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.
That's because there is no LTM Canon 28/2.0. Only a 28/2.8 or 28/3.5.I've never seen a Canon LTM 28mm f2....
That's because there is no LTM Canon 28/2.0. Only a 28/2.8 or 28/3.5.
Jim B.
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.
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.
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?