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

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
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...

Bluesun summarizes the later Canon RFs well. I’ve had the P, the 7, the L1, and now the VI-L. Lovely cameras; not as smooth as, say, a Leica M2, but v robust and with nice design features. And easy to load. If you wear glasses and like to shoot w/ a 35mm lens, I’d avoid the P, since the 35mm framelines are v hard to see.

If you like the form factor of the Leica IIIc, then you might want to look at the Canon IVSB2. It’s a bottom loader, but has a MUCH nicer vf, and is just as robust as the Barnack Leica. I really enjoy shooting mine… its direct competitor was the Leica IIIf, but the Canon outshines the IIIf in certain ways.
 
I’ve had two versions of the Canon 35/2.8: the original chrome version, and the later chrome on black (my copy is from Peter Kitchingman’s collection and is pictured in his book on Canon rangefinder lenses). Overall, I think the Leitz Summaron 35/3.5 is a little better, but the Canon 35/2.8 has has plenty of charm, particularly if you like an old school look in black and white. Here are some sample pics…

Thunderheads by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Interior by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
Taking a break by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
I sold my all chrome version of the 35/2.8, and moved on the the Canon 35/1.8 and Canon 35/2.0. I still have the latter lens (it’s a keeper). But several years ago I circled back to the Canon 35/2.8. I was looking for a small 35mm lens to use on my IVSB2 and IIIc cameras, and had come to realize that having the slightly faster aperture was handy. I think the 35/2.8 is a very good, all-round 35 with old school character, if that appeals to you. It’s v. compact, and won’t break the bank. In many ways, it’s a nice contrast to the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35/2.5, a modern, well coated, compact, and extremely sharp LTM lens. The Canon has less contrast, but is still plenty sharp.
 
Bingley said:
Bluesun summarizes the later Canon RFs well. I’ve had the P, the 7, the L1, and now the VI-L. Lovely cameras; not as smooth as, say, a Leica M2, but v robust and with nice design features. And easy to load. If you wear glasses and like to shoot w/ a 35mm lens, I’d avoid the P, since the 35mm framelines are v hard to see.
Click to expand...
I've seen this comment about glasses-wearers and wondered: "How is it hard to see" I don't wear glasses while shooting, but even without, I have to smash my eye right up against the finder. My lens came with an accessory finder in a nice little leather case, but the idea of the P body was not to have to need that. I think I'll make do, as I really like the camera.


If you like the form factor of the Leica IIIc, then you might want to look at the Canon IVSB2. It’s a bottom loader, but has a MUCH nicer vf, and is just as robust as the Barnack Leica. I really enjoy shooting mine… its direct competitor was the Leica IIIf, but the Canon outshines the IIIf in certain ways.
Click to expand...
I think I'm done buying LTM cameras now. The IIIc, I bought for sentimental reasons: my grandma scrimped and saved and finally bought a used one for my grandpa in the early 50s. That's a good camera, but a real hassle to use. I challenge myself to shoot quickly with it, but everything has to be preset to do that reasonably. I have a whole new respect for press photographers of the 20s-50s that used these cameras.

I figure the Summitar 50/2 will stay on the IIIc and the Canon 35/2.8 will stay on the P. Then maybe add a Zuiko 85/2 for the OM1N at some point? (or just stick with the 135/3.5 I already have)

Here are a couple of shots from the Canon 35/2.8 on my IIIc. Mine is chrome and is not marked Serenar.
Girlfriend and daughter by Jeremy, on Flickr

P9078316 by Jeremy, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I've just ordered a black 35/2.8 from a UK dealer and I'm stupidly excited despite already owning a nice 35/2 Canon LTM. I was after a black one for no other reason than filter size compatibility with my existing 28/2.8 and 35/2. Aside from this I reckoned a 35/2.8 would offer a look something different to my 35/2.
 
i-BkmZfQm-X3.jpg
 
Here are a few taken on my M8 with a chrome Canon 35mm f2.8 LTM I bought from KEH in "ugly" condition a while back. It was hazy and stiff, as expected, so I took it apart, cleaned it, lubricated it, and repainted the flaking black paint around the edges of the elements. I have a few other 35mm lenses but this one does have a nice period look that I do like. And it works particulary well on the crop-sensor M8 where the corner sharpness isn't really relevant.


Smile!
by Bryan Costin, on Flickr


Decaf?
by Bryan Costin, on Flickr
 
Are there any major differences between the chrome and black version of the 35mm F2.8. I got a black one last month for parts or repair that I just fixed last night and noticed it had more aperture blades vs the chrome one. (I think 12 vs 6).
 
aw614 said:
Are there any major differences between the chrome and black version of the 35mm F2.8. I got a black one last month for parts or repair that I just fixed last night and noticed it had more aperture blades vs the chrome one. (I think 12 vs 6).
Click to expand...

According to Peter Kitchingman's Canon Rangefinder lens book, same optics on both the chrome and black versions. A coating change with the black version (purple vs. the earlier magenta), same number of aperture blades (six) on the chrome and black versions.

Jim B.
 
Mackinaw said:
According to Peter Kitchingman's Canon Rangefinder lens book, same optics on both the chrome and black versions. A coating change with the black version (purple vs. the earlier magenta), same number of aperture blades (six) on the chrome and black versions.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

I have a later black and chrome version 35mm f2.8. it has 10 aperture blades!
 
darinwc said:
I have a later black and chrome version 35mm f2.8. it has 10 aperture blades!
Click to expand...

That looks to be the one I have with 10 aperture blades, I wasn't sure if I counted 10 or 12...that is why I was wondering if there were differences because of the Chrome one I also have only had 6.I did notice the coating change Mackinaw mentioned

Now I just need a spring replacement for my infinity lock for the lens (it was missing when I got it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top