Canon LTM Pics with the Canon 35mm f/2.8 ltm

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I have just boght that lens with canon iia. I am excited but I also have jupiter-12. How is it compares to Jupiter? I want to keep only one 35mm.
 
The Canon 35mm f2.8 wide open is very sharp in the center, and quickly goes un- sharp away from the center. I have both the Serenar chrome version and the Canon black & chrome version. Both have this quality. It gets better as you stop down. At 5.6 it is sharp over most of the frame and just a little soft in the outer corners. I think this is the sweet spot where you still get some blur in the background and edges but the center in focus is sharp.

https://flic.kr/p/25fQ6yR
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
I have just boght that lens with canon iia. I am excited but I also have jupiter-12. How is it compares to Jupiter? I want to keep only one 35mm.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd keep both. They both have 'character' and there's enough difference in their characters that both are worthwhile.

I have a J12 and I like the lens quite a lot. It's soft wide open, sharpens up as you stop down, but not til f/8 does clarity move towards the edges, so unless I'm looking for a particularly soft look I tend to use it around f/8 or f/11. There's some color cast which makes it more suitable for b/w than color work. Ergonomics are a bit awkward with the aperture buried deep in the front recess, and that glorious Biogon rear element makes it incompatible with some cameras- you may have trouble with a Canon P, and definitely can't use it with a m4/3 digital.

All things considered, I think the Canon 35/2.8 wins out, but the Jupiter-12 is interesting enough (and inexpensive enough) to make it worthwhile keeping. And you have a Fed-3, for which the Jupiter is a natural fit. I'd keep both.

That's my opinion, which matters not a whit unless you agree with it :)

D
 
I got one a few weeks ago cheap, the early silver one. Loving it. But I love all Canon LTMs.

27154707987_0d138d942d_c.jpg
 
My favorite lens when traveling. A couple of shots with the second version of the lens (black and silver) on my R2M shooting Tmax 100.

New College, Oxford:
20180323-47072_19-XL.jpg


Balliol College, the Hall, Oxford:
20180323-47072_33-XL.jpg


Cheers,
Kirk
 
I have the 35mm f2.8 and the f2.0 and usually gravitate towards the 2.8 because the controls are more user friendly and the lens has a more solid feel. But for landscapes the 2.0 is superb at f16-22. Both suffer from a close focus of 3.5 feet which was standard for the period they were built.
 
Bump

Bump

*bump*

I just ordered one of these from a Japanese ebay seller. Can't wait. It'll be my second lens for my Leica IIIc. (first is a Summitar 50/2)

This thread has useful pictures for the lens, but it has me wondering about Canon rangefinders now...

Can someone give me a breakdown of the models and their differences? Seems like a Canon rangefinder with LTM might be a nice alternative to an M-$erie$ Leica. ;-) Maybe a *little* more convenient than the Leica, which needs an accessory finder and which lacks a rewind crank. (I don't mind the lack of advance lever as much)
 
Smaug said:
*bump*

I just ordered one of these from a Japanese ebay seller. Can't wait. It'll be my second lens for my Leica IIIc. (first is a Summitar 50/2)

This thread has useful pictures for the lens, but it has me wondering about Canon rangefinders now...

Can someone give me a breakdown of the models and their differences? Seems like a Canon rangefinder with LTM might be a nice alternative to an M-$erie$ Leica. ;-) Maybe a *little* more convenient than the Leica, which needs an accessory finder and which lacks a rewind crank. (I don't mind the lack of advance lever as much)
Click to expand...

In terms of hands on use I can only comment about the Canon P. Mine came from my mother and she purchased it new in the 1960’s. It’s a very handsome camera, solid and beautifully built and finished, good to hold, ergonomic, reliable, and works flawlessly. It has 1:1 viewfinder magnification and bright framelines, with the 50mm frameline easiest to use. The only aspect of the P that I would criticise is the rangefinder patch is vague and dim compared to Leica M’s. In my opinion the Canon P and late Canon interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras are excellent deals, as is the Canon LTM lens range.
 
I can comment on the later, larger body Canon rangefinders (the ones that look less and less like a "Leica copy"), including the P and 7.

Starting with the V/L series:
L1, L2, L3, VL, VL2 all look similar, differing only in top shutter speed (1/500 vs 1/1000), rewind knob vs crank, flash sync capabilities, and foil vs. cloth curtains.

VT/VT Deluxe are the same except have the bottom trigger wind.

The above (lever winding) cameras are all very versatile and best-built of the Canon RFs IMO. With all these models you have a 3 position switchable viewfinder with combined rangefinder. Giving you both 50mm and 35mm field of view, as well as 'magnified' which corresponds roughly to a 135 lens. There are no framelines.

The P has the 35/50/100 combined rangefinder with reflected framelines. The P feels clunky in comparison to the L/V series though it is the same size.

VI-L (lever wind) and VI-T (trigger wind) is sort of a hybrid of the P and the L series with a complicated (and prone to hazing) viewfinder. Pretty rare. (Have never owned one.)

And lastly, the Canon 7. This was Canon's attempt to offer serious competition to the Leica M2/M3. It has a projected brightline finder offering switchable 35-50-85-100-135 framelines. They improved the build quality over the P, but it still isn't quite up to the smoothness of the V/L cameras. But they're very usable cameras, cheap and plentiful. The top plate is quite a bit taller giving the appearance of a much bigger camera however the bottom half of the 7 is identical in size to the others.
 
Smaug said:
Can someone give me a breakdown of the models and their differences? Seems like a Canon rangefinder with LTM might be a nice alternative to an M-$erie$ Leica. ;-) Maybe a *little* more convenient than the Leica, which needs an accessory finder and which lacks a rewind crank. (I don't mind the lack of advance lever as much)
Click to expand...

Peter Dechert's Canon Rangefinder Cameras 1933-1968 book is probably the definitive resource. If you can't get your hands on a copy, the Canon Camera Museum is a great place to start online:
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=camera&s=film&sort=old

Also, fellow forum member huffmalw created a web site devoted to all the Canon rangefinder cameras and lenses:
https://www.canonrangefinder.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top