Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

7 Canon rangefinder lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, nice Very Happy

Is the 35/2 as good as the reputation? And compared to the 1.8?


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Oh, nice Very Happy

Is the 35/2 as good as the reputation? And compared to the 1.8?


I'd say yes, but note that I only have used it on APS-C. Compared to the 1.8 it offers better resistance against flare and loss of contrast.
Both produce lovely colors, images taken with the 1.8 may look more vintage. Both are, at least in the center, I haven't verified for corners, impressively sharp from wide open

once had made a thread abt. the 2/35: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-ltm-f2-35mm-t68886.html
just added a few more samples and also opened a thread about the 1.8/35: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-ltm-1-8-35-t72071.html

more photos can be seen at my flickr, taken with the 2/35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644114143659
and with the 1.8/35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644035549111


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, thx...
I`ll take a look Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They both look good... If you had to let one go, which? Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geez, kuuan, I am so jealous! I have a small, but slowly growing, Canon M39 outfit. Several years ago I bought a IIIa rangefinder, which came with a very clean Serenar 50/1.8. It's a great little lens and I've always liked the older Canon rangefinders (I used to own a IVSb and sold it in a moment of weakness or stupidity, I haven't been able to figure out which). I like my IIIa better, however, because a previous owner had X and M flash sync connectors added, which was always a drawback with the IVSb.

Not very long after buying the IIIa with lens, I stumbled into a deal on a 100mm f/4 with finder -- found it in a second-hand shop and paid the guy $20 for it. It's in excellent shape, came with the original leather case, that has a compartment for the finder even. That IVSb I used to own, I found in a pawn shop over 30 years ago, and it had a Kyoei Super Acall 135mm f/3.5 attached to it. Paid the guy $75 for the outfit. Well, I sold the Kyoei when I sold the IVSb, but since I had another Canon rangefinder, I decided to see if I could find a replacement Kyoei 135 as well. I was quite surprised at the prices I was finding, but finally stumbled across a new listing on eBay -- one priced very reasonably -- so I bought it. Even came with the original box. And then, just about a month ago, I bought a nice Canon P -- body only.

My small outfit, minus the P:


The P with the above 50/1.8 Serenar:


So that's where my Canon M39 collection sits. I'd like to add at least a 35mm wide to the collection, but the prices for clean Canon examples have put me off. I'd have to pay more for a clean Canon 35mm than I paid for my IIIa with lens!

Any recommendations on an affordable wide angle in LTM? 35mm or even wider? I've looked at some Russian optics, but I'm rather confused about them all, and I don't know anything about the others that were offered contemporaneous with the Canon ones. Excepting Leica and Nikon, of course.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
They both look good... If you had to let one go, which? Very Happy


not a fair question! Wink
but I am game, because the f2 more easily could be replaced by a modern lens I'd rather hang on to the f1.8


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Geez, kuuan, I am so jealous! I have a small, but slowly growing, Canon M39 outfit. Several years ago I bought a IIIa rangefinder, which came with a very clean Serenar 50/1.8. It's a great little lens and I've always liked the older Canon rangefinders (I used to own a IVSb and sold it in a moment of weakness or stupidity, I haven't been able to figure out which). I like my IIIa better, however, because a previous owner had X and M flash sync connectors added, which was always a drawback with the IVSb.

Not very long after buying the IIIa with lens, I stumbled into a deal on a 100mm f/4 with finder -- found it in a second-hand shop and paid the guy $20 for it. It's in excellent shape, came with the original leather case, that has a compartment for the finder even. That IVSb I used to own, I found in a pawn shop over 30 years ago, and it had a Kyoei Super Acall 135mm f/3.5 attached to it. Paid the guy $75 for the outfit. Well, I sold the Kyoei when I sold the IVSb, but since I had another Canon rangefinder, I decided to see if I could find a replacement Kyoei 135 as well. I was quite surprised at the prices I was finding, but finally stumbled across a new listing on eBay -- one priced very reasonably -- so I bought it. Even came with the original box. And then, just about a month ago, I bought a nice Canon P -- body only.


Michael you made some exceptional deals! Can't get those in Europe, I bought my Canon RF lenses in Japan where they can be had cheaper but never at bargain prices like you guys in the US may catch.
To have at least one camera these lenses are native for I had bought a Canon P, had searched a while to find one for about 50 usd, camera only, which was about half the price working copies are usually trading for in Japan.


Canon P with LTM f1.9 85mm
by Andreas, on Flickr


Canon P with f1.8/35mm
by Andreas, on Flickr

cooltouch wrote:

So that's where my Canon M39 collection sits. I'd like to add at least a 35mm wide to the collection, but the prices for clean Canon examples have put me off. I'd have to pay more for a clean Canon 35mm than I paid for my IIIa with lens!

Any recommendations on an affordable wide angle in LTM? 35mm or even wider?


the f2 trades for about 300 usd, with luck you can get it for about 250 and it's worth it's cost. The f1.8 trades a bit dearer. There also is a f2.8/35 Canon LTM which I read is a great lens and which you may get for around 150 usd 'only'.
Wider vintage RF lenses are even more costly. I am using rather modern Cosina Voigtlaender lenses, the 4.5/15, 4/21 and 4/25.
I don't know about Russian alternatives but I think there aren't many. There is the Jupiter 12 f2.8/35 which some say is great, it does mount on the Sony E mount FF cameras, not on the APS-C cams.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 35mm f/2.8 is very good IMO, and better than the J-12 (I have both). Wink

I just want a 35mm with more DOF play and decent IQ


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
..
I just want a 35mm with more DOF play and decent IQ


for that certainly either of the fast Canon LTMs are a very good choice. They are tiny, the CV 1.4/35 isn't much bigger, only heavier and of course a very strong and even faster contender!



the f2/35, a Canon LTM f1.8/50, the f1.8/35 and the Pen-F Zuiko 1.4/40


the f1.8 compared to a S-M-C Takumar f2/35, both with their respective Sony E mount adapter


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about the Canon 35mm f/3.5 Serenar? It's a very compact lens, and seems to be the cheapest of the Canon wides.



PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as much as I know the 3.5/35 also is a very good lens, the 2.8/35 gets more and a lot a praise though


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I had one and it was poor compared to the f/2.8 Surprised


PostPosted: Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:30 pm    Post subject: 4 Canon RF normal lenses Reply with quote

Canon Serenar f1.5/50mm, Serenar f1.8/50mm, f1.8/50mm and f1.4/50mm


Canon rangefinder 50mm lenses
by Andreas, on Flickr


PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful Andreas, the black 1.8 really supprised me with very nice IQ.

How does the 1.5 compare to the 1.4? Surprised


PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nordentro wrote:
Beautiful Andreas, the black 1.8 really supprised me with very nice IQ.

How does the 1.5 compare to the 1.4? Surprised


first of all the f1.5 surprises with small physical size. As one can see it is not only much smaller than the f1.4 but even smaller than both versions of the f1.8. However it also is the heaviest! - according to Canonmuseum the f1.5 weighs 295 grms while the bigger f1.4 weighs 246 grms. ( the Serenar f1.8 270g and the black f1.8 188g )

Comparing IQ first of all I must say that I can't take the performance of my copy of the f1.5 to be representative: one inner element is 'cloudy', not very much so but enough to have a minor influence in performance. The fault will, I believe, most of all result in less contrasty images and more easy 'blooming' ( I have 3 copies of the black f1.8, one is quite clear while the other two have an element that is cloudy, one more so than the other. Test show that the cloudier that inner element the lower the contrast. can't make out for sure if sharpness is effected )

My copy of the f1.5 produces low contrast while the f1.4 rather high contrast, it also looks a tad less sharp, specially wide open. Certainly sharp enough for me but the f1.4 imo is impressively sharp. Wide open the 1.4 shows strong CA, the 1.5 much less so ( but I believe that generally the less contrast the less likely there is CA ) My copy of the f1.5 more easily 'blooms'. I may prefer the colors rendered by the f1.5. Haven't used both lenses very much yet and this is about all I can say. I may add more observations later, but as explained they may do unjust to a perfect copy of the f1.5.

sample pics had been edited, certainly are more contrasty than out of cam,
this one was taken with the f1.5 wide open, behind the child tropical sun near midday:


malu ( shy )
by Andreas, on Flickr

wide open, see blooming:

Untitled
by Andreas, on Flickr

also wide open, but without backlight:

Marcus
by Andreas, on Flickr

in comparison two taken with the f1.4, first one possibly wide open. I am quite sure that the f1.5 wouldn't handle the electrical lights of the first that well, at least my copy wouldn't, the second shows sharpness:


Untitled
by Andreas, on Flickr


Untitled
by Andreas, on Flickr

here all images I have taken with the f1.4: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157644035549161
and with the f1.5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/sets/72157650188799900

cheers, andreas


PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Andreas, I have the 1.5, the 1.8 (black) and the 1.9 (coll. serenar). My copy of the 1.5 is very nice and clean and is probably better regarding blooming, but there is still some wide open. I love the smooth bokeh and the build of the 1.5.

I was lucky with my 1.8 too with very clean glasses (I have read that many copies are hazy) and the IQ is very good from wide open.

I consider swaping my C-mount Canon 50mm 1.4 against a LTM for FF coverage.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:05 pm    Post subject: Canon Rangefinders Reply with quote

I have just created a couple of days ago a website devoted to Canon rangefinders and lenses 1936 to 1975
https://www.canonrangefinder.org
This is still a work in process, but is maybe half complete. I have also added two pages on Minolta-35 cameras and lenses and
I hope to add pages on Leotax, Nicca, Reid, and other historic rangefinders using the M39 screw mount.
Have a look... hope you will find of interest. Also, all corrections, additions, comments welcome at
huffman@gmx.com
thanks, Larry