Canon LTM canon 35mm f2 ltm compare summicron....?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I have a mid-50's version of the Canon 50/1.8 LTM and love it. I particularly like the vintage color tones I get out of it.

I haven't compared it directly to the Summicron, but if you have the opportunity to pick one up for a reasonable price, I think you'll be happy with it.
 
helenhill said:
Certainly holds its Own up to the 35 Summicron... has its own Special magic ! TMax 400
... in the early morning rain, waiting on an Eastbound train... by Helen Hill, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Helen, you keep coming up with these gorgeous dark moody shots in B/W... here and in the 50/1.8 thread. Lovely. Marvelous.
 
davhill said:
Helen, you keep coming up with these gorgeous dark moody shots in B/W... here and in the 50/1.8 thread. Lovely. Marvelous.
Click to expand...

Hello 'davhill'... fellow hill ;)
How very Kind of You ... I do try and YOU made my Evening.
Thanks ever sooooo much !
 
Question- I just got one of these in UG from KEH for a good (in the US) price. Mounted on my A7, took a few test shots, looked fine, then as I stopped it down, the aperture blades self-destructed.... They are stuck prob around f5.6, in some oblong mess of a disaster.
I already got a return approved with them, but am curious- I've never heard aperture blades being delicate on this lens, have owned several copies without this issue... What would the fix entail?
 
stupid leica said:
Question- I just got one of these in UG from KEH for a good (in the US) price. Mounted on my A7, took a few test shots, looked fine, then as I stopped it down, the aperture blades self-destructed.... They are stuck prob around f5.6, in some oblong mess of a disaster.
I already got a return approved with them, but am curious- I've never heard aperture blades being delicate on this lens, have owned several copies without this issue... What would the fix entail?
Click to expand...

Best case scenario is a simple lens tear down, clean, and rebuild. One of the blades may simply have popped out of its mooring. Worst case is a broken blade, which would require a donor lens. That could kick up the repair price quite a bit. Sometimes when the old grease on these lenses stiffen up problems like this occur. I’ve seen it on a few lenses.
 
I had a similar situation with the Canon 50/1.4 LTM, blades were all wonky. Pulled it apart, cleaned all the blades and associated parts and it is a fully functioning lens again. I used it for a year, decided I didn't need the 1.4 and the 1.2, sold it to a friend and he's been happily using it for a year as well.
 
Just received my copy from a seller in Japan. It was not mint condition, but typical vintage lens in good condition with a little dust inside and a few micro cleaning scratches on the front element. I have to say i am very surprised by the quality of the lens, both build and performance. I got it mostly to use on my VT since the only other LTM 35 i have is the Summaron 35/3.5, and i need the extra light sometimes in film.
I don't have a Summicron to compare with, but i did pixel peak against my Zeiss 35/2 (which is an amazing lens) and i can't find any faults on the Canon. Both almost equal in sharpness and color. The only fault my Canon copy has is that it flares VERY easily, especially when the light source is perpendicular to the lens. I am in the market for a hood now to try to alleviate that lol.
Here is one of the first test shots i took with it. Due to its size and quality, it will most likely be my everyday 35 now.

Leica M240 + Canon 35mm f2 LTM by Alex Aguilera, on Flickr
 
I would describe non-aspheric (or traditional) 35mm lenses like this:

The f/1.4 and 1.5 lenses are impressionistic where they can't be good.

The f/1.8 and f/2 lenses all have cult followings based around specific flaws, which people call roundness, rendering, and bokeh. I like them because if you shoot a picture of a person over 35 with an ASPH, you might get hit in the face.

The f/2.8 lenses are solid but average.

The f/3.5 lenses are good by virtue of their small maximum aperture. And because when they came out, gratitude that something came out at that price point goes a long way.

Dante
 
Abbeville, La.
M2, Canon 3.5-f2, FP4 in D76

abbeville%20st%20magdeline.jpg
 
I've got the Canon 35mm f1.8 LTM, and no I don't use a hood with mine. The front element is pretty recessed.

I find, for B&W work I like the Canon better than the 35mm Summicron ASPH I used to own. Always found the Summicron to render too heavy (too much contrast for my liking), but for me the Canon is just right. And after I calibrated it, it's tack sharp in the center of the image, even at f1.8. Sure, the corners are softer, but that doesn't bother me.

Best,
-Tim
 
Thanks Tim. I got a FSU (jupiter-8) hood that fits the Canon, for cheap, but so far I haven't seen any indication that it needs it. Maybe I will shoot directly into the sun, and see.
 
Dante_Stella said:
I would describe non-aspheric (or traditional) 35mm lenses like this:

The f/1.4 and 1.5 lenses are impressionistic where they can't be good.

The f/1.8 and f/2 lenses all have cult followings based around specific flaws, which people call roundness, rendering, and bokeh. I like them because if you shoot a picture of a person over 35 with an ASPH, you might get hit in the face.

The f/2.8 lenses are solid but average.

The f/3.5 lenses are good by virtue of their small maximum aperture. And because when they came out, gratitude that something came out at that price point goes a long way.

Dante
Click to expand...


Oh well, Dante, ... this is what I think of it:
Canon 35/1.8: it flares but it has character. Not bad.
Canon 35/2: feels like a modern lens. Great overall.
Canon 35/1.5: I got it because it had the reputation of being a dog lens. It is a great lens. Works great with my M9.
Canon 35/2.8: solid but average. Tiny.
 
I had a focus wobble in my Canon 50mm 1.4 LTM a while back and managed to fix it, it was relatively easy. I followed the process here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMRnqIysGAk
But only tackle this if you're confident dismantling lenses. I seem to recall only needing to remove the rear part of the lens, and there was a screw that needed tightening. I imagine it's a similar process with the 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top