gdi
Veteran
Thanks Peter,
It is a 2xxxxx lens, but I do not see any inked code on the locking flange - unless you mean I need to dismantle it to check the inside.
The adapter on the left is actually two pieces - held together with a breech mount interface which looks just like the Canon 7/0.95 lens mount, except it is considerably smaller and has C-Mount threads. The tab sticking up is used to rotate the breech lock. This may be a Canon piece to allow C-mount lens to be mounted and removed quickly???
Both of those adapters have C-mount coupling on the front and the large rear threaded back.
Thanks
CanonRFinder
Well-known
Ah...that is why because it is a first version .095 with the RF cam. Just re-read your post. Can you give me the full # and I will record it. If you take the C mount of by removing the four screws will the lens fit the model 7 camera, that is if you have one. Peter
gdi
Veteran
The number is 23739.
And yes, the lens works great on a 7 or 7s - the cmount adapter has the same mount as the Canon 7 - so it just detaches by rotating the lock, no screws are involved. The C-mount adapter can be used as a rear cap - but since I don't use my 7 for anything other than the 0.95, it stays on the camera.
I have another lens that I converted so I plan to keep this one for the 7s/7.
Thanks
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
My copy of Peter's book arrived today, a little more than a week after I ordered. I live in the eastern US. Wow, it's beautiful! The layout, design, photography, and writing are all superb, and the level of geekiness here is unparalleled. Plus, I am having a Photo Dork Potluck this evening, and have put the book out on the coffee table. People are going to really dig it.
The only thing that I wish was in this book that isn't, is information about whether or not certain lenses are any good. I realize that Peter's aim was merely to offer exhaustive and unbiased information on these lenses, but it would have been great to get a bit of expert opinion, too.
In any event, fantastic work, Peter, and thank you for shipping so quickly.
The only thing that I wish was in this book that isn't, is information about whether or not certain lenses are any good. I realize that Peter's aim was merely to offer exhaustive and unbiased information on these lenses, but it would have been great to get a bit of expert opinion, too.
In any event, fantastic work, Peter, and thank you for shipping so quickly.
Nokton48
Veteran
I ordered my copy two days ago. Will post when it arrives.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Peter, probably wisely, stuck to facts as he found them. Opinions on lenses, as with food, wine, and most other things, vary widely depending on the needs and usage of the critic. There are cult lenses, such as the 50/1.5 and the 50/0.95, where the views are changing for the better, but some vary quite a bit. Many of the lenses are rightly thought of as among the best of their type and period. I think the 50/1.8 and the 35/2 stand up to practically anything, as an example.
Reading many of the past posts will give you a good feel for the lenses that are especially appreciated. This is a great resource for opinion... and the range can be wide. Part of this stems from the expectations of the user, and, probably, his/her level of sophistication. In any case, it's still opinion. Your milage may vary...:angel:
Harry
stesm
Established
Peter, the book is fabulous! The wealth of data and your attention to detail are sure to make it the reference source for the Canon lenses for decades to come. Thank you for the tremendous effort.
Steve
Steve
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well put. Undoubtedly, Peter has succeeded wildly here, and perhaps opinion is better left for the internet.
CanonRFinder
Well-known
I must admit I had thoughts about doing test on each lens but the research into that would really need a LOT OF TIME. They also need to be gauged against other manufacturer’s lenses, which I own very few…. read five. The other stumbling block at the time was the time and cost of film/developing (before digital took hold) and most of my $$$ went towards general living expenses, acquiring gear from eBay and other sources, financing the editor, layout artist then the printing. The optics of the lenses does intrigue me because of my profession. One particular lens in my collection I would love to do a Carbon Dating of the glass to prove a theory but I have yet to look into that to see if it is possible. My main aim was to get something out there on Canon RF lenses much like Rotoloni has done with Nikon and Laney with Leica but also make it readable for someone who does not speak the English language. I hope that it does both. Peter
dexdog
Veteran
MY copy of the book arrived today- wow! Peter, the book is beautiful. Thanks for undertaking the task of assembling this data, and doing such a great job on the book.
raid
Dad Photographer
Mark,
What is your book number?
I am waiting for my copy to arrive one day.
What is your book number?
I am waiting for my copy to arrive one day.
dexdog
Veteran
Raid, my copy is #15.
raid
Dad Photographer
Mine is 57 or so. I waited ....
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I didn't know they were numbered! I have 42. Life, the Universe, and Everything.
saltyfli
Member
Fast shipping time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter I got your book yesterday in the mail . About a week from order to my door step here in New York. I am very impressed with the quailty , and content , great job. Will spend a lot of time with it this weekend. Thank You. Saltyfli@aol.com, Kevin M Brennan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter I got your book yesterday in the mail . About a week from order to my door step here in New York. I am very impressed with the quailty , and content , great job. Will spend a lot of time with it this weekend. Thank You. Saltyfli@aol.com, Kevin M Brennan
Sonnar2
Well-known
Peter, we need to discuss about S/N data. Do you really think 9000's of the 135/2.5 M lenses (MB2) were made? You give the number range of 10001 (10036)-19860. My is 10045, published in http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_MB2.html
My experience is, they appearing less than 1x per year in ebay (even considered they are often misplaced as SLR lenses). My suggestion is they have some 100's made, probably 400 or so.
I'm looking for a 200/3.5 (M), but I haven't seen one for a long time. Even the MB2's are very rare (sad they have no numbers). The lenses are useless without a MB2 (in conjunction to Leica lenses which can be adopted). In terms of sales they must be a complete failure.
Given the database numbers it can be statistically proven if the whole range between a minimum and maximum number is uniformly used or not. My theory is (about the later lenses) Canon started each production charge with a round sequence, say 1000x (not exactly 10000) and the next 1020x, 1050x, 1100x or 1200x. And for some lenses, my believe is the runs are of hundreds, or just hundred, or whatever small number they used, than leaving 900's blank. So the numbers are MUCH smaller for some, if not most lenses. I cannot believe the 100,000 lenses of the 50/1.4 type either (even less, Hoopers number of more than 150,000, not including the type 1, which is at least 25% in occurance). But Hooper gaves 980 of the 19/3.5, probably based on the Canon datasheet book you mentioned. This sounds more realistic than 2280.
For better research in the future we probably need an open database, like the one of Pentax screwmount cameras and lenses done by Nigel Utting. This is also of collector's interest. If production figures are LOWER than written in the established sources, of course this has an impact on market value and selling price...
My experience is, they appearing less than 1x per year in ebay (even considered they are often misplaced as SLR lenses). My suggestion is they have some 100's made, probably 400 or so.
I'm looking for a 200/3.5 (M), but I haven't seen one for a long time. Even the MB2's are very rare (sad they have no numbers). The lenses are useless without a MB2 (in conjunction to Leica lenses which can be adopted). In terms of sales they must be a complete failure.
Given the database numbers it can be statistically proven if the whole range between a minimum and maximum number is uniformly used or not. My theory is (about the later lenses) Canon started each production charge with a round sequence, say 1000x (not exactly 10000) and the next 1020x, 1050x, 1100x or 1200x. And for some lenses, my believe is the runs are of hundreds, or just hundred, or whatever small number they used, than leaving 900's blank. So the numbers are MUCH smaller for some, if not most lenses. I cannot believe the 100,000 lenses of the 50/1.4 type either (even less, Hoopers number of more than 150,000, not including the type 1, which is at least 25% in occurance). But Hooper gaves 980 of the 19/3.5, probably based on the Canon datasheet book you mentioned. This sounds more realistic than 2280.
For better research in the future we probably need an open database, like the one of Pentax screwmount cameras and lenses done by Nigel Utting. This is also of collector's interest. If production figures are LOWER than written in the established sources, of course this has an impact on market value and selling price...
CanonRFinder
Well-known
HI Sonnar,
Ah, a discussion on something that has intrigued me
When I was doing the research the only indication I had for the number of lenses that were produced by Canon during the rangefinder era was a list that Peter Dechert had received from the factory, which he kindly sent me a copy. Alas this list ended at 1956 hence the box which appears in the “Type Progression Table” charts under the heading “Official # of lenses Canon produced to the End of 1956”. The other source I attained early in my research was a number of original articles by Randol Hooper, which appeared in the LHSA. I was always curious how Randol obtained his production figures he mentioned and it wasn’t until I won on eBay shortly after I went to print, a book produced by Canon Inc called the Lens Data book (dated 1981). In it was all the production # that Randol had quoted. Right from the outset when I was putting the book together, I knew when I placed a number in the box “Units between serial number range” that there would be confusion. This is one reason early in the book on page 10 is the following sub heading,
Serial numbers of lenses and hypothetical numbers of units produced
The three serial numbers I mention in the charts under the “Serial Number Range” heading are the presumed serial numbers of the first lens as well as the lowest (TYPE 1 in brackets) and highest lenses recorded at the time this book went to print. The number under “Units between Serial Number Range” is the number between the highest and lowest serial numbers and not the number of lenses that were actually produced in that particular lens TYPE. This number could be used as an indicator of how many lenses may have been produced. A low number means that the lens is uncommon, while a high number indicates that the lens is reasonably common. Most Canon Rangefinder camera models had no sequence in their serial numbers because they were produced in batches. Early lenses released before the SERENAR 28mm f/3.5 (serial numbers starting with 10001), however, were also produced in batches. Prior to the release of the 28mmf/3.5 lens in October 1951, a Japanese tax law might have mandated that no two serial numbers be duplicated. If a lens was rejected by the qualitycontrol team at the end of production, that lens was either destroyed or placed back on the line for rectification. The serial number belonging to this lens became available on the master list. In October 1951, this law may have been rescinded, as illustrated by the fact that most new lenses released after that date had serial numbers beginning with 10001. There are exceptions.[FONT="][1][/FONT] Some official factory records[FONT="][2][/FONT] indicate the actual number of lenses produced, and this estimated number appears in my Lens TYPE chart under the heading “Official Number of Units Produced”.
I also mentioned it again on page 58.
This theory probably falls down when it comes to the MB 135mm f/2.5 lens and the other MB lenses as well as the Long and Extra Long Tele Lenses as I have recorded so few examples. I checked the Canon Lens Data book and frustratingly even there, they do not mention production figures for the MB lenses or the Long and Extra Long Tele Lenses, so the mystery will go on.
I just checked my database on the MB135mm f/2.5 lenses where I have recorded 11 examples to date. I noticed that there are TWO batches of numbers. The first is between #10036 and #10219(seven lenses) and #19514 and #19860 (four lenses). Whether there is some variation between the two I cannot say, as I own one example from group one and in the others group I have not recorded ownership. The whole research into the lenses after the 135mm f/4 lenses was frustrating to say the least as I could only surmise from my literature and fellow Canon collectors who owned examples.
I think the “Inked code” on the back of most lenses released after 1967 will give some indication of the Year/Month that Canon was producing their lenses. I hope that someone may start a list up of these and a pattern will unfold BUT I will leave that up to someone else.
The Canon Lens Data Book indicates that there are two TYPES of 50mm f/1.4 lenses and the difference is in the length (maybe some internal difference but will leave that up to someone else to investigate). The T1 has a length of 39mm and the T2 is 41.7mm, which is the length of my lens. In my book I measured the lengths of lenses from the front filter rim edge to the back of the screw mount whereas the book takes theirs from the front edge to the back of the lens itself and not the screw mount. They also mention a number for production of 158,388 units. Many of the later black lenses are still in peoples cupboards stored away and probably forgotten since the revolution of SLR, Auto Focus and now digital has come up on us.
On the 19mm f/3.5 lens I thought at first that the RF and FL lenses were produced at the same time but in batches, but I have recorded two lenses, one RF and one FL with the same serial number.
I have just seen a model P in an auction in NZ, which had a 50mm f/2.8 lens on it with the serial #39952. This beat a recently recorded #38690 at Westlicht auction in Germany. Since I mentioned in my book #37534 as the last # before I went to print, this has blown it out by 2418 units. I have wondered if some later lenses were sent to destinations other than North America.
I only wish I had the Lens Data book when I was doing my research as it may have cleared up some mysteries.
Makes for much head scratching and some late nights.
Ah, a discussion on something that has intrigued me
When I was doing the research the only indication I had for the number of lenses that were produced by Canon during the rangefinder era was a list that Peter Dechert had received from the factory, which he kindly sent me a copy. Alas this list ended at 1956 hence the box which appears in the “Type Progression Table” charts under the heading “Official # of lenses Canon produced to the End of 1956”. The other source I attained early in my research was a number of original articles by Randol Hooper, which appeared in the LHSA. I was always curious how Randol obtained his production figures he mentioned and it wasn’t until I won on eBay shortly after I went to print, a book produced by Canon Inc called the Lens Data book (dated 1981). In it was all the production # that Randol had quoted. Right from the outset when I was putting the book together, I knew when I placed a number in the box “Units between serial number range” that there would be confusion. This is one reason early in the book on page 10 is the following sub heading,
Serial numbers of lenses and hypothetical numbers of units produced
The three serial numbers I mention in the charts under the “Serial Number Range” heading are the presumed serial numbers of the first lens as well as the lowest (TYPE 1 in brackets) and highest lenses recorded at the time this book went to print. The number under “Units between Serial Number Range” is the number between the highest and lowest serial numbers and not the number of lenses that were actually produced in that particular lens TYPE. This number could be used as an indicator of how many lenses may have been produced. A low number means that the lens is uncommon, while a high number indicates that the lens is reasonably common. Most Canon Rangefinder camera models had no sequence in their serial numbers because they were produced in batches. Early lenses released before the SERENAR 28mm f/3.5 (serial numbers starting with 10001), however, were also produced in batches. Prior to the release of the 28mmf/3.5 lens in October 1951, a Japanese tax law might have mandated that no two serial numbers be duplicated. If a lens was rejected by the qualitycontrol team at the end of production, that lens was either destroyed or placed back on the line for rectification. The serial number belonging to this lens became available on the master list. In October 1951, this law may have been rescinded, as illustrated by the fact that most new lenses released after that date had serial numbers beginning with 10001. There are exceptions.[FONT="][1][/FONT] Some official factory records[FONT="][2][/FONT] indicate the actual number of lenses produced, and this estimated number appears in my Lens TYPE chart under the heading “Official Number of Units Produced”.
I also mentioned it again on page 58.
This theory probably falls down when it comes to the MB 135mm f/2.5 lens and the other MB lenses as well as the Long and Extra Long Tele Lenses as I have recorded so few examples. I checked the Canon Lens Data book and frustratingly even there, they do not mention production figures for the MB lenses or the Long and Extra Long Tele Lenses, so the mystery will go on.
I just checked my database on the MB135mm f/2.5 lenses where I have recorded 11 examples to date. I noticed that there are TWO batches of numbers. The first is between #10036 and #10219(seven lenses) and #19514 and #19860 (four lenses). Whether there is some variation between the two I cannot say, as I own one example from group one and in the others group I have not recorded ownership. The whole research into the lenses after the 135mm f/4 lenses was frustrating to say the least as I could only surmise from my literature and fellow Canon collectors who owned examples.
I think the “Inked code” on the back of most lenses released after 1967 will give some indication of the Year/Month that Canon was producing their lenses. I hope that someone may start a list up of these and a pattern will unfold BUT I will leave that up to someone else.
The Canon Lens Data Book indicates that there are two TYPES of 50mm f/1.4 lenses and the difference is in the length (maybe some internal difference but will leave that up to someone else to investigate). The T1 has a length of 39mm and the T2 is 41.7mm, which is the length of my lens. In my book I measured the lengths of lenses from the front filter rim edge to the back of the screw mount whereas the book takes theirs from the front edge to the back of the lens itself and not the screw mount. They also mention a number for production of 158,388 units. Many of the later black lenses are still in peoples cupboards stored away and probably forgotten since the revolution of SLR, Auto Focus and now digital has come up on us.
On the 19mm f/3.5 lens I thought at first that the RF and FL lenses were produced at the same time but in batches, but I have recorded two lenses, one RF and one FL with the same serial number.
I have just seen a model P in an auction in NZ, which had a 50mm f/2.8 lens on it with the serial #39952. This beat a recently recorded #38690 at Westlicht auction in Germany. Since I mentioned in my book #37534 as the last # before I went to print, this has blown it out by 2418 units. I have wondered if some later lenses were sent to destinations other than North America.
I only wish I had the Lens Data book when I was doing my research as it may have cleared up some mysteries.
Makes for much head scratching and some late nights.