View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
connloyalist
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 331 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 5:30 pm Post subject: Canon Serenar - compatibility? |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
I would appreciate some help. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Canon M39 / L39 lenses that are marked "Serenar" are not quite compatible with L39, and that the Canon M39 lenses that are not marked Serenar are compatible. Something about the threads being a slightly different pitch (is that the right word)?
Regards, C. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
visualopsins
![Level 4 Level 4](rating4.gif) Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10946 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
https://forum.mflenses.com/please-help-me-understand-the-versions-of-m39-mo-t81977.html _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
DrBB
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 26 Mar 2014 Posts: 101 Location: Croatia
|
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrBB wrote:
I'm using Serenar 5cm f2 on my M4/3 cameras and its working with "standard" LTM39 adapters . From what i see, all cheap adapters have some "wiggle" space (focusing past infinity) so this info is not 100%
![](http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20247/8002_IMG_20240709_183400_resized_20240709_063451513_1.jpg) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
connloyalist
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 331 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2024 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
https://forum.mflenses.com/please-help-me-understand-the-versions-of-m39-mo-t81977.html |
It's even my own question!
So, answering myself: Standard Leica M39 = M39 / 26TPI. Canon Serenar = M39 / 24TPI.
If the adapter is really precise then it shouldn't quite fit.
Regards, C. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
kathala
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 141
|
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
kathala wrote:
I can only speak from my own research, not actual experience, but the latter only mentions this issue with the VERY early lenses, i.e. the late 1940s' 50/3.5 Seiki Kogaku -> Seiki Kogaku Serenar -> Canon Serenar, and states it was done for fear of patent violations.
I remember reading that this fear abated eventually, and now, when looking at the production years, I also realise why: by the late 40s, all German patents had been annected and voided by the US invaders. Canon's fear of patent violation in question would have been being sued by Leica. That was no longer a concern, and they adopted M39.
But I will stress that from actual experience, I can only speak to post-Serenar lenses.
You might find this of help? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA/edit?gid=0#gid=0 _________________ Photography Reference Tables:
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aJ5F8XM6t5AK4bydthcDoiwhsh5CUx3N
My Art and Books: ChristianSchnalzger.de
My Exploration of Panoramic Photographic Storytelling:
flickr.com/photos/hach_und_ueberhaupt/
The better you look, the more you see (B. E. Ellis) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
Huffy49
Joined: 03 Jun 2020 Posts: 5 Location: SE Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2024 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Huffy49 wrote:
I own three Serenar lenses: 50mm f/1.9, 85mm f/2.0. and 35mm f/3.5.
All have standard LTM mounts and function normally on My Leica IIIA, my Canon 7, and my Leningrad. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
connloyalist
![Level 2 Level 2](rating2.gif) Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 331 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
I found this:
Source: https://mikeeckman.com/2022/02/canon-original-hansa-1935/
Quote: |
Another interesting thing about Nippon Kogaku’s new mount is that beneath it, the body of the Canon retained a 39mm screw mount, which was given the name the J-mount. Although sharing the same diameter as the Leica Thread Mount, it had a different pitch to the threads making Leica lenses incompatible.
[...]
Canon would continue to release new models after the war with the J-mount, but starting in 1947 with the release of the Canon SII, offered the 39mm “semi-universal” thread mount which accepted most, but not all, Leica Thread Mount lenses. The reason for the switch back to the LTM mount was that Leitz’s German patent for the mount was no longer valid after the war, and any camera company who wanted to use it could. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
John Shriver
![Level 1 Level 1](rating1.gif) Joined: 24 Dec 2009 Posts: 195
|
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2024 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
John Shriver wrote:
Canon didn't start making cameras with Leica-style rangefinder coupling to the lens until 1946, when all German patents were invalidated worldwide as a war reparation. The earlier rangefinder cameras used a very strange mount with the helical part of the camera.
They did make some non-rangefinder J-mount lenses during the war.
I think they were just bamboozled by Leica's deliberate obfuscation of the LTM mount. It's 39mm thread diameter, but with 26 turns per inch. Mixed units. The J-mount is 1mm thread pitch, which is 25.4 threads per inch.
The threads-per-inch of the mount isn't something Leica could patent. But the cam on the lens pushing a roller on the camera was patented. That's why the Zeiss Contax cameras used rotation of the in-built helical as the rangefinder coupling, a much more obtuse design. (The patents remained in force in Germany after the war.) The very complicated Contax shutter was also a dodge of Leica's patents.
For a few years after Canon switched to the correct 26 threads/inch, they cut the threads on the camera mounts loose enough to accept lenses with either thread pitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/mflenses/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|