Canon 100mm f2 rangefinder

[scsambrook]

I recently bought a 1960s Canon 100mmf2 in Leica rangefinder mount. As I'm waiting for a suitable L39 to Leica M adapter I put it on the Lumix G1 and took a few snaps at lunchtime today.

These were both taken at f2 and are not works of art by any means, but they do suggest that the lens will be interesting to work with.


Both are crops from about half the area of the original files.



Not bad for a 50+ year-old lens, I think.

[drjs]

These old Canon lenses really give a new definition to glass + metal.

[kryss]

Nice Bokeh wide open,it also looks like precision engineered item as opposed to todays plastic fantastic overpriced offerings,that is why I love and would not part with any of my Pentax vintage manual lenses

[kds315*]

Nice piece!

[scsambrook]

I got my L39 to M adapter. This is a JPEG taken on the M8, just to make sure the rangefinder coupling is okay. Full aperture, about 60% of the original image.

[kuuan]

what an amazing lens, wished I had it, congrats!

[LucisPictor]

[Nordentro]

This lens is known to be one of the best. I never had it, congratz and share some more results!

[Attila]

I think I had FL 100mm f2.0 and I was very happy with it, congrats!!

[scsambrook]

Thanks for nice comments, everyone. It's a bit of a challenge to use on the M8; the relatively small viewfinder image (0.68x) and the oh-so-low-geared focusing on the lens can make it hard to see exactly when the images superimpose exactly. And the 90mm viewfinder frame is, well, let's just say 'not the most precise aid to good composition'. But when you get things right, they come out well.

I had to get a new screw/bayonet adapter because the no-name Chinese one I thought I could use turned out to give inaccurate rangefinder coupling at close distances and wide apertures. It had been, and still is, fine with my 21mm Voigtlander lens, but just not up to the job with the 100mm wide open. And, shock horror!, one of my genuine Leitz ones for a different focal length was just as bad and another German-made one was actually even worse.

I'd read that this lens is indeed good, but I was somewhat taken aback by just how good it seems to be. As yet I've only been 'messing around' and now I really should leave it on the camera and use it as much as possible in as many circumstances as I can.

[mo]

The owl image is stunning,and yes you should use it for a few more days,weeks months years...you get the picture.

[scsambrook]

I took it out again today, a short walk round and a brief visit to the museum . . . these are from camera JPEGs and apart from trimming have had nothing really done to them. Right now I have some doubts about the focusing accuracy wide open at middle distances, but as I'm due to get new specs this week I'll wait to try them before I make a final judgement. It's a nice lens but my curiosity is starting to make me ask "How will it compare to a contemporary 90mm Summicron?" Oh, are we never happy with the nice things we have?

In the Kelvingrove Museum - f2, about half the original file


In the Kelvingrove Museum - The 'Ayes' Have It - f2.8, just trimmed a little



In the Spring sunshine - f4, just trimmed a little



Early blossoms - f5.6, about two-thirds of the original



Early blossoms against the light - f8, just trimmed a little

[kds315*]

Amazing IQ Stephen! Bit magenta CA, but so what...

And no, you will never be happy with what you have
- unless you choose so. THEN you are and start to be
a photographer and give up being a lens tester to find
the best lens there is (and there is always one)

Or the other way round, being a lens tester is just an
excuse for not being the best possible photographer

[Nordentro]

+1 Top IQ for sure

[Lightshow]

Looks great other than some minor PF on the lamp's highlights, but that is easy to fix now days.

[scsambrook]

Thanks for the comments - I should maybe mention that I have what my optician calls a 'colour vision deficiency' i.e partial colour blindness. Often, I don't actually see things like minor CA issues or even colour casts. I could never successfully do colour printing back in the 'good old days'

In my happy world, purple and blue are pretty much identical, pinks and greys similar, dark greens and brown often just different shades of the same colour. Taking the Ishihara colour vision test ( http://colorvisiontesting.com/ishihara.htm ) always causes hilarity !

[uhoh7]

Congrats Stephen

Here is mine on the Sony A7



I have not yet shot it on the M9, need to try that

[duckrider]

A nice lens for nice pictures!

have also a look at these:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_2e.html

[scsambrook]

That's a nice picture, Uhoh. Do try it on the M9, but believe me focusing can be something of a trial - I fear I may need to get one of the hideously expensive 'eyepiece telescopes' to help me. The hardest range to get right wide open seems to be abound 10-15 meters. The RF image is small, and depth of field still very thin, I thought the lens was back-focusing but I'm pretty sure now it's down to my own fousing inaccuracy. I have fewer focus failures on the Lumix, but the end quality just isn't as good.

Duckrider - thanks for the link to that site. Some interesting stuff there, to be sure.

[uhoh7]

Boy, you are not kidding about focus wide open on the M9. Yikes!















all at f/2 on the M9

[scsambrook]

You've done well to get the dog in focus - I couldn't have managed that. I took the lens to another museum at the weekend -

f2, cropped to fill a TV screen:


Same window, same aperture, but de-focused:


Range about 1.5 meters/4ft 6ins, f2: