Canon 100/2 LTM lens - should I ?

[menos]

I am completely bitten by the Nikkor and Canon LTM lenses for use on Leica M.

After having my first non Leitz experience with a wonderful Nikkor-S.C 50 1.4 (all chrome), I bought in a frenzy also a nice 105/2.5 with hood and caps.

I played with both the Canon 100/2 and the Nikkor 105/2.5 Yesterday in the shop, while I liked the Canon quite a bit better for handling (weight, focussing, etc), I decided in the end for the Nikkor.

Now, that I had a good look at the Nikkor Yesterday, it appears almost mint (indeed the only sign of use is a ever so slightly little mark in the enamel on the barrel - almost invisible ).
It is a heavy, slow focussing lump of glass with black tripod mount (not used once, according to completely missing signs of use).

I don't like the Nikkor for shooting.

Should I go for the Canon?
Anybody has some links for extensive info on this lens (aperture ring is loose, needs fixing, which I prefer, to do myself).

What is the going rate these days - it ticks in at a rather expensive USD 620.
Glass seems pristine, aperture blades nice, barrel no heavy user (no obvious signs of use), aperture ring loose (play along optical axis, aperture works properly), focussing smooth. Lens comes without caps, hood or accessories.

Should I ?

 

[peterm1]

There is a list of LTM lens prices somewhere on the internet. I cannot immediately find it.

Also this brief entry in Gandy's site.

"100 mm

100/2 Canon Black: a great lens. one of the very best. Lens head removable reflex housing."

And here

http://www.cameraquest.com/crflen.htm

The 100mm F2 Canon from memory (a) is always hard to find and (b) attracts a pretty good price - more or less similar to the Leitz 90mm f2.

EDIT------here is the price list

http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html

The eBay prices in the above link for what are bog standard 135mm f3.5 lenses (which are good but are amongst the most common of Canon lenses) seems high. Perhaps there has been a resurgence of demand for Canon glass?? Several going for $300-$400. Not long ago they would often attract something in the $250 range.

Speaking personally I would be tempted based on its reputation alone. I had a chance to buy one many years ago at what now seems a great price and passed it up. I still have not stopped kicking myself. However one thing to be aware of is that these older lenses can some times have a very long throw and so can be slow to focus (not sure however about this one specifically) and also usually do not focus as close as modern lenses.

 

[f16sunshine]

Take the one in the rff classified for sub $500. Looks pretty sweet with original box and hood. It's not mine mind you.

here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...title/canon-100mm-f2-0-and-hexanon-28mm/cat/2

I bought a Canon f1.5/85mm rather than f2/100. It's a big heavy lump of brass and glass. Very much for special use but, I like it.

 

[menos]

Peter, Andy, thank you!

Wow that lens looks like a great deal, if one would be in Australia!

Peter, I think, you mean this site:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html

It is always a nice scale, to start from, but prices on anything, potentially fixed to a digital M these days skyrocket in price.
From Jan (latest price update) to now, there has quite a bit changed in lens prices in China :-(

I am still tempted by it. Anybody has an idea about the loose aperture ring?
Is it a DIY fix like with other lenses? How easy is the lens to access?

 

[bennyng]

The ones here in the classified these 2 weeks are a bit under-priced for their fine condition. I can't believe that they are under US$500!

I have both the Nikkor 10.5cm f/2.5 as well as the Canon 100mm f/2.0 and I like the weight and the handling and the built of the Nikkor very much. But for a day out, the Canon is much more user friendly. The images from the Canon is also amazing.

Cheers,

 

[jmilkins]

the nikkor has a fabulous reputation. I have the Canon and it is wonderfully made. A lot bigger than the 3.5 Canon gem though. However I paid a lot less than the $620 example you mention. Got mine from KEH in BGN condition though none there now. I think the site mentioned by Peter above is here

happy choosing.

 

[menos]

Ah, I see Benny!
I really tried to like the Nikkor Yesterday, but it really is a physically very long, heavy lens with heavy, long, long focus throw, making it very awkward to use on a M.
By contrast, I focus a Noctilux f1 in an eye blink spot on - I don't like the Nikkor.
I think about keeping it for now, as of it's great condition for possible later use.

The Canon 100/2 was a lot easier to handle in the shop Yesterday - if I only could figure, if the aperture ring is an easy fix (DIY ideally), as the price really isn't too good.

John, i really would like to find out the reasoning about the Nikkor's reputation - everybody seems to squirm about this on the web ;-)

 

[johannielscom]

If I'm not mistaking, the Nikkor 10,5cm 2.5 is the same as the first edition for Nikon F, and as such it is a Sonnar design of exceptional sharpness and very pleasing OOF.

Brian Sweeney has multiple specimens of the Nikkor 10,5cm I recently read here.

 

[jmilkins]

Johan's right. The Nikkor 105 LTM is a sonnar, was one of the stars of the Nikon RF stable, and and morphed into the F mount where it stayed for many years (even now many would likely say) as the signature portrait nikkor.

Here , and Here (down the page a little) is great info on it's heritage.

 

[menos]

Yes, Johan an John - I have inhaled the mir.com site descriptions on the Nikkor lens (too bad, that doesn't change my disliking of it's focussing).

I could not find much about the Canon 200/2 though.
This clearly is my favored lens from the two, now, that I have had a close look at the test images from Yesterday.

The Canon was always spot on focussing, while I had difficulties with the Nikkor, although the Nikkor does indeed look sharper than the Canon, when it hits focus.

I will head to the shop again and smell the Canon 200mm a second time (have to pick up a 35/90 LTM adaptor anyway).

 

[Never Satisfied]

Buy the one in the classifieds, he's a great bloke and it's a nice lens!

 

[Sonnar2]

The Nikkor 105/2.5 in LTM looks great but is very heavy and slow to focus.
The Canon 100/2 is much better to use. Sharper too. It is as sharp as the 2nd gen. (70's) 105/2.5 Nikkor F lens.
These two demonstrate what big jump the Japanese industry made between 1955 and 1960. ..well, some companies at least.

 

[menos]

Buy the one in the classifieds, he's a great bloke and it's a nice lens!

Thanks for the reassurance - I thought more like a quick pick up, as I am heading to Le Mans on the weekend and am still not decided for a low light lens (had the 135 for the day and dusk, while a 90/2 served for the night - the 100/2 looks really promising).

The Nikkor 105/2.5 in LTM looks great but is very heavy and slow to focus.
The Canon 100/2 is much better to use. Sharper too. It is as sharp as the 2nd gen. (70's) 105/2.5 Nikkor F lens.
These two demonstrate what big jump the Japanese industry made between 1955 and 1960. ..well, some companies at least.

You know what - I did it and bought the lens after loooong bartering over the lens' overall condition and asking price.
I paid too much, compared at momentary offerings (ebay and classifieds), but I knew, I could fix the technical flaw (aperture ring).

You basically unscrew the optical unit from the mount (tool less operation - love that!).
You then can remove the aperture ring for cleaning, checking and reassembly (took the slightest bit of green Loctite, to secure the three hidden set screws, which came loose, normally holding the aperture ring on the aperture assembly).

The lens is absolutely fantastic - crazy sharp wide open and worlds, worlds better to handle than the 105/2.5 Nikkor!

It basically has a similar weight as the latest pre ASPH 90 Cron, a similar, if not better by a hair, focus focus action with the culprit of a turning barrel, when focussing.

Nice lens really!

 

[Nokton48]

I've had mine for a couple of weeks now and absolutely love it!

Enjoy the lens.

 

[bennyng]

Congrats on the new acquisition Dirk! I'm sure you'll be in a great position to compare the results from the two lenses after a few weeks and decide on the much debated question of which is better for yourself.

Cheers,

 

[menos]

I've had mine for a couple of weeks now and absolutely love it!

Enjoy the lens.

Thanks! I am sure, I will ;-)

Congrats on the new acquisition Dirk! I'm sure you'll be in a great position to compare the results from the two lenses after a few weeks and decide on the much debated question of which is better for yourself.

Cheers,

Thank you Benny - I did a first quick asessment, based on which I will decide, which of the two will accompany me during this year's Le Mans 24h.


I did an impromptu portrait session with the Canon Yesterday night and don't like the Canon for portraits generally.

It indeed is exceptionally sharp and very (I mean VERY contrasty), right away from f2, which indeed is actually pretty crazy, considering it's vintage.

I will check it out for other purposes, were I could imagine, that I will quite like it.

It is indeed much, much better handling and way easier to focus than the Nikkor 105/2.5.
I didn't test the Nikkor yet for portraiture, but expect it to look more pleasing (less deadly sharp and contrasty, but more natural).

What I saw with the Nikkor in testing is, that it in fact has better fine detail (renders very, very fine details like fibres and hair precisely), but doesn't nuke soft facial expressions like the Canon.

It looks, like the Canon will potentially become my low light companion motor sport lens to the 135 APO Telyt, which should fit in character (contrasty), albeit lower resolving than the APO (less dramatic crops possible).

Did anybody see, that Stephen lists the Canon 100/2 as:

100/2 * Black 6/4 22 3.5&1 58 60 T-60 515

* = Extremely Rare

???

What does that mean? Are these becoming collectors?
I see two on ebay, two around in classifieds and saw two in the shop, I bought mine (from what the other one was a fungus lens unfortunately :bang::bang::bang🙂 - what a loss - one less than.

 

[menos]

Yes, the comparison between 90 Cron pre ASPH and Canon 100/2 really is on my list.
I love my 90 Cron (latest pre ASPH), but it looks, that the Canon has a few ticks going for it as well.

Here is a surprising similar situation for me with both a shot from my "first ride" with the Cron from last Year and a shot from the first few with the Canon 100/2:

90 Cron pre ASPH:

Canon 100/2:

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I posted this in the last 100/2 thread but will put it here again FOR SCIENCE. But check out the total lack of purple fringing wide open here. I really do adore this lens.


Dining room vase-1 by mabel.sound, on Flickr

 

[uhoh7]

I could be wrong, but having both Canon 100s:

the 3.5 is wicked sharp at medium distance, but the f/2 beats it in sharpness at infinity.

hence the f/2 is a superior landscape lens (my comparisons at f/5.6), as also I think is the tele-elmarit 90, compared to the canon 100/3.5

I was liking but not LOVING the 3.5 for landscapes, but when I shot from 20-30 feet, I was astounded at the sharpness.

this could be related to my copies of course.

 

[Koni Kowa]

Looking at menos portraits, I could not resist any longer so I found a very nice Canon 100mm f/2 LTM in june and used it during the summer. 🙂

First shot : oops, it was a 90mm frame in my M2 viewfinder...