Anybody using Canon 28mm LTM f2.8 or 3.5 lenses

Blackpool Pier

A
Blackpool Pier

  • 3
  • 0
  • 80
Linda

A
Linda

  • 1
  • 1
  • 88
I want to join the Circus

A
I want to join the Circus

  • 3
  • 1
  • 105
Lith on Bromide

A
Lith on Bromide

  • 0
  • 0
  • 107
Stone monoliths

Stone monoliths

  • 3
  • 1
  • 168

Forum statistics

Threads
180,640
Messages
2,493,715
Members
95,125
Latest member
lion
Recent bookmarks
0

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
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, 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. 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?
 

Jon Buffington

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
322
Location
Tennessee
Shooter
35mm
I use the canon 28/3.5 ltm lens and have for years. A fantastic lens.

portra 160, leica iiif back
i-3ZP6wCK-XL.jpg


same combo as above
i-rPzB5GK-XL.jpg
 

MarkS

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
196
When I was starting out in photography, in the late '70s, I found a Canon Serenar 28/3.5 "Ultra-wide-angle" lens, with finder and case, for $75. I found an LTM-M adapter and used it on my Leica M3 (my only camera then).
Sad to say, it was unsharp at any aperture or focus distance. Later on (mid-90s) I bought a newer (black & chrome) Canon 28/3.5; that was a noticeably better performer. I sold both of them long ago... the focal length just didn't suit me.
I'd think you'll want the newest optical design that you can afford. There have been big improvements in wide-angle lens design in the last 60 years.
 
OP
OP
GregY

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
Thank you Jon.
Mark, as far as improvements, I use and have used (old) wide angle Dagors, Elmars, Summicrons, with success. The latest & sharpest don't always have the greatest character IMO. I'm wondering if there is big variation in these lenses? Reviews between the lenses vary a lot, as well as in the comparison between the f2..8 & f3.5..... Thank you for sharing your experience.
 

JerseyDoug

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
160
Shooter
35mm RF
I've been using my 28/3.5 all-chrome Canon for a number of years. I don't find it particularly low in sharpness or contrast but that may be because all of my LTM lenses are from the same era, or older.
DSCF2124 copy.JPG
 

MarkS

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
196
Well, my experience was with one example of each lens, and each was more than 25 years old at the time. They appeared to be good mechanically and optically, but who knows?
The later '60s version was good enough to keep...Jon Huffington's photos show that.
Ultimately I decided that the 35/2 Summicron-RF that I had at the same time suited my needs.
And this was all 30-45 years ago, so take my stories with a grain of salt. Bets of luck with your search!
 
OP
OP
GregY

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
JerseyDoug, I should maybe have said that lenses like the Color-skopar are more modern and higher contrast. I like the way the tonal range shows in your image. I guess I'll have to buy a Canon 28 & see.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
7,378
Location
Scottsdale Az
Shooter
Multi Format
I used the Canon 3.5 for years with a Canon 7S and Leica IIIG, it was my standard RF lens when a working PJ, second body to Nikon F and F2 with usually with a 105. I also had the Leica version as well, preferred the Canon version. Never had a 2.8, not sure if other than a gain in speed if you see any difference. If you have deep pockets and can find one, you might consider the 2.0 which will give a large enough bump in speed to make a difference. Had a friend who worked for a different wire, he had a Nikon SP and used the Nikon 35mm 1.8, now that was a great lens. Always envied him, SP and F, both with motors that he did use on occasion.
 
OP
OP
GregY

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
I used the Canon 3.5 for years with a Canon 7S and Leica IIIG, it was my standard RF lens when a working PJ, second body to Nikon F and F2 with usually with a 105. I also had the Leica version as well, preferred the Canon version. Never had a 2.8, not sure if other than a gain in speed if you see any difference. If you have deep pockets and can find one, you might consider the 2.0 which will give a large enough bump in speed to make a difference. Had a friend who worked for a different wire, he had a Nikon SP and used the Nikon 35mm 1.8, now that was a great lens. Always envied him, SP and F, both with motors that he did use on occasion.

I've never seen a Canon LTM 28mm f2.... I do prefer the smaller overall size of the Canon & Color-Skopar 28 to the Leitz Elmarits.
 

Jon Buffington

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
322
Location
Tennessee
Shooter
35mm
Not sure on the age, but my 28/3.5 is all chrome. Very small, compact lens which I love for a small kit out hiking. The lens has always performed very well for me. I will try to find some other examples sometime and post. I don't shoot this lens all that much for some reason....probably because the vc35/2.5 lives on my M5 and the 40 summicron lives on my CL and on the iiif and iiic, it was usually the 50 summitar or old 35 elmar (now sold). I think it is time to shoot that 28 again.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
7,378
Location
Scottsdale Az
Shooter
Multi Format
Not sure why it was not posted, yesterday I posted my mistake, got it in my head that Canon made a 35mm to compete with the Nikon 1.8, should have checked before I posted.
 
OP
OP
GregY

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
Not sure why it was not posted, yesterday I posted my mistake, got it in my head that Canon made a 35mm to compete with the Nikon 1.8, should have checked before I posted.

I have 35mm and 21mm covered ...only considering a 28mm
 

darinwc

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,020
Location
Sacramento,
Shooter
Multi Format
I have both the 28mm Canon lenses.
I use them on film and digital but it is easier to compare on digital. My digital is only aps size. I have a full frame on the way.

Anyway, the f3.5 is sharp in the center wide open. Gets un sharp further away from center but in a pleasing way. Some chromatic aberration. At 5.6 the ca is gone and most of the frame is sharp. Have to go to f8 to really get the corners sharp.

The f2.8 is also a 6/4 design like the 3.5. this lens surprised in that it resolves better further away from the center at f2.8 than the other at f3.5. chromatic aberration is low, but I think there is more vignetting with the 2.8 lens. My lens also shows some smearing flare around bright objects, but it does not spread across the frame. This could just be my sample.

I also have a Nikkor 28mm f3.5 in LTM mount. It performs very close to the Canon f3.5 even though it is a very different design.

All 3 lenses have very good color and contrast, almost no geometric distortion.
 

darinwc

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,020
Location
Sacramento,
Shooter
Multi Format
Not sure why it was not posted, yesterday I posted my mistake, got it in my head that Canon made a 35mm to compete with the Nikon 1.8, should have checked before I posted.

Canon did make a 35mm f1.8 and a 35mm f2, and a 35mm f1.5! All 3 in Leica thread mount.
 
OP
OP
GregY

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
Canon did make a 35mm f1.8 and a 35mm f2, and a 35mm f1.5! All 3 in Leica thread mount.

Got that.....but the discussion was about 28mm lenses. &. I found a very clean 2.8....winging its way to me from Japan at this time.
 

cullah

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Messages
43
i had a 28/3.5 for my leica 2f. since it was my only lens, i got to use it quite a bit. it wasn't very sharp, especially at the edges. i don't recall getting a very usable 8x10 out of it. when, sometime later, i used a 28/2.8 for my canon slr, i found that lens very good. comparing a ltm lens with a slr lens is like comparing apples with oranges, though
 
OP
OP
GregY

GregY

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
604
Location
Alberta
Shooter
Large Format
i had a 28/3.5 for my leica 2f. since it was my only lens, i got to use it quite a bit. it wasn't very sharp, especially at the edges. i don't recall getting a very usable 8x10 out of it. when, sometime later, i used a 28/2.8 for my canon slr, i found that lens very good. comparing a ltm lens with a slr lens is like comparing apples with oranges, though

From what i heard, the LTM 2.8 was/is sharper in the centre.... i'll find out.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab
Top Bottom