Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi folks,
in my own definition, I'm a RF fanatic and SLR hater now, since I bought a RF 1.5/85mm lens. Stupid too, because like everyone knows, focussing such a lens on a RF camera is nearly impossible and more guesswork than anything else... 😛
finally, my Serenar 85/1.5 has arrived. With brown leather case (Canon eagle logo) described Serenar and chrome finder. It's the very early version, I think 1951... low S/N, 10189 something. Blue coating.
It's very impressing: superb finish. Glossy like silver. Smooth rings (also some screws were a bit lose and needs to re-tightened). Never seen a lens with so many diaphragm-blades.
Far ahead the later all-black finish style but heavier too. I just did a few portrait shots on my Canon P. Strangely, the hole-type finder show the 85mm field more like the 50mm frame of my Canon-P than the 100mm! I have a brightline Japanese finder (not Canon) with 85mm and 135mm but it minimizes me too much (it has 35mm too). Anyway, I'm used to framelines in my Canon 7 and the 85/100 difference isn't very much. So I think it is a lot of guesswork in composition: "a bit more than 100mm frame" is OK for me... Actually it is a lens for a LeicaIII type Canon, but I have none. The Canon P is a bit to late to be historically correct, the Canon 7 ten years... I will prefer it on my Canon P rather than the 7...
But a lens slow to focus. Three quarters turn to 3.5 ft, and you move much glass and metal (single helicoil) ! (even the RF 1.8/85 is slow when compared to a SLR Zeiss 1.4/85) And you need to set aperture first.
I hope it is well aligned to the rangefinder. Will see it on pictures.
I have the 1.8/85 too and I wondered because the 1.5/85 is longer but not by much. It seems so that the 1.8/85 is a telephoto design whereas the 1.5/85 isn't. It's cemented triplet is an argument to call it a Sonnar-derivate, although the last group is splitted. I think sharpness wide open will not be the argument - at f/8-11 neither - too much glass to carry it around for standard, especially when the 3.5/100 is such a great and lightweight lens...
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Main.html
in my own definition, I'm a RF fanatic and SLR hater now, since I bought a RF 1.5/85mm lens. Stupid too, because like everyone knows, focussing such a lens on a RF camera is nearly impossible and more guesswork than anything else... 😛
finally, my Serenar 85/1.5 has arrived. With brown leather case (Canon eagle logo) described Serenar and chrome finder. It's the very early version, I think 1951... low S/N, 10189 something. Blue coating.
It's very impressing: superb finish. Glossy like silver. Smooth rings (also some screws were a bit lose and needs to re-tightened). Never seen a lens with so many diaphragm-blades.
Far ahead the later all-black finish style but heavier too. I just did a few portrait shots on my Canon P. Strangely, the hole-type finder show the 85mm field more like the 50mm frame of my Canon-P than the 100mm! I have a brightline Japanese finder (not Canon) with 85mm and 135mm but it minimizes me too much (it has 35mm too). Anyway, I'm used to framelines in my Canon 7 and the 85/100 difference isn't very much. So I think it is a lot of guesswork in composition: "a bit more than 100mm frame" is OK for me... Actually it is a lens for a LeicaIII type Canon, but I have none. The Canon P is a bit to late to be historically correct, the Canon 7 ten years... I will prefer it on my Canon P rather than the 7...
But a lens slow to focus. Three quarters turn to 3.5 ft, and you move much glass and metal (single helicoil) ! (even the RF 1.8/85 is slow when compared to a SLR Zeiss 1.4/85) And you need to set aperture first.
I hope it is well aligned to the rangefinder. Will see it on pictures.
I have the 1.8/85 too and I wondered because the 1.5/85 is longer but not by much. It seems so that the 1.8/85 is a telephoto design whereas the 1.5/85 isn't. It's cemented triplet is an argument to call it a Sonnar-derivate, although the last group is splitted. I think sharpness wide open will not be the argument - at f/8-11 neither - too much glass to carry it around for standard, especially when the 3.5/100 is such a great and lightweight lens...
cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Main.html
