Canon 85mm f2 LTM 1951

[scsambrook]

I recently bought a Canon 85mm f2 Leica-screw mount lens dating from around 1951, my excuse being that I'd never previously been able to try one properly. It came from a "real" camera shop, not off eBay. I got a guarantee that if didn't match its description I could have an immediate refund. The picture below is the retailer's and to be fair doesn't do the lens justice. It's in pretty much as near new condition as you can expect to find, no blemishes to the glass and still bright internally. Looking at the screw-heads, either it's never been apart or it's been in the hands of a very careful technician. Even the case is in great shape. Using a screw-to-M-bayonet adapter lets me try it on my M8.



The design is, from what I read on the Canon Museum website, six elements in four groups. Coating is pale blue/purple. The focusing is very low geared, making about four-fifths of a turn from infinity down to one metre. The iris looks to have about 20 blades but to be honest I keep on losing count every time I try to work out the actual number. Never mind, the aperture is virtually a perfect circle at whatever setting.

So, how good is it? Ah well, that depends on how one defines "good". It's certainly different to recent offerings but I like it. Is it sharp at full aperture? Er, yes, but not at the edges, even on the reduced size sensor of the M8. It gets pretty good by f5.6 and your can't fault it at f8. What's its "bokeh" like? (Arrgghh, how I hate that word ) Well this is f2:


Leica M8

When I took this, I was not standing perpendicular to the gate - the left side is closer to me than the right. So the image fall off is down to distance rather than definition.

How does it do regarding contrast bearing in mind the "minimalistic" coating? Er, well the next picture is a DNG file simply saved as a jpeg without any boosting of contrast or saturation:


Leica M8

That was taken on a grey, misty morning, and is actually a tolerably fair impression of what they day was like. But, it is a little lacking in sparkle. I used a lens hood borrowed from a Nikkor 105/2.5 with a stepping ring, but I think the lack of bite might come from indifferent blacking on the bezels of the lens cells in front of the iris. The rest of the interior is really matte and baffled as well. Still, thanks to digital technology we can fix that issue, if we want to :




I can't recall if that was at f2 or f2.8, but I think it was f2.8. Maybe I "over-egged the pudding" but I quite like the effect, so what the heck - !

It's a big, heavy lens (around 600 grams), it's slow to focus, the aperture ring rotates as you focus, but it certainly has some endearing qualities. Interestingly, it couples perfectly to the M8's rangefinder and if it has any focus-shift on stopping down I haven't seen it yet. Top marks to Mr Canon and his technicians for construction and adustment.

Now I need to try it in bright sunlight (will we ever get any here?) and in the streets of The Empire's Second City once the evening lights come on. Should be interesting

[kuuan]

aaahhhh, what a fine lens, 60 years old but like new

[iangreenhalgh1]

What a beautiful piece of glass! They don't make em like they used to...

Performance to me is very good, hope you have a lot of fun with it!

[scsambrook]

Thanks folks ! I'll post some more "interesting" results when i've been out and about with it a bit more.

[peterqd]

At first sight the weak contrast in that untouched shot does look disappointing, but it reflects the current horrible damp and misty weather very well. Not a good test for it at all. I'm sure it will be superb in better light.

[anscochrome]

The physical appearence of the lens reminds me of my old 85mm F 1.5 Summarex, except my lens wasn't all like new shiny and scratch free as your Serenar. Put that lens to some good use:)

[uhoh7]

Great write up scsam!

your beauty was designed by Masana Kuroki.

His ouvre
Mr Masana Kuroki........... 35mm f/3.5
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........50mm f/1.5
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........50mm f/1.9
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........8.5cm F/2
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........85mm f/2
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........10cm f/4
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........100mm f/4
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........1000mm f/11
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........400mm f/4.5
Mr Masana Kuroki............. 600mm f/5.6
Mr Masana Kuroki. ...........800mm f/8
Courtsey Peter Kitchingman

Only canon RF 85 I don't own
Wish I could say the same about the 35s, hehe

Your lens was indroduced in 1948. The next 85 was in 1951, the gorgeous 1.9, by hiroshi itoh--the first one I found and still a steal now.



I found that after reading a thread here. OP had just bought an 85/1.8 for 100 bucks. gulp. But I later convinced him to sell it to me

Anyway, Mr Itoh was not done, and in 1952, his 85/1.5 summarex killer was introduced, the first high speed portrait lens from Japan. I had my copy of that one out tonite:
@1.5

its very hard to focus, hehe, at 1.5--and since only 2500 copies were made, people thought it was soft. No, grasshooper--for you, just turn ring just a hair to 1.6 (no clicks)


the most underrated of all the 85s, in truth it is a masterwork. I found mine in the UK for 500USD. Worth every penny.

Worthy of note: only the 1.8 is a telephoto (you guys know that), the fully modern lazer with great coatings by Murkai- who later won an Oscar for Film Zooms.



4 canon RF 85s. Three Designers. All unique

[scsambrook]

Hi Uhoh7 - thanks for the background details. If your 85/1.5 is a Summarex killer, then it must be good. I had a Summarex in the 1960s and regret not having kept it, but there we are - water down the river.

A few weeks ago I found a box of Kodachromes from 1968, some of which I recall taking with the Summarex. I recently bought an inexpensive (= cheap) Epson scanner to digitise our collection of old family photos and it has a gadget to let you do slides as well, so I had a go at one of the Summarex Kodachromes. The result hardly does justice to the lens, but the picture below at least gives a flavour of how it works wide open on an overcast day. Maybe if I play with the scan in Photoshop a bit more I can get the feel of the original a bit better.

Kodachrome 25 meant you could use it wide open much of the time in England! On the original you can see individual hairs, but the depth of field is wafer-thin.



Be nice to get the Canon and the Summarex together for a meaningful comparison, wouldn't it?.

[Attila]

Such a beauty Stephen! Congrats!!

[scsambrook]

Thank you Attila . . . I don't have the lens but still have the model

[Attila]

[uhoh7]

Wonderful shot stephan! Wow you had a great copy! I can't say my canon is any better wide open.



At about f/4 it turns into a zeiss!


100


here at around f/5.6 I think


here at 2.8:




How in god's name did you ever afford a summarex?

Here's what it's worth today:
http://tinyurl.com/7j2a7sn

The canon was 238.00...in 1956!

check out the system brochure (i scanned this a while back at put it up)
http://www.mediafire.com/?4k6mu0amn7z1i6p

[scsambrook]

[scsambrook]

Hello again uhoh7 ! Your 85/1.5 looks to be very good, especially stopped down. Do you ever use it with film? I'm convinced that slide film is a far more exacting medium that digital, even if we can't get Kodachrome any more.

How could I afford a Summarex? Well, I think it cost about me about GBP 50 secondhand, about what was then two weeks' wages for me. I was still single and had few financial responsibilities beyond saving in order to get married, so it didn't seem expensive. The same year, I bought a Canon 50mm f1.4 for GBP 27 to replace a 50mm f1.5 Summarit that had cost - I think - £25. Leica gear was not then so keenly sought after.

The UK Canon importer sold off their remaining stocks of rangefinder lenses at silly prices around the same time. I think the 35mm f1.5 was around £50 and the 85mm and 100mm fast lenses about the same. A Leica M2 body was £125 brand new. Seems very cheap now.