I just bought an Canon 35 mm f 1.8 with an M mount that seems original. Does any one know if this lens is nice? I mostly do B&W. Thanks ion

-- ion bab (ionbab@noos.fr), May 21, 2002

Answers

I have one and it is an excellent lens. I use it for color and for B&W . In this photo of my son in bright sunlight the lens gives both detail both the bright and dark areas. I use Ilford XP2 Super. If you research the LUG you will find a few people rating it equal to the 2nd/3rd version of the Summicron of that period including Tom Abrahamsson for one. It also performs well wide open.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), May 21, 2002.

I don't think it's possible that the M mount could be original. I'll bet if you work hard enough you'll find that it screws off, revealing an LTM mount underneath.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.

Actually I have the f2 version which came out a few lears later around 1962. It is supposed to have the same forumla with possibly different coating which might give it a little more contrast. Nobody seems to know why they reduced the opening to f2. I was confused because at the time I couldn't decide between the f1.8 and the f2 and both on the LUG got good reviews. In any case I think you will be pleased.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), May 21, 2002.

Questions of lens quality aside, were there every any Canon lenses in M mount? I've seen some Canon lenses on ebay advertised as fitting Leica M camera -- is there any chance that these are legitimately M- mount lenses, or will they all be LTMs with an adapter (and a seller who's either dishonest or ignorant)?

-- Matt (morthcam@aol.com), May 22, 2002.

I can't answer for all of them, but the couple of "M-mount" Canons I've seen on Ebay obviously had adapters.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 22, 2002.

Thanks, that's what I thought, but there always seem to be exceptions to what I thought I "knew".

-- Matt (morthcam@aol.com), May 22, 2002.