Canon LTM Pictures from Canon LTM 35mm f:2, please

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
love this tiny lens!

M6, Legacy Pro 400
5837708291_51f1248671_z.jpg


Epson R-D1
5801602843_21d063fec1_z.jpg


5801602121_3a3070eda5_z.jpg


5898970941_6f63b5dab0_z.jpg
 
I think mine is very sharp, well-made and smooth, too. Very fast handling.
First shot is wide open at 1/60th, Fomapan 400.
Next two are at about f8, 1/125th, Fomapan 400. All D-76, scanned from prints.
 
I just received a version 1 from a fellow RFF member ;-)

Unfortunately, this sample shows quite a loose optical cell, but I will test ride it for a while until it goes on the bench for a deserved overhaul.
I like, what I see so far. … and my usual scenery for testing a new lens for infinity performance wide open:


Shanghai Minhang District by teknopunk.com, on Flickr
 
Taken one some months ago for about half the current price.....the focus works right, mechanically smooth, but with a faulty blade in diaphragm and a bit of haze between lenses....I put a bet on this lens, if I'm lucky with the CLA I'll have it for an affordable price.
Mounted on an M camera is hugly a lot.....it's very small....too small may be....

PS: strange filters thread (40 mm?) but I've got the original UV filter.....
 
39per1 said:
Taken one some months ago for about half the current price.....the focus works right, mechanically smooth, but with a faulty blade in diaphragm and a bit of haze between lenses....I put a bet on this lens, if I'm lucky with the CLA I'll have it for an affordable price.
Mounted on an M camera is hugly a lot.....it's very small....too small may be....

PS: strange filters thread (40 mm?) but I've got the original UV filter.....
Click to expand...

Davide, I would not use the original filter with this lens. Mine has been taken off directly after the first evening with the lens - it provokes very ugly reflections and ghosts.

I like the small Canon - it isn't too small in my thinking (say's a guy, who finds the Noctilux, 90/2 or 75/1.4 not really bothersome).

It is a really nice and petite lens, to have with you, or just go completely light, but still have a very nice fast~ish lens for more dim light.

- a few drive by's more from the two day Canon ownership:

Yesterday's blog
Today's blog

L1004643-workers%20ladder%20and%20tubes.jpg

"tubes and ladder"

L1004655-street%20cleaner%20orange%20and%20blue.jpg

"color"

All shot @ ƒ2 on M9.
 
Canon 35/2 LTM wide open through windshield and greasy original 50 years old 40mm slim filter (came off on day):

L1004591-night%20lights%20in%20traffic.jpg
 
39per1 said:
Taken one some months ago for about half the current price.....the focus works right, mechanically smooth, but with a faulty blade in diaphragm and a bit of haze between lenses....I put a bet on this lens, if I'm lucky with the CLA I'll have it for an affordable price.
Mounted on an M camera is hugly a lot.....it's very small....too small may be....

PS: strange filters thread (40 mm?) but I've got the original UV filter.....
Click to expand...

If you can find an Ednalite #617 adapter, you can use Series VI filters and hoods. Don't know what the equivilent Tiffen adapter would be.

PF
 
raid said:
How would you rate the Canon 35/2 in comparison to a pre-asph 35/1.4 Lux?
Click to expand...

Raid, although, I do have a Canadian pre ASPH 35 Summilux here, I didn't shoot it yet.
But, I do see things in the pictures of the Canon 35/2 LTM version 1, I bought from a forum member here, which remind me very much of the look of the pre ASPH 35 Summilux.

These things are, what I like about the pictures with the pre ASPH (overall softer look, a lot lower contrast, than the modern ASPH lenses, not clipping blacks, but giving smooth tones into the shadows).

Well, the one thing, I found, the Canon is prone to is it's ugly behavior under direct light, like with the Maserati above.

The flare has not a beautiful, geometric nature, but looks like a wave across the frame without even shape - one must use a lens hood with the Canon (oh and screw filters, especially the vintage, original Canon ones - they work like a magnet for washed out detail and reflections)!

The Canon 35/2 handles absolutely beautifully - great ergonomics for it's tiny size!
It is comparable in size to the Leica 35 Summicron version IV, but with an overall smaller Ø of the barrel.

The only thing, one could wish for, is the inclusion of a focussing tab, which would make pre focussing easier (not, that the distance markings in meter are any difficult, to read in any light - I love, how well Canon made these).

One character, I like about the Canon as well, is it's natural light falloff, when shot wide open.
The center of the frame is sharp and contrasty, and the light falloff creates a certain focus, a magic to the center of the frame.
This works very nice with human subjects - I find.
I like that character with the pictures, I see from the 35 pre ASPH Summilux, and I love, that the Canon has this too.

One remark regarding shooting the Canon with digital Leica!

When I use the Canon on the M8.2 or uncoded on the M9, it does show some ugly red edges and an ugly "extreme" vignetting towards the outermost edge of the corners.

This doesn't look nice in my opinion.
I use the Canon manually coded in the menu of the M9 as a pre ASPH Summicron - this way, it really looks nice and natural.

Question:
Is the distance scale centered on top of the lens barrel with the version 2 Canon, or is it the same centering around the viewfinder window, as with version 1?
Although, this might be a fun gimmick, in my opinion, it doesn't work very well for checking distance, while pre focussing.
With such a tiny lens, it is better positioned right on top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top