Deardorff38
Mentor
I'm considering adding a 28mm lens to my Leica M. Usually I go from 21 to 35mm. Over the years I've used a number of Leica 28mm Elmarits, as well as the Canon 25 and several Voigtlander 28mm f3.5. 28mm is not a focal length i'd use often, and given the cost of the Color-Skopar these days, I thought I'd consider the Canon. I do like the small than Elmarit size. Also it might be a plus to have the lower contrast of the Canon vis-a-vis the Color-Skopar. Any comments on the Canon 28mm screw mounts from users, current or past?
sevres_babylone
Mentor
I shoot digital, and have an M9. I have the 28mm f3.5. When I want to shoot 28mm I usually switch to my Ricoh, so I don’t shoot 28mm that much with my Leica. I did take it out a few months ago and did a bit of street shooting. I found the contrast to be very very low. But because of its size it is fun to shoot with. I also have an LTM Voigtlander 28mm F1.9, which is of course much larger; but it I were shooting 28mm more with my M9, I would probably opt for it for most occasions, not so much because of the speed, but because it is more contrasty, and, in my opinion, has better overall image quality.
Livesteamer
Well-known
I have the Canon 28mm f3.5 and finder. I use it mostly on my screw mount Leica's but I like it. Very compact and a good finder. For serious work I have a 28mm Summicron but the Canon is a good lens. Joe
largedrink
Down Under
I have used a Canon 28mm 3.5 Serenar a lot with my M4, the controls are a little fiddly but I like the very small form factor and excellent viewfinder. No issues with contrast, mine is excellent.
Stone buildings by Hugh B, on Flickr
Stone buildings by Hugh B, on Flickr
Deardorff38
Mentor
Thank you all. Hugh, I'd be very happy with that quality.
Timmyjoe
Mentor
Garry Winogrand used the Canon 28mm f2.8 on an M2 for years as his main camera. I've got that lens and it is very compact and very sharp. Highly recommend.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
Mackinaw
Think Different
I have the 28/3.5, but in Contax/Nikon mount (Canon made less than 500 of these). Excellent sharpness, but a bit low in contrast. It is small and light. I use it on a Nikon M.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
If you want something small, and affordable, and you feel a bit adventurous, get the TTArtisan 5.6/28. Cheers, OtL
Deardorff38
Mentor
I looked at them, but 5.6 is too slow a lens for me. I often travel with one camera/one lens....and i'd be too restricted w that one. I know it works for Huss in sunny California....
raid
Dad Photographer
I had the Canon 28/3/5. In a weak moment, I sold it. I read online that the 28/3.5 is sharper than the Canon 28/2.8.
Deardorff38
Mentor
I did too, which i would assume....but i also read good things about the 2.8....... that's why i'm digging for more user info to help my decision
largedrink
Down Under
Here are a few more examples with my M4 and Serenar 28mm 3.5.
Mackinnon Memorial by Hugh B, on Flickr
Tramper, Kepler track by Hugh B, on Flickr
The barista by Hugh B, on Flickr
Mackinnon Memorial by Hugh B, on Flickr
Tramper, Kepler track by Hugh B, on Flickr
The barista by Hugh B, on Flickr
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Had an early Canon 28/3.5. Construction is of heavy brass. Focus ring is not so ergonomic because the lens is so small (tiny). Not an issue for me because I set it at F5.6 and set the focus at 2 meters to shoot street in NYC using a “Kill-zone.” Basically just like a point and shoot.
I found a later black Canon 28/3.5 that is kinda rare. The ergonomics for focusing are great, and a bonus is that it is lighter. The earlier version is more of a pancake lens though and is smaller. Not many black versions available, and seldom for sale. Same optics BTW.
I also kept the Canon 28mm VF’er from the first version 3.5. A really nice VF’er.
The lens is single coated, so the experience is kinda like shooting a V1 or V2 Leica 50 Rigid which is single coated as far as contrast. Does not have the heavy contrast of a modern lens. Note all the details in the midrange in some of the prints above. Low or lower contrast can be an asset and has its own punch.
I will go slightly off topic here because I’m of the opinion that a lot of people think lenses that produce high contrast in their rendering are sharper. The way the eye perceives and the way images are processed in the brain make the hard edges of definition of high contrast or higher contrast appear sharper.
The rendering is not modern like my 28 Cron V1, the corners are pretty good on the 3.5 though, but like I say not as perfect as a more modern lens. I kinda love the retro look.
The Canon 28/3.5 is kinda sized for LTM and well suited, but I love it on a M also. For more speed I have a Leica 28 Cron V1.
Cal
I found a later black Canon 28/3.5 that is kinda rare. The ergonomics for focusing are great, and a bonus is that it is lighter. The earlier version is more of a pancake lens though and is smaller. Not many black versions available, and seldom for sale. Same optics BTW.
I also kept the Canon 28mm VF’er from the first version 3.5. A really nice VF’er.
The lens is single coated, so the experience is kinda like shooting a V1 or V2 Leica 50 Rigid which is single coated as far as contrast. Does not have the heavy contrast of a modern lens. Note all the details in the midrange in some of the prints above. Low or lower contrast can be an asset and has its own punch.
I will go slightly off topic here because I’m of the opinion that a lot of people think lenses that produce high contrast in their rendering are sharper. The way the eye perceives and the way images are processed in the brain make the hard edges of definition of high contrast or higher contrast appear sharper.
The rendering is not modern like my 28 Cron V1, the corners are pretty good on the 3.5 though, but like I say not as perfect as a more modern lens. I kinda love the retro look.
The Canon 28/3.5 is kinda sized for LTM and well suited, but I love it on a M also. For more speed I have a Leica 28 Cron V1.
Cal
jcb4718
Well-known
I have the Voigtlander Color Skopar f/3.5 and used it with my Leica screwmount camera. It's sharp edge-to-edge and quite contrasty. In fact for high contrast scenes I sometimes found it too contrasty. The images had a kinda 'hyper real' look to them and it was difficult to deal with even using Photoshop. I therefore bought the later black Canon 28mm f/3.5. Great ergonomics. The lens elements are quite recessed. Not quite as good edge-to-edge but doubt its noticeable in an actual photo. It did seem to handle high contrast scenes better so its the 28mm lens I use all the time now.
Deardorff38
Mentor
I had several of the Color Skopars and agree. While they were sharp they were contrasty & i often find myself working in contrasty light. At the current $700 USD i think i will give the Canon a try
Livesteamer
Well-known
As a side note, the Color Skopar 28mm f3.5 can be found in Nikon rangefinder mount for much less than the LTM version.
Deardorff38
Mentor
.....i don't have any Nikons..... just Leica M.
Bingley
Mentor
I found a nice copy of the Canon 28/2.8 last year on the ‘bay, from a seller in Japan. It’s a beautiful lens, very compact and of excellent construction. I haven’t used is on my 35mm film cameras as much as I thought I would when I bought it, but am keeping it nevertheless. Most recently, I’ve used it, with an adapter, on my Leica CL digital, where it stands in for a 35mm equivalent focal length (when I want to use a manual focus lens instead of the 23mm Summicron-TL). On the CL, it’s sharp with moderate contrast. Interestingly, Matt Osborne (aka Mr. Leica.com) did a comparision of 28mm lenses for Leica cameras last year, and the Canon 28/28 scored very highly in his test (I think the top scoring 28 was the more recent version of the Voigtlander Ultron 28/2.0, but the Canon wasn’t far behind).
I should add: I also have the Skopar 28/3.5, which is a super, and super small, 28mm lens. I routinely take that lens with me on hikes in the mountains, in combination with a 50. It produces outstanding images on black and white film, with good contrast and sharpness. There are examples of photos with this lens over on my Flickr. F.3.5 is a bit of a limitation, which is one reason I bought the Canon, but if you don’t need a wider aperture than f3.5 and can find a good copy that doesn’t break the bank, I would recommend it highly.
I should add: I also have the Skopar 28/3.5, which is a super, and super small, 28mm lens. I routinely take that lens with me on hikes in the mountains, in combination with a 50. It produces outstanding images on black and white film, with good contrast and sharpness. There are examples of photos with this lens over on my Flickr. F.3.5 is a bit of a limitation, which is one reason I bought the Canon, but if you don’t need a wider aperture than f3.5 and can find a good copy that doesn’t break the bank, I would recommend it highly.
Saganich
Established
Yup, I have a Canon 28/3.5 with finder. It's fine for what I need it for. Works nice on a Barnack or M in the street...regular point-n-shoot set-up.
yossi
Well-known
I happen to have all the three 28mm lenses mentioned above: Canon 28/3.5 chrome, Canon 28/2.8 chrome, and VC28/3.5 black.
I took some random test shots with each lens on M9M out of my window and attach three similar pictures here for your comparison. (All at f3.5)
Canon 28/3.5
Canon 28/2.8
VC28/3.5
(If you click on the attached image, you would see a larger 2048x1363 image. The difference in full size 5216x3472 is even more obvious. Caveat: these pictures are for lens evaluation only, no aesthetic value
)
So who is the fairer of them?
I took some random test shots with each lens on M9M out of my window and attach three similar pictures here for your comparison. (All at f3.5)
Canon 28/3.5
Canon 28/2.8
VC28/3.5
(If you click on the attached image, you would see a larger 2048x1363 image. The difference in full size 5216x3472 is even more obvious. Caveat: these pictures are for lens evaluation only, no aesthetic value
)So who is the fairer of them?