Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Confused about a Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:04 pm    Post subject: Confused about a Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM Reply with quote
I recently purchased a Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM. Love it, quality is great, rendering is wonderful, happy with the handling.



Doing a little research on it though, I'm now confused.

To me, it looks like a Type I.
But the serial number is 35446, which according to other sources (link below) means it's an early Type II.
http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2013/05/28/the-japanese-summilux-canon-50mm-f1-4-ltm/

Any ideas? Thanks!











PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Type II.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_14v1.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/s/data/50-85/s_50_14v2.html


PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Calvin. Was confused by the focus distance measurements. On the Type I it has single line, with just feet or m, on the Type II it has both ft/m in two rows one above the other.

Did this kind of thing change along the way, or depend on market (Japan vs US)?


PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is a Type I, look at the slightly thicker black ring at the front, when looking at the side view.

Only the Type II has the distance units in both metres and feet (at least I haven't seen one where it is different)

The switch happened somewhere in the 40000 region.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padam wrote:
It is a Type I, look at the slightly thicker black ring at the front, when looking at the side view.

Only the Type II has the distance units in both metres and feet (at least I haven't seen one where it is different)

The switch happened somewhere in the 40000 region.

You are right. I mixed up the scales of the two versions. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How again do the optics differ?


PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not sure if the optics do differ - Kitchingman's otherwise excellent book dwells heavily on the changing aspects of the mount but has little to say about variations in the optics. There may have been some changes to cater for the withdrawal of certain glass types during its life (which would also apply to other lenses) but that would not necessarily result in any significant differences in performance.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Typ II


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hehe, couple of votes either way. Is there a definitive way to tell? Internal serials or markings? I mean, it's not important, just inquisitive really.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am certainly not an expert on this lens but according to Peter Kitchingman's book Canon M39 Rangefinder Lenses the 'Type 1' lenses have EITHER a distance scale in feet OR in meters. The 'Type 2' lenses (his nomenclature) have the dual scale. The Type 2 lenses, he writes, had observed serials between 30241 and 120705 when he sent the book to press in 2008. The highest number recorded by him for a Type 1 lens was 29390 (p.83)

However, your lens has serial 35446, a single distance scale and the engraving 'Lens Made in Japan' which he asserts was not found on the Type 1 lenses. What can this tell us? Chiefly that trying to make sense of changes without factory records is fraught with problems - something which Kitchingman readily acknowledges.

Probable explanations include:
A specific order for single-metric-scale markings from an importer/distributor
The factory using up existing stocks of components
Replacement of one or other parts at time of repair
An insufficient sample on which to base the author's assertions

I read recently (I think on RF Forum) that Canon made frequent changes to the mechanical construction of their rangefinder lenses, something else that could be relevant to your lens.

Rotoloni's tome on Nikon rangefinder cameras and lenses makes similar observations about disparities in styles and serials.

It might be worth posing the question on RF Forum ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/ ), although you might prefer just taking photos with your very nice lens and tell yourself it's a 'Type 2 Transitional' Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
although you might prefer just taking photos with your very nice lens and tell yourself it's a 'Type 2 Transitional'

Either is fine, I think I'll just go with early MKII. Lens is still older than me either way, and in better condition.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I'm not sure if the optics do differ - Kitchingman's otherwise excellent book dwells heavily on the changing aspects of the mount but has little to say about variations in the optics. There may have been some changes to cater for the withdrawal of certain glass types during its life (which would also apply to other lenses) but that would not necessarily result in any significant differences in performance.


I suspect the formulas are identical, with perhaps, as you note, some changes in glass and coatings...if even that.

I have a very nice user, type 1 I should shoot more, because the M9 loves the lens. What I find is that the Canon RF lenses are almost never properly calibrated beyond certain ranges.

F/4:

L1001696 by unoh7, on Flickr

WO:

L1001683 by unoh7, on Flickr

Was no where near this good on the A7 or A7r unmodified, where I saw smearing off the central frame at wide apertures.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
What I find is that the Canon RF lenses are almost never properly calibrated beyond certain ranges

Appears to be the case with this one too, doesn't make it to infinity.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If the article from AperturePriority is correct, then the formulas are different.
As I've written, the side view shows it well which one this is.

From what I've seen the Type 1's were mainly with the Canon P and the Type 2's were mainly sold with the Canon 7 or 7s (possibly with the last of the Canon P's as well)

50/1.4 v2 on the A7



PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
padam wrote:
If the article from AperturePriority is correct, then the formulas are different.


Can you let us have details of which article this is, please? That would help us all to learn a little more.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Aperture+Priority+canon+50mm+f1.4

Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess padam means this article.
http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2013/05/28/the-japanese-summilux-canon-50mm-f1-4-ltm/

Strange thing... in this article Ver 2 is double Gauss (Planar, Xenon, etc..) while Ver 1 looks like Sonnar type with an extra lens at the rear. And as far as I count there are more than 6 lenses in Ver 1.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
He's as clueless as we are on the subject:

"Interestingly, whilst the optical design is similar, the schematics highlight what would appear to be differences in construction between the Type I and II, in addition to this the above schematics which were supplied by Canon have anomolies."


Type-I-Schematic by unoh7, on Flickr

There is no evidence I've seen besides some bizarre references like the one above. (....6....really 6....?) that they are different in optics. Interestingly type 1 was alot more expensive than type II.

The samples I've do not show different character...at least that I can detect.

But, I may be way off base. Certainly the AP article is no source for reliable info on this question. I'd love to know. Anyone who has had the lenses apart should be able to easily tell, at least the element count.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
that 'aperturepriority' article seems to be the only place that distinguishes different optical formulae for Ver. 1 and Ver. 2 showing a 7 elements in 4 groups scheme for Ver.1 but saying that it had a 6/4 scheme. Canonmuseum says that both Ver.1 and Ver.2 have a 6/4 scheme. Something doesn't check. 'Aperturepriority' is the only place that maintains that there are two different optical scheme 1.4/50 Canon LTM lenses but their information is faulty and therefore raises doubts. It looks to me as if it was more likely that both Ver.1 and Ver.2 have the same 6/4 optical scheme.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
He's as clueless as we are on the subject:


Type-I-Schematic by unoh7, on Flickr



Uhoh7, I love your opening line - 'clueless, us? surely not Very Happy

I think we can indeed be certain all the 50/1.4s are essentially similar optically, but this schematic is nevertheless interesting. He seems to be sayng it came direct from Canon - but I don't recall ever seeing it before.

The first Canon 50/1.5 lenses were 7 element designs. Kitchingman shows drawings of the Sonnar type. However, this unfamiliar lens seems to have eight elements and - to my non-technical eye - seems to be a complex Gauss pattern which might even have have something in common with the Nikon 50/1.1 which was being designed in the later 1950s. I wonder if this drawing might have been for a lens that was projected but never actually put into production - an aborted successor to the earlier 50/1.5 that was passed over in favour of the 50/1.4 we now know and love. (Well, some of us do)

Although this must remain purely conjectural in the absence of reliable evidence, abandoning such a complex design would have fitted perfectly with Canon's contemporary desire to shift towards designs that were simpler (i.e. cheaper) to manufacture - such as avoiding such steep curves as feature in this drawing. The main driver behind Canon's expansion plans was the wish to move towards a degree of mass production not previously seen in the camera industry in order to cut costs whilst maintaining quality that was the equal of the principal competitors.

Unfortunately, almost all the 'serious' literature on the Japanese camera industry is in Japanese, so that getting to grips with the technical and commercial underpinnings that resulted in the actual equipment is by no means easy. The 'why' something was made is really even more interesting than what was made . . .


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Kuuan and Stephen, Exactly!!

This myth about type II being the "one" is actually out there a bit. I have come across it in the past. But I asked I guy I know should know:

Brian, post: 9573, member: 42 wrote:
I've had both the Type 1 and Type 2: the only difference is in the focus mount. The Canon 50/1.4 is a 6 element in 4 group classic 1-2-2-1 Double Gauss.

Your diagram is a 1-3-3-1 8 element in 4 group Double Gauss- looks very close to the 5cm F1.5 Simlar which is a 1-3-2-1. I need to look up yours in Neblette's "Photographic Lenses".


This is a truly credible source, Brian at Leicaplace, who takes alot of old RF glass apart.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If he comes back with any info on the 'mystery lens' I would love to learn about it.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
He's as clueless as we are on the subject:


Type-I-Schematic by unoh7, on Flickr


The lens diagram above is for the Fujinon 5cm f1.2.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
He's as clueless as we are on the subject:


Type-I-Schematic by unoh7, on Flickr


The lens diagram above is for the Fujinon 5cm f1.2.


I want one Smile

But not this bad:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujinon-50mm-f-1-2-Original-Leica-Screw-L39-used-lens-with-caps-X15F0078-/161757258683?_trksid=p2054897.l4275


PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Calvin83 writes The lens diagram above is for the Fujinon 5cm f1.2.

Thanks for the info Calvin83 ! Could you point me towards the source of your info so I can broaden my education still further, please?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2