Your opinion of Canon 35mm f/1.8 LTM?

scottgee1 · 01-26-2005

Greetings, all;

I have the option to buy one of these but can't google much information about it.

Wondering how it compares to Leica and VC offerings in that focal length and the 40mm f/2.0 Rokkor/'cron.

I'd be using it on a VC R2. Initially, at least.

TIA!/Scott Gardner

back alley · 01-26-2005

it has a good reputation generally. was a precursor to the 35/2 which has a great rep.
i think most would agree that all things being equal a newer lens has the benefits of modern coatings & materials and possibly computer generated design.
but the older lenses can have that 'look' from long ago. the look being from high resolution lenses but a bit to alot lower contrast.
i had the 40 rokkor and you would not be disappointed with it. i have the cv 35/2.5 and it is sharper than i am.
i'm sure leica must make a passable lens, they seem popular

joe

furcafe · 01-27-2005

I have the 35/2 Canon Lens, not the earlier 35/1.8, but they're supposed to be optically very close (I've even read that the 35/2 is simply a 35/1.8 modified so that it can't open up beyond f/2). IME, the 35/2 certainly lives up to its good reputation: nice & sharp, not too expensive, & very compact & lightweight. The only downside is that it uses the slightly oddball Canon RF 40mm filter thread.

Per Backalley's post, modern glass will have its advantages, particularly in flare resistance, but the Canons are "new" enough (1960s) that the differences aren't as profound as they would be if they were 1950s-era products. E.g., I have the 40/2 M-Rokkor (for the CLE & another excellent lens BTW), which dates from the 1980s, & it isn't markedly superior to the 35/2 Canon despite its multi-coating.

Huck Finn · 01-27-2005

Scott, if these didn't come up on your google, check them out:

www.dantestella.com - Dante reviews this lens in his article "Canon Lenses for Leica."

www.davidde.com - Davidde, Dante's brother, reviews the Canon 35/2 & in his review provides some useful information about the 35/1.8, including lens diagrams. The 35/2 is not identical to the 35/1.8, but it is close. The 35/2 has one less element. I suspect that they tried to accomplish with an extra element what they were later able to accomplish with coatings.

Cheers . . .

wlewisiii · 01-27-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by backalley photo
ii have the cv 35/2.5 and it is sharper than i am.
joe

Boy am I quickly learning that is true for me too. I've only used the 40/2 (IIRC) on a CL (briefly) and now the 35/2.5 in SC mount. I prefer the 35 lens. Sweet sweet sweet.

William

scottgee1 · 01-27-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by wlewisiii
Boy am I quickly learning that is true for me too. I've only used the 40/2 (IIRC) on a CL (briefly) and now the 35/2.5 in SC mount. I prefer the 35 lens. Sweet sweet sweet.

William

Very interesting!

When you mention the VC 35/2.5 are you referring to one of the 'pancake' lenses?

TIA!/Scott

wlewisiii · 01-27-2005

No, the SCs are based on the "classic" lenses IIUC from Mr. Gandy's web pages - not the pancake. It's a very nice lens and between prefering long lenses and it's quality, it's going to take me awhile to learn this lens.

William