raid
Dad Photographer
What a beautiful image, Jim! This lens is excellent, too.
Canon 100mm 3.5 with Leica M10
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 31
- Views 3K
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Ok ok. I hope I have an an adapter for 28-90. I want to use my lens. Weather here is currently miserable though.🙁
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
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?
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?
raid
Dad Photographer
This lens is expected to give you very sharp results. Maybe the RF is off?
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
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
Bingley
Veteran
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
Cholla-Blooms by Steve Macfarlane, on FlickrThis 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
raid
Dad Photographer
What Brian and Steve have said above. The posted images are proof of the lens sharpness.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
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 🙁
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 🙁
raid
Dad Photographer
Do you have a camera with LiveView?
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
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.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
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.
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
Bingley
Veteran
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 FlickrSimilar threads
