Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,934   Posts: 1,585,600   Online: 648
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Nikanon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    343

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

    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tmax 100013.jpg   Tmax 100014.jpg  

  2. #2
    Nikanon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    343

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    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.

  4. #4
    Nikanon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    343
    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.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikanon View Post
    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.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    St Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    530
    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.
    "If its not broken, I can't afford it."

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    530
    Images
    1
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Olympia, wa.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    241
    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.

  9. #9
    Nikanon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Legge View Post
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin