Canon 100mm 3.5 with Leica M10

Ok ok. I hope I have an an adapter for 28-90. I want to use my lens. Weather here is currently miserable though.:(
 
I haven't gotten around to learning how to post images yet.....but I took my little Canon 100/3.5 out to photograph invasive weeds for a grant proposal. My lens looks to be perfect -- no haze, scratches, marks, debris, perfect interior, perfect coating, no marks on outside. I guess what could honestly be "near mint" to quote ebay.
And, I'm not that impressed. Softer than I expected even at f8 or so. Maybe I'm getting spoiled by my other newer lenses?
 
At F4 the Canon 100/3.5 is very sharp- tested at 90lp/mm. The focus could be off, or the lens might be incorrectly assembled. It is very easy to get the elements in backwards when reassembling.



I learned to mark the outer surfaces of the rear elements before disassembling, use a Sharpie to make a small dot on the edge of the glass

 
Agree with Brian: This lens is very sharp! I have the black and chrome version. When I bought it, it had haze on one of the internal elemants. Roland (ferider) graciously cleaned the lens, and it’s a great performer today. I need to use it more. The photo immediately below was taken on film, with a Leica M2, about 10 years ago; I have a 29x19 print of the image hanging at home. It printed very well.

Cholla-Blooms by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

This is a more recent photo. It was taken in the very late afternoon at Half Moon Bay, CA, at f.4, on my M-E Type 240:

Evening waves by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
What Brian and Steve have said above. The posted images are proof of the lens sharpness.
 
I guess I need to learn how to post images.
I doubt my lens has ever been disassembled, but I've learned never be certain of that. It looks like new.....black and chrome version.
Images can almost appear sharp, but compared to...say my Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4....it's clear they're a bit soft at all apertures. I'm a bit bummed out about that. I heard that it is supposed to be quite sharp. I've taken into account RF innacuracy with subjects that have "depth" so I can still get sharp even if the plane of focus is off. Again, it gets almost sharp, and if I didn't have genuine sharp lenses I might try to convince myself.... Ultimately, I guess it might be sample variation and I got very unlucky :(
 
rfaspen said:
I guess I need to learn how to post images.
I doubt my lens has ever been disassembled, but I've learned never be certain of that. It looks like new.....black and chrome version.
Images can almost appear sharp, but compared to...say my Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4....it's clear they're a bit soft at all apertures. I'm a bit bummed out about that. I heard that it is supposed to be quite sharp. I've taken into account RF innacuracy with subjects that have "depth" so I can still get sharp even if the plane of focus is off. Again, it gets almost sharp, and if I didn't have genuine sharp lenses I might try to convince myself.... Ultimately, I guess it might be sample variation and I got very unlucky :(
Click to expand...

Do you have a camera with LiveView?
 
raid said:
Do you have a camera with LiveView?
Click to expand...

Yes, I tried the lens on both the M9 and M240 (some shots with LV and even focus peaking). My assessment of sharpness is not hindered by RF accuracy, etc. I made images that rather decisively reflect the sharpness of the lens. The lens is just a tad soft. I explicitly compared with images from an LTM Elmar 90 of similar age. I have many other lenses of similar age I can also compare with. The sharpness of my Canon 100/3.5 is similar to perhaps my Jupiter-3 at f4 or so. I'm not trying to compare those lenses directly, just give an idea of the softness level. I really think I just have a soft copy of the lens. It's probably plenty sharp for most film users and images appear sharp enough at small image sizes. I'm not being overly critical, but if I compare the Canon with other lenses I have from the same era, it just isn't as sharp.

There is no evidence of this lens being serviced. If it was, it would have been a "professional" who I would expect to reassemble the lens correctly. What's more, the degree of unsharpness is nowhere near the level of a mis-assembled lens.

Although I'm disappointed to have received the low end of QC for this lens, I have plenty of other lenses to play with. I just won't be playing with this one.
 
filedata/fetch?filedataid=111850 Canon FL 100mm 3.5 shot at 5.6 using a Sony a6000 and 20mm extension tube (Image size set to medium/12mp)
Focus is at the spark plug wire and connector...
The glass on this lens is clean and clear, the whole lens appears like new.
 

Attachments

  • photo111850.jpg
    photo111850.jpg
    176.2 KB · Views: 0
rfaspen said:
Yes, I tried the lens on both the M9 and M240 (some shots with LV and even focus peaking). My assessment of sharpness is not hindered by RF accuracy, etc. I made images that rather decisively reflect the sharpness of the lens. The lens is just a tad soft. I explicitly compared with images from an LTM Elmar 90 of similar age. I have many other lenses of similar age I can also compare with. The sharpness of my Canon 100/3.5 is similar to perhaps my Jupiter-3 at f4 or so. I'm not trying to compare those lenses directly, just give an idea of the softness level. I really think I just have a soft copy of the lens. It's probably plenty sharp for most film users and images appear sharp enough at small image sizes. I'm not being overly critical, but if I compare the Canon with other lenses I have from the same era, it just isn't as sharp.

There is no evidence of this lens being serviced. If it was, it would have been a "professional" who I would expect to reassemble the lens correctly. What's more, the degree of unsharpness is nowhere near the level of a mis-assembled lens.

Although I'm disappointed to have received the low end of QC for this lens, I have plenty of other lenses to play with. I just won't be playing with this one.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. There must be something going on with your lens. I’m sure you checked it for haze… A good Canon 100/3.5 should be pretty sharp. Youxin Ye cleaned my Canon 50/1.8. It might be worth inquiring if he’ll CLA your 100. The hat in the photo below looks sharp to me…

052509-Hat by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom