Best LTM 50mm?

[Sonnar2]

I also have a tendency to collect 50mm's 🙂 I have 3 Canon RF's (leave alone a Canon FD 1.4/50, a Pentax SLR 1.4/50, and a Zeiss SLR M42 2.8/50)
About the 1.5/50 and 1.8/50. They both are very sharp, looks very similar but are complete different designs. The contrast of the 1.5 will be superior to the 1.8 because of the lesser number of groups. Whoever goes for the 1.5/50, wants a Sonnar type, a construction that isn't possible for a SLR lens. I have some very special city night shots made with this lens, absolutely great. Very special atmosphere. One of the most compact high-speed RF lenses ever. The cheapest you get in brass mount. A jewel.
Performance-wise there was no need to replace the 1.5/50 (at least I see none) with the obviously bigger 1.4, but Sonnars becoming unhip end of the 50's, and "f/1.4" a standard even Leica followed. And probably production costs were higher than with Planars fewer elements, so Sonnar's die off (except for Russia where cost calculation was unknown). I don't like the idea of "size is no matter" which seems to become Canon's mindset in the late 1960's/1970's (cameras and lenses becoming more and more huge and bulky) and seems to be one reason vintage prices are low because most collectors don't like that. That's not to say, I wouldn't like to have a later RF 1.4/50 (particular the later one with m/ft scale), since I emphasise more on late Canon lenses. If alone for comparing these three...

cheers, Frank

 

[rover]

Thanks for the Canon lens info Frank. I believe it is the Marc James Small LTM lens book I am reading (I have 2 going right now) which actually doesn't list Canon as a major RF player in the 1950s. He sites the big 3, Contax, Leica and Nikon. Though not the choice of pros perhaps, I would be willing to bet Canon sold more cameras in the 50s than at least Nikon and Contax. By the time the Canon cameras began to grow in size the SLR was already established and only Leica and Canon remained as RF manufactures. I guess their long history as a RF manufacturer is what draws me to Canon. Joe will get me to buy a P some day to enjoy my LTM lenses on.

 

[back alley]

oh yeah!

good idea rover.

joe

 

[xayraa33]

FSU gear is strange in a way. some will be very rugged and hold up well, and some will literally fall apart in your hands. Which reminds me of a new Mir 45mm WA for a Kiev 6x6 that, I bought ,that fell apart after very little use, a J 8 that siezed up on the focus helical after a short time of use, that could not be repaired .IMHO the aluminium on aluminium build of say, the Ltm Jupiters was a bad idea, these lens deserved better mounts , Great Glass most of the time, lousy helicals and general construction . Brass or Bronze focus helicals on these lenses would have almost brought them to the level of build quality of the classic 1950s japanese lenses. Since I know how good some of these FSU lenses can be, I find it a real shame.

 

[existrandom]

hi folks,

can anyone please post some pics taken by Canon 50/1.5 LTM?
cheers and thanks!

lee

 

[Roman]

Which reminds me of a new Mir 45mm WA for a Kiev 6x6 that, I bought ,that fell apart after very little use

You can be glad that it fell apart, rather than giving you more bad pictures - the 45mm Mir is the worst POS that ever was called a lens - a Holga is a high definition precision instrument compared to that lens!

Roman

 

[furcafe]

I believe the Planar design has more elements than the Sonnar, hence the importance of lens coatings towards making the Planar designs feasible after WWII. I remember reading that the Sonnar was very expensive to manufacture (the reason why Zeiss Ikon was going to switch to the Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton for the Contax IV's normal lens), but none of the sources really explained why in any detail (something to do w/the size & shape of the front element?).

Performance-wise there was no need to replace the 1.5/50 (at least I see none) with the obviously bigger 1.4, but Sonnars becoming unhip end of the 50's, and "f/1.4" a standard even Leica followed. And probably production costs were higher than with Planars fewer elements, so Sonnar's die off (except for Russia where cost calculation was unknown).
cheers, Frank

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Sonnar F1.5, Canon f1.5, and Nikkor F1.4 "Sonnar Copy" each have 7 elements, but have them in three groups. Before the advent of lens coatings, it was very important to cut down on the number of air-glass surfaces, each of which had a 4% reflection when not coated. Air-glass surfaces cut down on transmitted light and decreased overall contrast. Fast Planar copies split one of the 6-elements to decrease its power: the Summarit split the rear element into two less powerful elements and the Canon F1.2 and later Nikkor Olympic F1.4 split the front element. But they ended up with 7-elements for fast lenses like the F2 and F1.5 Sonnars. The Canon F1.4 was the exception, with its 6-element F1.4 lens. This was a result of Canon's experimentation with high-index of refraction lenses. The goal was to increase transmittance of the lens. If there was increased cost in manufacturing the Sonnar, perhaps it was mating more surfaces of elements and cementing them together, as opposed to coating more surfaces as required by the Planar design.

Just a hunch after reading "Photographic Lenses" by Neblette.

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3987

Just noticed the similarity between "D" the Canon 58mm F1.2 SLR lens that I have in FL mount and "P", the early Summilux/Summarit. Interesting that Canon changed the Split to the rear element of the Planar from the Front Element of the RF F1.2 lens. Maybe they wanted more glass in between those Radioactive inner elements and the film...

 

[rover]

What is this lens?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3877953706&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

 

[FrankS]

A Canon 50mm f1.8 - sweet!

 

[Sonnar Brian]

That is a C-Mount lens for 16mm Movie Cameras, and will also work great on CCD type cameras using C-Mount. The TV-16 means it will not cover a full 35mm frame. There are a lot of C-Mount lenses made by Canon.

 

[rover]

I knew the TV meant something. It is beautiful though.

 

[Paul Connet]

Canon 50mm/f1.5 PIC

Canon 50mm/f1.5 PIC

hi folks,

can anyone please post some pics taken by Canon 50/1.5 LTM?
cheers and thanks!

lee

Hi Lee,
Here is a comparison I did using a Canon 50/1.5 and a Leica 50 Summicron, (70's version). The photos were taken at 1 meter in deep shade on a sunny day. Shutter speed was limited to 1/500 so I had to use f2.8 to get a proper exposure.

The Canon shot is the top one, Leica on the bottom, 😉

You will see some flare from both lenses where the sunny sky was in the field of view behind the tree. Otherwise both lenses seem to exhibit an equivalent level of sharpness. The Canon lens came off pretty well against the Summicron IMO.

Regards, Paul C.

 

[FrankS]

It's hard to ell for certain on a compuer screen with 72dpi, but I'd say the Summicron was sharper and the Canon has more contrast. That's pretty much the story between Leitz and the Japanese lenses up to the 70's at which point Leitz decided to switch priorities and compete in terms of contrast.

 

[existrandom]

thanks paul, anymore?

lee

 

[Sonnar2]

see here: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_e.html#CANON_RF_1.5-50mm

enjoy, Frank 🙂

 

[John Robertson]

Taylor Hobson Anastigmat f2

Taylor Hobson Anastigmat f2

As mentioned earlier, my favourite lens, thought I'd add its picture. 😉

 

[doubs43]

Paul, if all is equal between the two pictures, look to the lower left of the shots. The Summacron clearly shows greater detail in the shadows. Leaves that are clearly visible in the Summacron shot cannot be seen at all in the Canon picture.

Walker

 

[Skinny McGee]

Summar 50mm F2 uncoated prewar

 

[rover]

I am really attached, actually my M3 is really attached to my Canon 50/1.5. I need to get some Leitz LTM stuff. The J8 is a real player too at less than $30. If you don't have one, why?