Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bill Difficult to compare those lenses as the Canon 2/35 is another formula, and much faster than the Summaron 3.5/35. Maybe stopped down to 5.6 they could be compared. What is certain, is that the Canon lens coatings of this era were superior to the Leitz coatings (less prone to cleaning marks and fogging). I know about the 2/35 Canons that there were two builts, the newer one has an improved formula and fatter letter engravings at the front side. I have been told from an owner that has both versions, that the first version does not perform very good wide open, but the second version is said to be equal to the 2/35 Summicron (1st version). But seeing the prices for a used second version 2/35 Canon (usually not below $400) a used Summicron might be the better choice. More about Canon lenses here: http://tinyurl.com/9qsjk (Official Canon Museum) http://canonrangefinder.com/ The indications about production periods of the 2/35 are different on both websites, I would trust the first one more. Didier >Is the 35/3.5 Summaron in LTM equal to the 35/2 Canon LTM? If so, >what year/ series is best to buy? > >Bill > >Jeff Sumner <jdos2@mindspring.com> wrote: >You need a J-12 to compare 'em all against. It's f/2.8... > >> I forgot... I have a 35/3.5 Summaron in LTM as well.... > >> > >> That is 4. Is that OK?