Canon LTM HU: Canon 19/3.5 LTM On Ebay

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
No, it would not be better than the CV lens. Just rarer.

This lens is almost certainly doomed to continued "Shelf Queen" status, probably in the hands of a Japanese collector. I wouldn't be surprised if it sells to one of the "we shop for you on eBay" services on Japan. (The Japanese are comfortable with Yahoo auctions in Japan, but not with eBay.)

Well, by now the high bid is so high that the auction will be anonymous, so we'll never know who got it.
 
kb244 said:
Would it be any better than a CV 21/4 mounted on say a Canon P?
Click to expand...

The CV is a much better lens. I have the CV 21/4 in LTM, and the Canon 19/3.5. The CV is a much better lens all around, as one would expect from a lens that is 50 years newer than the Canon 19mm. My only major argument with the Canon 19/3.5 is that dramatic light fall-off at the corners, especially noticeable in contrasty conditions. Overall, performance of the Canon is not too bad, contrast is high to moderate, resolution is pretty good, distortion is not so different than the CV 21/4. In most parameters, such as light fall-off, resolution and contrast, I think that the modern CV 21 beats the pants off the antique Canon.

I agree, this one is destined to be a shelf queen, having never been mounted on a camera, much less used to take photos.
 
980 pieces sold in a 10 years life circle (until 1974), is that really rare, qualifiying to a never-mounted-on-a-camera "shelf queen"?

Probably it was so rare because most people preferred to buy a Distagon 4/18 or Hologon that time.

I would use it. Carefully, but I would. After all, a camera or lens is a tool. Even these build in small runs of 10-20 pieces.

Of course the C/V is a great little lens but the 19mm Canon is a bit (6 degrees) wider than 21mm. It was pushed for angle and speed, whereas the C/V is optimized for perfomance:size/cost ratio. The 19/3.5 was in 1964 what the C/V 12/5.6 was four decades later...
 
Also, if you are using the lens on an RD1 or an M8, the wider view makes a significant difference. For example, the Canon 19/3.5 would approximate a 25mm lens when used on the M8, whereas the CV 21mm lens would spproximate a 28mm lens.
 
I use Canon FD wide angle lenses and save money.
I use 7.5mm, 17mm, and 19mm lenses with Adapter B on Leica/Canon LTM cameras. My 19mm lens is by Vivitar, so I missed buying the original Canon lens.


Raid
 
brobbins said:
Also, if you are using the lens on an RD1 or an M8, the wider view makes a significant difference. For example, the Canon 19/3.5 would approximate a 25mm lens when used on the M8, whereas the CV 21mm lens would spproximate a 28mm lens.
Click to expand...

How would a circular fisheye lens look on an RD1 or M8?
For example, the 7.5mm lens,what would the image look like? Is it still circular?
 
raid said:
How would a circular fisheye lens look on an RD1 or M8?
For example, the 7.5mm lens,what would the image look like? Is it still circular?
Click to expand...

It would still be a fish-eye projection, as the lens hasn't changed. However, instead of seeing the entire 360o circular image, the picture would be "cropped" in such that the extremes of the circle would not be visible, as in a normal, non circular-fisheye lens.
 
Canon 19

Canon 19

Just seems such a waste to see such a useful lens sit on a shelf. I'll keep using mine as I have for the last 30 years.

Gary B
 
I am surprised that it did not go higher. One like it sold about 5 weeks ago for over $1600. Sales prices are kind of all over the board, though. A similar, although slightly used one, sold for about $875 around 3 weeks ago. I would have gone after the latter, if I did not already have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom