projectbluebird
Film Abuser
Recently, I was showing off my screwmount leicas and lens collection to the photographers at my new job (daily university newspaper.) They were impressed, as was the adviser, who was a photojournalist for many years.
While they were ogling my cameras, the adviser made a comment about the canon 85/2 and 135/3.5 that I had never heard before. He said that they were both APO lenses, and that's what made canon's reputation in the 50's.
Now, my 85 is among the sharpest lenses I own, but this sounds fishy to me. Is he right, or was he blowing smoke?
While they were ogling my cameras, the adviser made a comment about the canon 85/2 and 135/3.5 that I had never heard before. He said that they were both APO lenses, and that's what made canon's reputation in the 50's.
Now, my 85 is among the sharpest lenses I own, but this sounds fishy to me. Is he right, or was he blowing smoke?
Sonnar2
Well-known
Never heard of that. If they were apochromatic, CANON would have claimed that on patent. But they hadn't. Canon had a lot of patents in the 1950's on 35mm camera lenses (probably more as E.Leitz, more than all other Japanese companies together incl. Nikon). The had patents on the 50/1.8, 35/1.8, 35/1.5, 85/1.5, 100/3.5, 85/1.8 and probably some others. No patents on the 50/0.95 and none on the 85/2. The 85/2 was just a damn good Gaussian lens (no telephoto construction) so it was quite long and heavy. But so was the 90/2 Summicron from Leitz.
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
Thanks! That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure. I agree with your opinion of Canon's 85/2, as rangefinder lenses go it's large, but still quite small compared to a similar lens for SLR. I just picked up a ltm nikkor 85/2, and it's much shorter, but wider. I'll see how it compares, but I have a feeling the canon is here to stay.