Leica Screwmount: Canon 35mm f2.8 Serenar (chrome)

[Nikanon]

Just wanted to make a post about this excellent lens. It can be picked up for very cheap and often comes with the viewfinder for those using it on screwmount. I use it on my IIIc, but it can be easily adapted to an M body. Construction is very solid, and the lens performs almost flawlessly at f4 and up. Here are a few pictures at F-2.8 on Tmax 100. Notice in the image with the girl and the cellphone, the softness at the very edge. The next inner zone is sharp and then even further inward gets radial again. The very center is VERY sharp for a 1951 japanese lens. Highly recommended.

 

[Nikanon]

Dead Link Removed

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You call three hundred and sixty-four dollars "very cheap"?? My fifty dollar Jupiter 12 is at least as good, based on the pic of the girl.

 

[Nikanon]

I actually paid $200 for mine and then another $70 to have it cleaned to basically new condition. I think thats a great price to pay for a lens with consistent and expected quality. The jupiters are so poorly assembled I'll never know if im buying rotten meat. Also they have horrible ergonomics and are likely to fall apart in use. They do perform well with all variables in check though, I agree.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I actually paid $200 for mine and then another $70 to have it cleaned to basically new condition. I think thats a great price to pay for a lens with consistent and expected quality. The jupiters are so poorly assembled I'll never know if im buying rotten meat. Also they have horrible ergonomics and are likely to fall apart in use. They do perform well with all variables in check though, I agree.

I think the key is to buy stuff that hasn't been butchered or otherwise messed up. There's an infinite number of ways to screw something up and most of then seem to be covered by utube tutorials. My J-12 looks like someone used it once, maybe, and then left it on the shelf for 50 years.
So far, I have two J-8s, the aforementioned J-12, and a Kiev 4a. The Kiev works just as it should, both J-8s act like coated Zeiss Sonnars, and the J-12 is a very good lens; I really have nothing else to compare it to (meaning another non-retrofocus WA). So, four for four - nothing's fallen apart yet, but I don't think any of it has been messed with by anyone but me. And I have way less than $200 invested in the whole pile.

 

[trythis]

I am selling one on ebay right now for exactly what you paid with the cleaning. I think it is a fantastic lens as well but I just can't find any joy using range finders with tiny finders. It does render beautifully even with old foggy film. I am sure one day when I find an awesome RF with a huge viewfinder I will be bitter with myself for selling it.

sent from phone. excuse my typing.

 

[Brian Legge]

The Canon has softer corners wide open than modern lenses. I'd take one over a J12; better ergonomics, particularly the aperture, fewer flare problems than the J12s I've used, more consistent construction.

That isn't to say that the Jupiters can't produce great images. I still have a J3 I use regularly though I did spent a bunch of time cleaning and adjusting it to match the finder. J8s are probably the best of the line.

On the price front, the Kiev Jupiters are a steal. The LTM ones tend to be quite a bit more expensive. If you have to buy two or three before finding a good one, a Canon or Voigtlander LTM lens may be cheaper. A known good, tested Jupiter though holds its own. My only issue with the line was the constant flare problems with the J12. Nothing I tried got me to the point where I trusted the lens if a sun was even slightly in the frame.

 

[pen s]

I guess very cheap is a relative term. About 5 years ago, when prices on RF lenses were perhaps 70% of what they are now I bought a near new CV 35mm f2.5 PII for $260 and a CV 21 f4 in LTM w/vf for a bit more. Added a 90 f4 Elmar later for $150. Now I'd like to get a 50 to complete the kit but, except for FSU lenses it looks like even Canon 50 f1.8's are going for $200+ depending on condition. Since this is a hobby with all out go and no income I'm looking at the Industar 26m that can be had from Fedka for $40 + shipping.

My M4-2 was a retirement gift to myself and I recouped the expense of a Leica by selling off a bunch of stuff accumlated over the last 40 years. That paid for most of the $1600 or so I have in the kit. My only ugly surprise was the M4-2, a pristine sample from a private party at a photo show. It worked fine for about 3 weeks and then the slow speed escapement jammed. Youxin Ye put it right but that was an extra
$200 I haden't figured on. Think I'll stick to established dealers from now on.

Retirement and fixed income put a different spin on things.

 

[Nikanon]

The Canon has softer corners wide open than modern lenses. I'd take one over a J12; better ergonomics, particularly the aperture, fewer flare problems than the J12s I've used, more consistent construction.
.

This is exactly what im talking about. Comparing optics many lenses have higher and lower prices for the same results or similar, but how the lens function with the camera as a system is whats most important to me. I loved how the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5 ASPH LTM rendered for example, but the size and method of focusing and the aperture tab really didnt work for how i physically used the camera.

 

[mynewcolour]

I'm resurrecting this thread in the hope I might get an answer to a couple of questions about theses lenses.

Does anyone know the filter size for these?

What is the filter size for the later black version of the lens?

 

[kb244]

I paid about $200 for my Canon Serenar 35/2.8, which I wouldn't consider very cheap.

I use it both adapted on digital (2.0x crop factor) as well as on my Canon 7 rangefinder.

I find that at f/2.8 it's *VERY* sharp in the center, but the focus tends to fall off in clarity towards the edge (rather noticeable in digital as a sort of distortion, not so much in full frame film, just 'softer' rather than looking distorted). Around 5.6 it sharpens up at the edges. I really like it on both digital and film, on the digital it's one of the sharpest I have in the center.

Two shots adapted shot on digital, once during a clearer night, and once during a snow storm (Olympus E-M5, several exposures at 8 seconds each to merge into an HDR)
The clear one is at f/5.6, the snowstorm one at f/8 for each of their exposures.

And three on Film

Below is 1 second @ f/2.8, incident metered for ISO 6

 

[kb244]

I'm resurrecting this thread in the hope I might get an answer to a couple of questions about theses lenses.

Does anyone know the filter size for these?

What is the filter size for the later black version of the lens?

Mine came with a bunch of filters of thread size 34mm that fit just fine.

Don't know about the black-barreled version, but my Canon 50mm f/1.8 Type-6 (Serenar optics, black barrel body) uses 40.5 thread which I used a step down ring to 37mm.

Edit: I do not see a black barreled 35mm f/2.8 but I see a couple f/2 and faster. Two of them are listed as 40mm (probably actually 40.5mm) and one listed as 48mm thread.

http://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=s

 

[mynewcolour]

Lovely images, thanks for sharing.

From online scouting I *think* the black barrel version is 40mm (and 40 - 40.5mm step-up rings are available).

I own some 43mm filters. I doubt 40 - 43mm step rings exist sadly.

 

[trythis]

I am selling one on ebay right now for exactly what you paid with the cleaning. I think it is a fantastic lens as well but I just can't find any joy using range finders with tiny finders. It does render beautifully even with old foggy film. I am sure one day when I find an awesome RF with a huge viewfinder I will be bitter with myself for selling it.

sent from phone. excuse my typing.

Since the thread got resurrected I thought I would say that my prediction came to be accurate. Someone gave me a couple of Leica cameras that I would never buy and the M3 came with one of those 35mm lenses with the goggles. That combo is too heavy but the other camera was a IIIc and I really wish I had the canon lens to use on it. At least I got $280 for it when it sold with the external viewfinder.

 

[kb244]

Lovely images, thanks for sharing.

From online scouting I *think* the black barrel version is 40mm (and 40 - 40.5mm step-up rings are available).

I own some 43mm filters. I doubt 40 - 43mm step rings exist sadly.

40.5 to 43 definitely exists.

Also found 40 to 43 on Ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-40-43mm...040614?hash=item2efcfe9de6:g:DxYAAMXQdGJR1LbN

 

[kb244]

Since the thread got resurrected I thought I would say that my prediction came to be accurate. Someone gave me a couple of Leica cameras that I would never buy and the M3 came with one of those 35mm lenses with the goggles. That combo is too heavy but the other camera was a IIIc and I really wish I had the canon lens to use on it. At least I got $280 for it when it sold with the external viewfinder.

Yea, mine didn't come with the viewfinder, but did come with the case, which would have housed both the lens and viewfinder. The viewfinder would be nice if I still had a Canon P (if the internal one is too hard to see) or a Bessa T (which needed a finder anyways for framing)

 

[mynewcolour]

40.5 to 43 definitely exists.

Also found 40 to 43 on Ebay http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-40-43mm...040614?hash=item2efcfe9de6:g:DxYAAMXQdGJR1LbN

That link is a godsend. Thanks again.

 

[mnemosyne]

Mine came with a bunch of filters of thread size 34mm that fit just fine.

Don't know about the black-barreled version, but my Canon 50mm f/1.8 Type-6 (Serenar optics, black barrel body) uses 40.5 thread which I used a step down ring to 37mm.

Edit: I do not see a black barreled 35mm f/2.8 but I see a couple f/2 and faster. Two of them are listed as 40mm (probably actually 40.5mm) and one listed as 48mm thread.

http://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=s

The chrome 35 f2.8 uses a 34mm as noted, BUT both the black and chrome 50 f1.8 as well as the black 35mm f2 and f2.8 (not to mention various other Canon RF lenses of the time) use a 40.0 mm thread; 40.5mm is NOT a Canon filter thread size, so do not try to force a 40.5 mm size filter or adapter into these threads!

The original 40mm slim line Canon filter are admittedly hard to find but they do show up from time to time if you are patient and keep looking. They allow the use of the original clamp on type lens hoods together with a filter. The aftermarket 40mm are scarce (Marumi, Toshiba) and will not allow the use of the original hood.

 

[kb244]

40.5mm is NOT a Canon filter thread size, so do not try to force a 40.5 mm size filter or adapter into these threads!

Noted. Only figured it might be because the cap it came with was 40.5, but being one of those caps you squeeze on the sides, it goes on like it normally would since those types wouldn't be impacted by half a mm thickness.

But as you said, shouldn't force any filter onto a lens, if you have to force it, something is wrong.

 

[jgoody]

Just to confirm what has been stated -- the Canon f1.8 50MM lens takes a 40MM. Filters are available - I have a Marumi UV that I believe is made for a Fuji digital camera. I also have an ebay bought 40mm lens hood that screws into the filter and that can take a 49mm filter (somewhat awkwardly) but has 58mm lens cap on the forward end. As I have some 49mm filters for my OM SLR it's useful. There is some finder blockage on the bottom right, but it's ok.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

For 200$ price range couple of weeks ago I have paid 265$ (shipping included) for LTM Color Skopar Classic 35 2.5. Small and modern lens. Sharp. Works well with color film without old lenses WB issues. I'm considering it "cheap" comparing to what I have to pay for old Leitz and new Leica 35mm lenses. But most affordable one is J-12, as it was mentioned before. I have few of them in LTM, Contax mount. Currently have one 1950 LTM and more modern in Contax mount. The 1950 one is incredibly smooth to focus after I washed out old grease and put new one. Easy to shim for Leica also.

J-12 on M4-2:

It is APUG, so I will not post digital images here, but J-12 is surprisingly very sharp and good with colors on Leica M-E and M8.

Canon has 50 1.4, not expensive 50mm RF lens even comparing to 50 1.8 LTM. 50 1.4 LTM filters (48 mm, if I'm not mistaken) are much more easy to obtain from regular stores like BH. Again, if you are willing to do some shimming, J-3 is very interesting lens and prices went down for it. And J-8 50 2 is good and cheap alternative to 50 1.8, with plenty on modern filters available.