Canon LTM 35mm f/2 - Good Deal at $260 + Shipping?

[robonfilm]

Hey everyone,
I'm looking to add a 35mm lens to my rangefinder kit, and I've come across a Canon LTM 35mm f/2. The seller is asking $260 plus shipping. I've attached photos of the lens below, so you can see its condition.

From what I can tell, it looks pretty good, but I'd really appreciate some expert opinions from this knowledgeable group.
Based on the photos, does $260 + shipping seem like a reasonable price for this lens? Are there any common issues I should be particularly aware of with this specific lens model that might not be immediately obvious from the pictures?

Thanks in advance for your help!

---

 

[brbo]

At $260 it's a steal!

Good lens, very light and small, with "character" (slight swirl in out of focus areas), corners won't be sharp wide open, but it's plenty sharp after f5.6. Only thing I don't like is minimum focus distance (1m).

 

[robonfilm]

At $260 it's a steal!

Good lens, very light and small, with "character" (slight swirl in out of focus areas), corners won't be sharp wide open, but it's plenty sharp after f5.6. Only thing I don't like is minimum focus distance (1m).

Awesome pictures, thanks for sharing! My only concern is that it may exhibit some haze not visible in the pictures the seller provided, since this is a private sale without any warranty. Would it still be worth it at that price if it does?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Many of these beautiful 1960s Canon lenses do develop some or lots of haze. The 50mm f/1.8 black barrel lenses were especially prone and often have an etched inner surface. Your 35mm f/2 probably will have some haze. Just buy it and use it for a year or two. Then decide if you want to have it cleaned.

 

[brbo]

Although Canon LTMs have a reputation as @Kodachromeguy mentioned, I don't think 35/2 were exactly those that were the most prone to develop haze. I bought mine some 15 years ago or so and it was as clear as any other lens and hasn't develop any haze since then.

I bought it shortly after Leica introduced M8 and M9 cameras - the time of "great Leica lens shortage"and paid serious money for it (well, serious money for a LTM non-Leica lens). I think it was about 400 EUR, though they regularly went for even more money on eBay. While I was waiting for a Canon 35/2 that was priced 400 or lower there were many listed and I don't remember getting an impression haze was a common issue with 35/2. Canon LTM 50s on the other hand...

Yeah, it could develop haze, but 220 EUR for a 35mm f2 lens that you can use on LTM and M cameras...

 

[btaylor]

Doesn’t look like any significant haze to me. I have that lens and it didn’t have any haze when I bought it a decade ago nor does it have any now. I like mine quite a bit and probably paid about $300 for it.

 

[robonfilm]

Although Canon LTMs have a reputation as @Kodachromeguy mentioned, I don't think 35/2 were exactly those that were the most prone to develop haze. I bought mine some 15 years ago or so and it was as clear as any other lens and hasn't develop any haze since then.

I bought it shortly after Leica introduced M8 and M9 cameras - the time of "great Leica lens shortage"and paid serious money for it (well, serious money for a LTM non-Leica lens). I think it was about 400 EUR, though they regularly went for even more money on eBay. While I was waiting for a Canon 35/2 that was priced 400 or lower there were many listed and I don't remember getting an impression haze was a common issue with 35/2. Canon LTM 50s on the other hand...

Yeah, it could develop haze, but 220 EUR for a 35mm f2 lens that you can use on LTM and M cameras...

Yes, good point! I just can’t tell if what I’m seeing in the glass elements in these photos is haze or just out-of-focus effects.

 

[robonfilm]

Update: the seller now reports that: "the only visible defect is a shadow on the rear lens. The coating has definitely deteriorated after more than 60 years, I think that's normal." He also sent this image.
Is the price still as good in your opinion?

 

[brbo]

Well that coating damage can't be taken care of with a simple CLA, so it comes down to whether you want a lens in perfect condition or not.

I'm reluctant to give my opinion on whether $260 lens in such a state is a good price or not, since this it's highly subjective... Those lenses have come down in price a lot since I bought it. Maybe if you wait you can get a perfect one (or at least one where you have an option to return it) for not much more money?

 

[robonfilm]

Well that coating damage can't be taken care of with a simple CLA, so it comes down to whether you want a lens in perfect condition or not.

I'm reluctant to give my opinion on whether $260 lens in such a state is a good price or not, since this it's highly subjective... Those lenses have come down in price a lot since I bought it. Maybe if you wait you can get a perfect one (or at least one where you have an option to return it) for not much more money?

Thanks for your perspective. To be honest, I'm not clearly seeing the specific defects the seller is describing in the photos. What he is calling coating damage might just be general haze – I can't distinguish it from possible out-of-focus effects or reflections. Regarding the shadow on the rear lens, I'm unsure if it's an actual flaw or simply a reflection in the image. Could you clarify what exactly is visible to you that I might be missing in your opinion?

 

[brbo]

Sorry for not being clear. This is what I meant:

It seem (to me) like it is a coating defect.

 

[Sanug]

I would not spend 260 $ for a lens with such a visible defect. Especially on the rear lens which is supposed to be more critical than a defect at the front lens.

Anyway, the risk of permanent internal haze (not removable) is high with these Canon lenses.

Is the seller in your country? If not, there may be some tax to be added and a refund may become complicated.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

It could be a coating defect. It could also be cleaning-fluid residue from an incomplete cleaning job.

I'd be surprised if you could find any impact in your negatives or prints.

 

[robonfilm]

Is the seller in your country? If not, there may be some tax to be added and a refund may become complicated.

Yes, he is is my economic region (EU).

I'd be surprised if you could find any impact in your negatives or prints.

I agree. I'm just concerned about the resale value. I'm worried I won't be able to get what I paid if I want to sell it back someday.

 

[GregY]

Yes, he is is my economic region (EU).


I agree. I'm just concerned about the resale value. I'm worried I won't be able to get what I paid if I want to sell it back someday.

Ask the seller to clean the rear element.... then you'll see if it's a coating issue or cleaning smudge.

 

[bernard_L]

A coating defect can have a quite visible effect in reflection; say, the reflection coefficient is doubled from 1% to 2% (possibly wavelength-dependent). Yet in transmission, which is how the lens does its work, the change is only from 99% to 98%.

Bottom line: I would not worry too much.

 

[robonfilm]

A coating defect can have a quite visible effect in reflection; say, the reflection coefficient is doubled from 1% to 2% (possibly wavelength-dependent). Yet in transmission, which is how the lens does its work, the change is only from 99% to 98%.

Bottom line: I would not worry too much.

Very interesting, didn't know that.

 

[bernard_L]

You can see for yourself. The pic that reveals the coating defect is taken with the lens staring into a table, little or no light coming from the front; all the light from the lens rear surface is reflection. Pictures #4 and #6 in your post #1 show the lens in transmission against a bright background; I can't see any spot.

 

[robonfilm]

I finally decided to buy it and received the lens today! I inspected the defect personally and took some pictures (attached here). Are you still positive it's just a coating defect that won't affect image quality?

 

[bernard_L]

Almost a textbook example of thin-film interference. In other words, over a limited area (what, 3% ??) of the rear element, the coating does not have the optimum thickness. Over that area you are back to uncoated glass performance.

Thin-film interference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why not do a proper A/B experiment? One proper experimental result trumps 50 opinions. Same scene, same film stock, simultaneous development. Same body would be nice, The suspect lens versus a known good 35mm lens. The scene should be challenging for flare-prone lenses; e.g. an interior scene with a window to the sunny outside, either inside the fov, or just outside (why not try both). After that, you'll sleep on both your ears, as we say here.

Please report back.

 

[grain elevator]

I think it's a good price and I, too, would be surprised if you can detect any effect from that coating issue. Try it and if you find no problems, be happy.
Also do look for haze, that would probably a more serious problem.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You gotta be joking! I've seen and used lenses much worse off than this and never noticed the defect in the final output. Like grain elevator says, haze or fog would be a deal killer for me unless I got the lens with enough markdown to cover a complete cleaning and only if a cleaning would cure the haze/fog problem. Of course you will always have the problem of knowing the defect is there. It wouldn't bother me, but it might other folks.

 

[davela]

I predict you'll get very good images. Film doesn't see the coating effects quite like the eye.