Canon LTM Canon 35mm f1.8 ltm - photos and discussion

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
B

brusby

Well-known
Local time
2:15 PM
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
883
I didn't see a thread for this lens. Feel free to delete or merge if I've missed it.

It's pretty small and very light. Would be great for a travel kit. Took it out today for first few quick tests. Used without lens hood.

M2404473 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
This is a lovely lens from late 50s, with moderate contrast, quite different in the way it renders from the later 35/2.0. It really shines in bw, as your first photo shows. But avoid shooting in the direction of a light source, such as an open door or window, as it will flare badly.

The photo below was shot on a 35/1.8, and required a lot of post-processing to get the flare down so that you could make out the string quartet.

String Quartet by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
Bingley said:
This is a lovely lens from late 50s, with moderate contrast, quite different in the way it renders from the later 35/2.0. It really shines in bw, as your first photo shows. But avoid shooting in the direction of a light source, such as an open door or window, as it will flare badly.

The photo below was shot on a 35/1.8, and required a lot of post-processing to get the flare down so that you could make out the string quartet.

String Quartet by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I really like the flare here. Wouldn't remove it even if possible. Gives an ethereal feel. Beautiful photo.

I haven't made many images with this lens yet and was expecting pretty low contrast, but it's a nice blend of old and new. The color shot I posted is pretty much straight out of the camera with no adjustments to contrast -- just a very slight bit of saturation.
 
My copy of the Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM is tack sharp in the center, even wide open, but quite soft the more you move away from center. Can make for some interesting images. Stopped down to 2.8 or 4 it's pretty good across the frame.

It renders in a pleasingly vintage way IMHO and it is one of the 35mm rangefinder lenses that I've kept over the years. Sold a 35mm Summicron ASPH (too contrasty in B&W), Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 (Nikon S mount which I no longer use) and Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Aspherical Ultron LTM (didn't like the rendering in B&W).

Best,
-Tim
 
brusby said:
I really like the flare here. Wouldn't remove it even if possible. Gives an ethereal feel. Beautiful photo.

I haven't made many images with this lens yet and was expecting pretty low contrast, but it's a nice blend of old and new. The color shot I posted is pretty much straight out of the camera with no adjustments to contrast -- just a very slight bit of saturation.
Click to expand...

Thanks much, brusby! This is the photo after post-processing. The flare in the original was a white bloom that obscrured the two people sitting by the window and the string players on the left. My recollection is that I cranked up the contrast in PS and then adjusted the exposure to get the image yiu see now.
 
My copy seems sharp in the center and very soft towards the edges wide open too. 'Probably wouldn't shoot much at f1.8 unless I were going for a dreamy effect. Might be good for portraits, though. The shots I posted above were both at f8 if I remember correctly, and I think the corners sharpened up nicely. Now just need to shoot some more to get a better feel for the edge transitions with changes in aperture.

I haven't noticed the flare issues you illustrated, Steve, but then I haven't shot anything back lit yet. Could be interesting.
 
Couple pretty torturous samples. I can't recall if these were wide open or not, but they were certainly close to it. The OOF areas are sort of nervous and a tiny bit swirly.


18nov2016-1-21_modified2_border_1024.jpg



18nov2016-1-17_modified2_border_1024.jpg
 
Brusby, those photos from the M240 look great. I tried my 35/1.8 on the X-T1 ages ago and it was so bad that I've never fitted it to a digital body since. In fact, it put me off using the lens full stop.

I dug it out again last summer and was really impressed with what it can actually do:

Robyn in the Hoop by Tony Gale, on Flickr

That was shot wide open on Foma 400 in Rodinal (hence the grain - didn't have some LC29 to hand!) in such dim light that I wasn't really expecting anything usable at all. I was really impressed when I actually saw the scan. Great little lens.
 
Nice tones Coldkennels. 'Enjoying the unusual and interesting pose plus lovely subject. Looks like a fun way to spend the day.

I like the handling, small size and light weight of this little lens.
 
Quick comparison of Canon 35mm f2 LTM versus 35mm f1.8 LTM

After hearing for years about how different these two lenses are, including how the newer f2 has a much more modern look and higher contrast, I am surprised at how similar they are, particularly in the center. Both images processed in exactly the same manner.


35mm f2 at f2
M2406234 by Brusby, on Flickr

35mm f1.8 at f2
M2406236 by Brusby, on Flickr
 
I’m one of the ones who’s said that the 35/2.0 has a more modern look to its images than the 35/1.8, and I’m sticking to my story. Now, I’ve only shot these lenses on film, and that could make a difference. But in my experience the 35/2.0 is more contrasty and has more flare resistance. The photo below was taken with my sample of the 35/2.0 not long after I got the lens, but before I sold my sample of the 35/1.8. I could not have taken this image with the 35/1.8: the flare would have obliterated the image of the young lady. The 35/2.0 handled the scene without an issue.

By Rail by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top