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

Canon R 135mm f3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:21 pm    Post subject: Canon R 135mm f3.5 Reply with quote

#1





Attached is a snap shot of the Canon R 135mm f3.5 (type 1) lens. The lens is from approximately 1959. I say approximately because I found the Canon Museum site to contain errors. More on that later.

The lens is certainly well build. hefty and easy to use and hold. It is also very short. Shorter than the R type 2, the FL and initial version of the FD 135mm f3.5 breech lock mount. Like Canon’s rangefinder lenses, These SLR lenses are 4 elements/3 group designs.

The R 135 f3.5 appears similar to a t-mount lens with the mount attached. The base of the lens surrounded by the chrome collar has a larger diameter than the barrel. It looks like a rangefinder lens attached to an SLR mount. Hum?

This lens is branded Canon not Canomatic like much of the R series. It simply has a simple aperture ring to open and close the aperture - like a rangefinder lens. No odd “semi-automatic” Canonflex aperture linkages to get in the way. Looking forward to trying this lens out.

The likely explanation, Canon used its rangefinder lens experience to transform their RF designs into SLR lenses for the Canonflex. The Canon R 105mm 3.5 is another example. I did find out more about this lens (and Canon Museum’s mis-listing of this lens) in an online article by Matt Flynn.

https://flynngraphics.ca/r135/[url][/url]


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you please post a picture of the aperture closed half-way? I'd like to know if the aperture opening of your lens has the same odd shape as the R 135mm f3.5 (I) shown on Flynn Marr's page on this lens.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2020 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, fdlenses. I will be better able to post pictures tomorrow.

In the meantime, the diaphragm pattern of the blades pictured by Flynn are identical to mine. They do appears more typically rounded at smaller (numerically higher) apertures.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may be a similar case to the 100 F2, which looks to have been a Canon RF lens which was redesigned for use as one of the 'Canomatic' range of lenses.
http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-r-100mm-f2-t71356.html


PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are photos of the aperture opening at f5.6 and f11.

It would be interesting to know if the Canon 135mm 3.5 rangefinder lens introduced in 1958 has the same aperture pattern.



PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I happened to have bought one of these lenses quite a few years ago for just a few dollars in a bargain bin outside a camera store. initially I assumed it to be an FL lens (without checking) only to find later that it was an R lens. But this did not really matter in this case at least - the physical mounting scheme (breech lock) is the same as on an FL lens and hence this lens will mount on FL, FD cameras and all associated lens adapters used with mirrorless cameras. But its aperture arrangement is different. From memory, my lens has a pre-set aperture the same as many other preset lenses in Canon and other marques. I have read however that not all R lenses will mount properly on FL bodies due to interference from the automatic aperture arrangement that some R lenses had. But I have never checked or had the need to. According to this page https://www.cameraquest.com/canonflx.htm " When introduced, there were only two Canonflex lenses with automatic diaphragms, the 50/1.8 and the 100/2." So the majority of the R lenses would have been preset like mine and hence mount readily on later bodies - though there was not a large range of lenses for this range and surprisingly no wide angles.

As to image quality the 135mm f3.5 is in line with the vast majority of 135mm lenses of this era. It is pretty good - a sonnar design from memory (a design I have always liked in terms of rendering) which turns in predictably nice photos. The lens itself is skinny and relatively long (not my favoured form factor but perfectly functional never the less). In this regard it is somewhat similar to the long skinny black and chrome version of the 135mm f3.5 in LTM mount offered by Canon around the same time. As to the question about the aperture blade pattern, my recollection is that the late, black and chrome LTM one is the same.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmkmva wrote:
Here are photos of the aperture opening at f5.6 and f11.


Thanks a lot!

The reason I was asking is that I found the same shape of the aperture with a Canon R 135mm 1:3.5 (II) and noticed something odd while cleaning it.

The aperture blades exhibit the same star-like shape as on your and Flynn's pictures:



The stud positions seem to be symmetrical:



See what happens when you install the blades “upside down”...

f/5.6:



f/11:



I was wondering if someone already did do a CLA and assembled the aperture incorrectly. (It's almost 60 years since the lens has left the factory.)

But after reading this thread and Flynn's 135 page it seems the “star pattern” is correct.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yoyomaoz wrote:
So the majority of the R lenses would have been preset like mine and hence mount readily on later bodies - though there was not a large range of lenses for this range and surprisingly no wide angles.


1961 R lens range:





And by the way: The same 1961 brochure proves that Flynn is correct claiming that Canon show wrong pictures for the R 135mm in their museum:



PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fdlenses wrote:
jmkmva wrote:
Here are photos of the aperture opening at f5.6 and f11.


Thanks a lot!

The reason I was asking is that I found the same shape of the aperture with a Canon R 135mm 1:3.5 (II) and noticed something odd while cleaning it.

The aperture blades exhibit the same star-like shape as on your and Flynn's pictures:



The stud positions seem to be symmetrical:



See what happens when you install the blades “upside down”...

f/5.6:



f/11:



I was wondering if someone already did do a CLA and assembled the aperture incorrectly. (It's almost 60 years since the lens has left the factory.)

But after reading this thread and Flynn's 135 page it seems the “star pattern” is correct.


You will know if they are upside down when you stop down to the smallest opening, the correct way will have a round aperture, this is due to the 7 or L shape of the blade(the inside corner to be specific), the older ( shaped blade has a more geometric pattern at the smallest opening.