Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello, I just learned that Canon made the 50/1.5 in LTM and wonder if it is comparable to the Leitz 50/1.5 Summarit. I have heard that the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are excellent lenses that could be on par to the Leica lenses. Any information will be appreciated. Best Wishes, David - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Canon LTM, Winogrand, etc. > > 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 > > > > > >