too much about them except it would be nice to have the extra stop over a Canon or CV 3.5 and they look like neat little lenses.

Anyone have one they'd like to part with?

raid · 05-01-2006

Yes, this is a reasonable rate for a 28mm/2.8 these days. They have a good reputation, but I have a feeling that they are more collectible. I sold mine a year ago.

Sonnar2 · 05-02-2006

Not so clear if it's really better than the 3.5/28mm. Oppinions are splitted.

According to Randal Hooper, the 3.5/28mm is the rarer lens, although it is cheaper noted...So my feel is this one is a bit overrated.

As a user, I would prefer the C/V 3.5/28 as a buy for 300 USD (assuming it is at least nearly as sharp as the C/V 4/25). The Canon 3.5/28 goes for 200 and is, at least from my oppinion, not such a bad lens. In fact I like it more than the results of the 2.8/35...

have a nice day, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_main.html

raid · 05-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonnar2

Not so clear if it's really better than the 3.5/28mm. Oppinions are splitted.

According to Randal Hooper, the 3.5/28mm is the rarer lens, although it is cheaper noted...So my feel is this one is a bit overrated.

As a user, I would prefer the C/V 3.5/28 as a buy for 300 USD (assuming it is at least nearly as sharp as the C/V 4/25). The Canon 3.5/28 goes for 200 and is, at least from my oppinion, not such a bad lens. In fact I like it more than the results of the 2.8/35...

have a nice day, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_main.html

Frank: Is the 28mm/3.5 optically better or worse than the 28mm/2.8 based on Randal Hooper?

Sonnar2 · 05-02-2006

As far as I remember, he noted performance of the 2.8/28 "so la la" - but kept "schtum" about the 3.5/28...

raid · 05-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonnar2

As far as I remember, he noted performance of the 2.8/28 "so la la" - but kept "schtum" about the 3.5/28...

Maybe it is OK optically, but keeping quiet about its performance suggests otherwise.

raid · 05-03-2006

Take a look at what this seller is stating about this lens:

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-LEICA-RANG...QQcmdZViewItem

kbg32 · 05-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid amin

Take a look at what this seller is stating about this lens:

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-LEICA-RANG...QQcmdZViewItem

It ain't worth the BIN price of $450. CV lens is better optically and in contrast.

JJW · 05-03-2006

I've owned both the 28mm Canons. The f/3.5 is far better than the f/2.8.

That said, the current 28mm Voigtlanders... the f/1.9 Ultron and the f/3.5 Color Skopar, blast both Canons totally out of the water. They even outdo the early versions of the Leitz 28mm Elmarit.

The 28mm Canon f/2.8 owes its reputation to Garry Winogrand, who used it to shoot a lot of this street photographs of the late 1960s and early 1970s. As it turns out, I recently stumbled into a copy of "Public Relations", Garry's 1977 monograph, which contains pictures he shot in that time period. I am less impressed with their technical quality now. To be fair, Garry's work wasn't about technical excellence. The pictures were sharp enough to get the idea across.

If you are a shooter -- I recommend the Voigtlanders. Excellent value for the money. On the other hand, if you're collecting Canon screwmount lenses...

raid · 05-03-2006

That's a fair assessment of this lens. I got one [in the mail] and I already have the Minolta Rokkor 28mm/2.8, so I may let one go very soon. I rarely use 28mm lenses, but I want to start doing so. I will compare the two 28mm lenses once I get the Canon lens.

kbg32 · 05-03-2006

My 28 f3.5 Canon was quite "mushy". I bought it at the time because my Elmarit was too big under certain shooting "situations". I replaced the Canon with the CV. My Elmarit, that's another story. What a lens! I'll never let that go.

ghost · 05-03-2006

the 28 f3.5 canon is much more common than the f2.8. who is randal hooper?

back alley · 05-03-2006

iirc, the minolta 28 will be a 'better' lens than the canon 28/3.5.
i had both but the minolta was a few years ago.

the minolta has a more 'modern' look to it, in terms of sharpness and contrast.

joe

raid · 05-03-2006

Maybe each lens will be for different uses then. The Minolta for a sharp look and the Canon for an oldtime look?

nightfly · 05-03-2006

Since the Canon's aren't that cheap really (someone snagged that one off KEH), I think I'll just grab a new CV 28 3.5 from B and H or PhotoVillage or something. I'm a little concerned that the CV might be overly sharp to the point of harshness, but I can live with that since I'm sorta tired of hunting for deals. Just need a lens.

NIKON KIU · 05-03-2006

Quote:

Are they pretty uncommon or very desireable?

Come on you Canon RF fans, someone must have the Book:
"CANON RANGEFINDER CAMERAS 1933-68 by Peter Dechert" !!!?? NOT ME

Does Peter mention production numbers?
Kiu

back alley · 05-03-2006

that book is very light on lens info...

sf · 05-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferider

KEH has a 3.5 up for sale, for less than US 200 if I remember correctly.

Roland.

KEH's prices are not always that accurate to the market value of a lens. I know that from a recent Zenzanon RF experience.

Joe Brugger · 05-03-2006

The Skopar has high resolution, and it doesn't 'glow' like a '50s Summicron, but it's pretty nice.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7431278...in/set-821342/

raid · 05-03-2006

It seems to be a fact that the newer CV lenses are sharper in the edges and also in the center when wide open than older classic design lenses. The main advantage of the old design lenses lies in the "charm" of such lenses and of course the low contrast if someone wants such a look. Also, they keep their value better, and they can be resold later on without a loss.

John Shriver · 05-03-2006

I've read strongly held comments that the Canon 28/2.8 is sharper than the 28/3.5. No personal experience with the 28/2.8. I have the 28/3.5, and it meets my needs, but it is not sharp in the corners in the canonical brick wall test. Even stopped down, the corners are still not as sharp as the center. But, this is from looking at 1:1 views of 2900 dpi scans. Probably not going to notice much unsharpness at 8x10 after a stop down or two.

raid · 05-03-2006

John: Could it be that the old design of this lens was targeting sharpness in the center only so that the overall rendition of the photo is dreamy looking? Maybe it was the limitation of the design?

JJW · 05-04-2006

If you give me a few days I can run some tests of the old Canons vs. the new Voigtlanders. I sold my old Canon gear to a friend of mine who is a collector. I can probably borrow them and shoot them alongside the new CV 28s.

In the meantime, I'll search my archives for scans of pictures I took with these 28s. I had a computer upgrade about a year ago and didn't migrate my old scans to my new PC.

If you look through the RFF archives for the Voigtlander forum sometime over the past year or so and you might run across a thread I started asking members to post their 28mm shots. I have some samples there.

raid · 05-04-2006

CameraQuest states that the Canon 28mm/3.5 is excellent optically (or something similar).

==> "28/3.5 Canon: Black, an excellent lens but hard to find"

John Shriver · 05-04-2006

I'm not 100% sure that the very late black/chrome Canon 28/3.5 is the same exact optical design as the earlier chrome ones. Peter Kitchingman does have them on the same page, but there's a big jump in the serial numbers. No question the black/chrome one is hard to find, under 2000 made.