Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > 35mm Film Range Finders > Canon RF

Canon RF For classic Leica Screw Mount Canon Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Serenar 28mm 3.5 lens
Old 08-28-2009   #1
jvan01
Registered User
 
jvan01 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 186
Serenar 28mm 3.5 lens

I'm looking at one of these lenses, and was wondering if it would be compatible with a Voigtlander Type II adapter? I've heard that lenses with infinity locks can't screw on to Type II rings. Is there a workaround or do I need a different adapter?
__________________
M8 + lenses
Nikon S2
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2009   #2
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvan01 View Post
I'm looking at one of these lenses, and was wondering if it would be compatible with a Voigtlander Type II adapter? I've heard that lenses with infinity locks can't screw on to Type II rings. Is there a workaround or do I need a different adapter?
Buy a used Leitz M adapter with the bottom cutout.
Leitz made some like that.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2009   #3
Philippe D.
Cheeeeeese
 
Philippe D.'s Avatar
 
Philippe D. is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nice - Monaco
Posts: 161
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvan01 View Post
I'm looking at one of these lenses, and was wondering if it would be compatible with a Voigtländer Type II adapter?
I have this Canon lens (as well as the f/2.8), and yes, you may use the type II adapter with both. Because the infinity lock (when pushed) is still far from the flange.
__________________
Cheers, Philippe
--
LFI-Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-29-2009   #4
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,502
How much is such a lens selling for these days?
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2009   #5
photobizzz
Speak of the Devil
 
photobizzz's Avatar
 
photobizzz is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Eagle River, AK (Anchorage Area)
Age: 39
Posts: 516
There is one in the classifieds with no caps for $300, but the same lens is listed on the auction site starting at $200. It is the 28/2.8 version that goes for $400 normally, and the one I really want.
__________________
CONTAX RTS II - Zeiss 28/2.8 Distagon, 35/2.8 Distagon, 50/1.4 Planar


www.selectivevisionsphotography.info
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2009   #6
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by photobizzz View Post
There is one in the classifieds with no caps for $300, but the same lens is listed on the auction site starting at $200. It is the 28/2.8 version that goes for $400 normally, and the one I really want.
I wonder if itis true that the 28/3.5 is sharper than the 28/2.8.What are your impressions?

Thanks.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2009   #7
loneranger
Registered User
 
loneranger is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 404
I am selling my 28/3.5 currently in the classifieds. I've had the 28/2.8 also. The 28/2.8 is not as sharp or contrastly as the 3.5 stopped down, but wide open, and right in the center, the 28/2.8 is sharp as hell, but that is only in the center, it is perfect for B/W portraits.
__________________
Fuji SW 690, canon 7, konica 35 uc hex, canon 28/3.5ltm, canon 28/2.8 ltm, olympus pen ft, pany g1
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-30-2009   #8
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 22,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by loneranger View Post
I am selling my 28/3.5 currently in the classifieds. I've had the 28/2.8 also. The 28/2.8 is not as sharp or contrastly as the 3.5 stopped down, but wide open, and right in the center, the 28/2.8 is sharp as hell, but that is only in the center, it is perfect for B/W portraits.
I have never used the 28/2.8 but I like using the 28/3.5. Thanks for the useful information.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2009   #9
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
 
januaryman's Avatar
 
januaryman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,446
At my group on flickr some guy is selling the 28/2.8 - He mentions it was just CLA'ed at Essex. I'm not vouching for him/her, as I don't know anything about this person. Not even a photostream I can see... but it might be a good buy.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon-r...7622074770194/
__________________
Jim

"There is no special way a photograph should look."
- Garry Winogrand

Flickr - PhotographicIntrigue - NAPP Portfolio


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2009   #10
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
 
januaryman's Avatar
 
januaryman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,446
And the 28/3.5 I have is a terrific lens, for which I paid top $ at Kevin's Cameras.
__________________
Jim

"There is no special way a photograph should look."
- Garry Winogrand

Flickr - PhotographicIntrigue - NAPP Portfolio


  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2009   #11
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 4,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
I wonder if itis true that the 28/3.5 is sharper than the 28/2.8.What are your impressions?

Thanks.
I owned one of these for awhile Raid. Other then the love for its compactness compared to my 28/2.8 Elmarit ll, I thought the lens I owned sucked. I bought mine in mint condition for $100. That's all I ever thought it was worth. I am surprised so many people here prize this lens. It was not sharp at all. Detail was mushy, even with film processed in Rodinal, which is a high acutance developer.

If you want a compact 28, go for the CV 28/3.5. Worth every penny.

Last edited by kbg32 : 09-03-2009 at 10:56.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2009   #12
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,036
I'm a big fan of the Canon 28/2.8. Haven't owned the Canon 28/3.5, but have owned or own the Canon 35/3.5, CV 28/3.5, CV 28/1.9, and M-Hex 28/2.8 (awesome lens, but large relative to the Canon).

For me, 1/2 of my 28mm shots are wide open @ 2.8 or faster, so the 3.5 is not an option. I love the contrast and sharpness of the Canon 28/2.8, especially in b/w.

Here are some snaps from the lens on an RD1.
__________________
My photo blog


Last edited by ampguy : 09-03-2009 at 11:12.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2009   #13
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10,141
I think there is some sample variation for both lenses. You Ted, got a good lens
__________________
50mm Project, => Vote Now
Smugmug
  Reply With Quote

Yes
Old 09-03-2009   #14
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,036
Yes

Thanks Roland, I love this little lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
I think there is some sample variation for both lenses. You Ted, got a good lens
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2009   #15
vrgard
Registered User
 
vrgard's Avatar
 
vrgard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Posts: 1,769
And Ted, I still haven't forgiven Roland for letting that 28/2.8 get away from me.

As for the 28/3.5, of which I have two copies, unlike kbg32 both of mine are plenty sharp. No mushiness whatsoever. Guess Roland is right about sample variation. And it's wonderfully small.

-Randy
__________________
My Gallery

Last edited by vrgard : 09-03-2009 at 21:45.
  Reply With Quote

Hi Randy
Old 09-04-2009   #16
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,036
Hi Randy

Yes, this is one impressive lens, really the ultimate travel 28. I'm also pleased with the color and flare handling. It must have some good coatings.

Here are some snaps in color from the lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vrgard View Post
And Ted, I still haven't forgiven Roland for letting that 28/2.8 get away from me.

As for the 28/3.5, of which I have two copies, unlike kbg32 both of mine are plenty sharp. No mushiness whatsoever. Guess Roland is right about sample variation. And it's wonderfully small.

-Randy
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-04-2009   #17
naruto
GASitis.. finally cured?
 
naruto's Avatar
 
naruto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 624
It's a great little lens to have on the M body. I moved to a color skopar 28/3.5 from Roland which is a lot more contrasty. The serenar is great for B&W shots.
__________________
~ash
-------

me @ Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2009   #18
conradyiu
closer
 
conradyiu's Avatar
 
conradyiu is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shanghai <-> Hong Kong
Posts: 262
how about canon 25/3.5? compared with 28/3.5 the contrast & sharpness?
__________________
conrad yiu
my little photo blog

RF: R-D1x, Canon P, CV 21/4, Canon 19/3.5, 35/1.5, 50/1.5, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4
Minolta 7S, Oly XA, 35SP, 35RD, Natura 24/1.9
X-E1, XF 18-55
SLR: Nikon F3/T, few Nikkors
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:42.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.