Small and highly regarded.

I wrote at length about the Canon 50mm f/1.4 Leica Thread Mount lens here. I was so impressed with the build quality and finish of the 50mm lens that I added the 35mm version to my Leica M3 outfit. Stylistically the design of the 35mm f/2 is identical, though the aperture ring and the focus distances have been switched to black backgrounds:

Identical ergonomics to the 50mm f/1.4 lens

The lens sports the same gorgeous, black, scalloped focus collar as the 50mm, a non-rotating focus mount, equally spaced apertures with whole click stops and a non-rotating focus cam at the back. Strangely, the infinity lock of the 50mm optic is missing from the 35mm lens which is very compact and weighs in at just 139 grams with a protective filter and bayonet adapter in place. This makes it a tad harder to mount or remove on the Leica though there is substantial knurling on the mounting ring to help with grip. (The 50mm has no knurling as with the infinity lock no additional grip is needed). I am mystified why Canon deleted the infinity lock from this lens.

Whereas the 50mm lens has a 180 degree focus throw from 1 meter to infinity, that on the 35mm optic is far shorter, just 90 degrees for a like range. This lens is better suited to the M2, M4, M5 and M6 with their included 35mm frame lines in the viewfinder. My Leica M3 has 50/90/135mm frame lines but rather than use a shoe-mounted auxiliary finder I use decades of memory about just how a 35mm lens captures images and can largely make do with the 50mm finder plus some imagination. The big benefit of the Canon over the Leitz 35mm Summaron, of course, is the absence of those clunky ‘goggles’ which rather take away from the ‘small camera, small lens’ concept of the Leica. That and it’s 1.5 stops faster.

The Canon, with bayonet adapter, alongside the 35mm Summaron RF

As is clear from the above image my version of the Canon is in beyond mint condition. After some 5 decades it looks as if it was just removed from its original box, and the functions are as good as the appearance. The optics are crystal clear and the diaphragm looks new. It’s as if the lens had been stored away all those years and never used, with pristine white and orange paint filling the engravings. Comparing the optical designs you can see that the Canon’s is a bit more complex than the Summaron’s, having added a 7th element to the simpler symmetrical Gauss design of the Leitz lens. Hardly surprising as the lens was computed a decade later.

The design of the 35mm f/2 LTM Canon.

The Leitz Summaron for comparison.

Purchasing considerations are identical to those I set forth in the earlier piece on the 50mm Canon. That means you will likely be buying from Japan, where there are dozens available on eBay, and most will have fungus (excuse me, “pinpoint fungus, does not affect image” as listing after listing would have it), haze or scratches. Many show the white lettering faded to a disgusting yellow and while the engravings can be cleaned and refilled there are probably better things to do with your time. As you can see mine has none of these issues but I had to screen many examples before finally paying $385 with tax and shipping for my mint copy. That’s a fraction of what even an f/2.8 Summaron costs (half a stop faster than my f/3.5, reckon on $1200) and if you start looking at f/2 Summicrons or f/1.4 Summiluxes well, there goes a couple of months’ rent money. Mine came from Japan and took a scant 4 days to arrive, just as with the 50mm, for a reasonable shipping cost of $35.

Canon actually had two different optical designs for this lens. The first had serial numbers from 10041 through 36967, made 4/62 to 12/70. The second was 37237 to 45064, 1/71 to 3/75. Mine is the second design and is reputed to be marginally improved in the corners wide open. An earlier f/1.8 version is reputed to be softer.

I had to add an LTM-to-Leica-bayonet adapter from Fotodiox for $16. This time I chose one which would bring up the 135mm frame in the M3’s finder to remind me that I have the 35mm mounted; that same adapter will bring up the 35mm frame, correctly, on an M2 and subsequent rangefinder body. Thus, should I receive a severe blow to the head and spring for a digital Leica M body down the road, I will save all of $16 on yet another adapter. An $8 multicoated UV filter in the strange size of 40mm (not the more common 40.5mm) completes the ensemble, for a total outlay of $409. Yes, Amazon carries the odd sized filter. As with the 50mm optic, the red lens mounting index on the adapter is very hard to see and I will be adding a big red plastic blob, epoxied in the appropriate location on the rear of the lens barrel.

I checked focus accuracy at infinity – perfect – and at 1 meter using a laser measure, where the rangefinder was just 0.3″ out. Not a material error. That’s the second under $20 Fotodiox adapter I have installed and both are well nigh perfect. Save your money and don’t spend more on used Leica or other brands purporting to be better. Cameraquest is asking $79 for the allegedly superior Rayqual. Well, there is one born every minute, I suppose.

Here is the Canon on the Leica M3. Can you spell ‘gorgeous’?

On the M3, with a slimline 40mm UV filter fitted.

Finally, here’s how the lens balances on the camera.

Balance on the M3.

More coming, once I have some results.