Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've had both Canon LTMs - the 35/1.8 and the 35/2. The 35/1.8 is soft wide-open but it is a very smooth lens (probably underpriced at the usual $300). It is not a contenda with a pre-asph Summicron sharpness-wise, but it makes nice pictures. It has summicron-level contrast (medium). I found the focus lock to be annoying. The 35/2, which from all appearances is the 35/1.8 masked down in a newer barrel is a high-contrast lens. Very hot, 1/2 grade. Whether this is from a recomputation, shift in the focus point, or better glass, it is competitive with many, if not all, modern lenses. The 35/2.8 Zeiss Distagon of today was no match at the center. The 35/2 is very hard to find, but it is a fun lens. Its lens twist is shorter than the 1.8's, and it "snaps" into focus in 1/4 turn (vs about 1/3, if I remember). The 35/2 also has a tighter DOF scale. It feels like a miniature SLR lens. Bokeh is a harder, more wiry but not still pleasant. Cheers - ------------ Dante Stella On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Douglas Cooper wrote: > > > > Winogrand's main lens was a Canon 28/2.8 LTM. (I had one of these and it's > > a nice lens and, yes, wide open it glows). However he did shoot with other > > lenses, and other cameras. > > So Sherry's info is off? Or do you know if one of his other lenses was the 50/1.4? > > I'm considering the Canon 35s as well. The 35/2 is the famous one, and the 35/1.8 is thought unsharp by Deschert (sp?), but I'm > wondering if anyone has compared them in terms of signature. If I could find a 35 with the same attributes as the 50/1.4 -- or the > DR Summicron -- I'd be a happy guy. (I'm sure the 35mm pre-Aspherical Summicron would do the trick, but can't afford one at the > moment.) > > cheers, > > DC > >