squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Has anyone managed to find one of these recently at a reasonable price? Kevin on eBay has one for $385; this seems excessive given that it's the same glass as the silver ones (he has another mint one he's asking more than $800 for--holy crap!).
I've actually been thinking of buying another copy of the 100/2, which I sold last year. It is an incredible lens, but freaking huge. The black 100/3.5 would be ideal.
I've actually been thinking of buying another copy of the 100/2, which I sold last year. It is an incredible lens, but freaking huge. The black 100/3.5 would be ideal.
bennyng
Benny Ng
The late types of the black version are known to command high prices. US$800 may not be unusual for a Type 7 variant. Earlier versions are a lot cheaper.
Cheers,
Cheers,
furcafe
Veteran
Kevin's prices are on the high side but IIRC, I paid around $300 for mine, in good condition, about 8 years ago. I will defer to bennyng as to the prices of rarer variations as I'm by no means a Canon RF expert (e.g., I have no idea there were so many versions of the all-black 100/3.5 as the Canon Museum only lists 1).
Let me know if you decide to reacquire a 100/2 as I have 1 that I hardly use. It is indeed a big beast for a RF lens.
Let me know if you decide to reacquire a 100/2 as I have 1 that I hardly use. It is indeed a big beast for a RF lens.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
According to Peter's book, there seem to have been three slightly different versions of the black "LMIJ" 100/3.5. Not sure if any are considered more valuable than the others; they would seem to be functionally identical though.
I'm tempted to get Kevin's cheaper one, but he says it's got a light haze. It would probably be of little consequence, but I know if would drive me bananas and I would eventually pay somebody to clean it.
I'm tempted to get Kevin's cheaper one, but he says it's got a light haze. It would probably be of little consequence, but I know if would drive me bananas and I would eventually pay somebody to clean it.
venchka
Veteran
I have a 135/3.5 with caps, hood, finder & case. I wish I could get half of the lower end prices quoted above. As it stands, it's worth more to me in use on Bigfoot.
Last edited:
Sonnar2
Well-known
Sadly the 100/3.5 (in chrome or black) is prone to "haze" type of fungus.
The same with the black version of the 50/1.8
The same with the black version of the 50/1.8
Krosya
Konicaze
Are you all talking about one like this?:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yes, that's the one! Actually, while searching about for info on the lens, I happened across a thread where you posted that photo...very nice indeed.
ethics_gradient
Well-known
What does the 100/2 usually go for? I have one in really nice condition that's on it's way back from a CLA (RF adjustment was off) that I'd like to sell, or trade for a 35mm lens. The front cap and rubber hood are aftermarket, however. I saw one that looked a bit beat up sit for weeks at $510 or so with no takers, went fairly quickly for $385 when the seller relisted it. They come up for sale so infrequently that it's hard to get a good feel for what they're worth.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I sold my 100/2 for about $250, I believe. There's on on KEH right now that's that cheap as well...I may buy it if it's still there in a few days. It is really superb, there's no denying it...
raid
Dad Photographer
I got my 100/3.5 for $65 in chrome.
squinza
Established
I paid for mine (which is being shipped right now) quite a lot more...
Hope it will work just fine, I love the focal length...
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I got my black 100/3.5 off the classified for about $130 if I can recall. $385 is way to expensive for a lens you'll actually use.
The chrome ones tend to come with a 100mm finder, so they can be actually more expensive.
The chrome ones tend to come with a 100mm finder, so they can be actually more expensive.
Bingley
Veteran
Prices on these lenses have gone up and down in recent years, and much also depends on the sample. I got my chrome and black version, w/ original case and a finder, for around $250 on the 'bay. It had haze on an internal element, which Roland graciously and expertly cleaned. The lens is fantastic now, and I've shot photos w/ it that have been enlarged to 30x20.
Mablo
Well-known
My clean and sharp chrome cost me $150 at KEH some two years ago. I have a feeling that I got it cheaply.
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
The chrome and black ones can be had for even less these days, actually. Currently there are two around $175 on KEH, and there's a cheaper one on eBay...I just really like the look and particularly the handling of the late Canon lenses.
bennyng
Benny Ng
There are differences between the different types of all black lenses. The coatings are clearly different though there's not much being said about which is better. The barrel is also different as well, with the late Type 6 and all Type 7 having a fully engraved markings unlike the earlier ones.
As mentioned so many times by others, the lens element behind the aperture blades can be problematic due to haze or worse, fog, which can be impossible to clean off.
This lens has a very small form factor, especially the early version and is really sharp! Filters and hoods are hard to come by. This pocket rocket is my second favorite Canon LTM lens after the Canon 50mm f/1.5 LTM.
Cheers,
Krosya
Konicaze
HU:
http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-100mm-f-3...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item230573e399
seems like a good deal?
http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-100mm-f-3...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item230573e399
seems like a good deal?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yes, I know...black! I am looking for the black one.
I'm leaning toward re-acquiring the 100/2, to be honest...
I'm leaning toward re-acquiring the 100/2, to be honest...
RichC
Well-known
The Canon 100/3.5 - a review
I use the Voigtlander 90mm lens a lot with my Leica M8, as I often shoot still lifes. However, the M8's framelines are rather loose - an irritation that's compounded the longer the lens. I'd heard that the Canon 100mm f3.5 was a good performer, and had always fancied trying it, to see if it would match the M8's framelines more closely than a 90mm lens.
Anyway, just before Xmas, I came across an ad for a black 1960s Canon 100/3.5 for £65. The reason it was cheap was that the seller described it as in good condition apart from damage to the coating, caused by removal of fungus when it was professionally serviced. I thought it was worth a punt, since at that price I could always sell it on at no loss, and bought it. I actually ended up costing me £85 because it was caught by customs - win some, lose some!
When I got it, it was in excellent condition apart from the optics, which, while free of scratches and cleaning marks, had loads of internal haze. And it wouldn't focus - close up, the focus was off by at least a foot! The lens languished in my drawer unused until last week, when I posted it to the Leica-expert Malcolm Taylor (based here in the UK) for a full service: he returned the lens after a speedy five-day turnaround, charging a very reasonable £75. In a note accompanying the lens, he said that someone with little knowledge had disassembled the lens and put it together wrongly, that the haze was years-old gunge deposited by evaporating grease, and that the coatings were fine. Somewhat dishonest of the seller as I wouldn’t have bought the lens if its true condition had been described ... still, the lens is now in perfect condition with crystal-clear optics after its service.
I've now had a chance to test the lens and compare it to my modern Voigtlander 90/3.5, and I'm very impressed. In most situations, you simply can't tell the difference between images from the lenses, which is remarkable considering that the Voigtlander lens is an extremely good modern computer design, while the Canon was designed by manual calculation over 50 years ago (the Canon's barrel and its lens coatings were altered over the years, but its optics didn't). I'll say more on the Canon's performance later, but first I'll comment on lens design itself.
Description
The Canon 100/3.5 is fairly common - there are usually one or two to be found on eBay - but these tend to be one of the chrome/black versions from the 1950s. I wanted an all-black-version from the 1960s, which are harder to find and more expensive:
Canon Camera Museum
• 1950s chrome 100/3.5: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/100-1000/s_sere_100_35v1.html
• 1960s black 100/3.5: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/100-1000/s_100_35v3.html
See also:
• Versions: http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=telephoto_lenses&id=25
• Price: http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html - I've always found prices on this website far too optimistic (esp. for Europe), and almost doubling them is more realistic!
The black lens is a few millimetres larger and a couple of grams heavier than the chrome version, and the lens coatings are more advanced on the black lenses, giving (in theory) slightly better flare control and contrast (though the chrome lens is no slouch, so I've heard). Possibly, it just comes down to looks - and I prefer the more modern look of the black lens.
There’s a photo on http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Main.html of short telephoto lenses with the LTM mount that allows the size of the lenses to be compared (including both the chrome and black versions of the Canon lens).
The lens is very small and light - similar to the Voigtlander (without its hood) - the Canon is about 1 cm longer, 1 cm narrower and 10 g lighter. It's got a long focus throw, much longer than the Voigtlander, which is no bad thing for a telephoto lens, since focus accuracy is crucial. One thing I dislike is that turning the focus ring moves the whole of the front of the lens, including the aperture ring: this makes it difficult to change the aperture without inadvertently altering the focus (I believe the earlier chrome lens do this too).
The filter rings are strange sizes - the black version is 40mm, which makes finding a hood awkward (the standard hood for the black lens is a 42mm clamp on type, model T-42 - not horribly expensive but hard to find). I'm using a 40mm/40.5mm adapter ring so I can fit a 40.5mm hood (easier to find).
Performance
As I mentioned, it's hard to tell images from the Voigtlander and Canon apart: resolution, colour rendition (both very neutral) and contrast appear almost identical (on very close inspection, the Canon has perhaps a hair less contrast). Some samples images are shown below.
This is a pretty incredible performance from the Canon, because the Voigtlander 90mm at f8 is almost the equal of Leica. As Erwin Puts says: "[the Voigtlander] lens is a better choice than most second hand 90's from Leica ... and is very close to the performance of the current 2.8/90, which is some act" (http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/zeiss/page53.html).
The main difference is flare. Neither lens suffers overly from reflection-type flare (e.g. rings and star shapes) when pointed at light sources; however, they both suffer from veiling flare that reduces contrast uniformly across the frame when pointed at a low sun or when shooting against the light (veiling flare is the Voigtlander's Achilles' heel - a flaw in an otherwise brilliant design). At f3.5 (wide open), the Canon flares more than the Voigtlander, but at f5.6 and smaller, both lenses show the same amount of flare. However, all this said, neither lens is particularly sensitive to flare, and they're no worse than most typical modern lenses - but Leica and Zeiss lenses are more flare-resistant (but then are among the best-performing lenses you can buy). I've had my Voigtlander 90mm for a couple of years now, and have never had a problem with flare, and from my brief tests, I expect the Canon to be equally trouble-free, especially as I always use a hood with my lenses, and very rarely shoot wide open.
In summary, I can thoroughly recommend this lens, and agree with Dante Stella, who wrote "Tiny, sharp, and highly coveted, this lens is a must if you are a compactness freak" (http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html).
Leica M8 framelines with the Canon 100mm
Lastly, how well does it work with the Leica M8's framelines? Well, iit's a perfect match over 10 feet; at 3 feet (the closest focusing distance), the framelines show more than what's captured - you need to add half the height of the focusing patch to ensure that your image matches the framelines. So, you have a choice: a 90mm lens like the Voigtlander always captures more than what the framelines show, while the 100mm lens is accurate from 10 feet to infinity but captures less close up.
Sample images
Notes:
1. JPGs straight from my Leica M8 (no sharpening, colour corrections, etc.). These shouldn't be used to judge ultimate quality (of the lenses or the M8) but to compare the two lenses - to keep file sizes manageable, the full-size images have been reduced in quality, leading to loss of resolution, "stair-stepping" and other JPG artefacts.
2. The Canon images look at first glance sharper then the Voigtlander ones - this is an illusion (they're equally sharp) as the Canon lens with its slightly higher magnification is of course enlarging detail.
3. The flare images have been resized but all the others are 100%.
Click on thumbnails for larger images.
Canon at f3.5
Canon at f8
100% crop:
Voigtlander at f8
100% crop:
Flare - taken at 11 am, sun in front of lens (no hood)
Canon at f3.5:
Voigtlander at f3.5:
Canon at f8:
Voigtlander at f8:
I use the Voigtlander 90mm lens a lot with my Leica M8, as I often shoot still lifes. However, the M8's framelines are rather loose - an irritation that's compounded the longer the lens. I'd heard that the Canon 100mm f3.5 was a good performer, and had always fancied trying it, to see if it would match the M8's framelines more closely than a 90mm lens.
Anyway, just before Xmas, I came across an ad for a black 1960s Canon 100/3.5 for £65. The reason it was cheap was that the seller described it as in good condition apart from damage to the coating, caused by removal of fungus when it was professionally serviced. I thought it was worth a punt, since at that price I could always sell it on at no loss, and bought it. I actually ended up costing me £85 because it was caught by customs - win some, lose some!
When I got it, it was in excellent condition apart from the optics, which, while free of scratches and cleaning marks, had loads of internal haze. And it wouldn't focus - close up, the focus was off by at least a foot! The lens languished in my drawer unused until last week, when I posted it to the Leica-expert Malcolm Taylor (based here in the UK) for a full service: he returned the lens after a speedy five-day turnaround, charging a very reasonable £75. In a note accompanying the lens, he said that someone with little knowledge had disassembled the lens and put it together wrongly, that the haze was years-old gunge deposited by evaporating grease, and that the coatings were fine. Somewhat dishonest of the seller as I wouldn’t have bought the lens if its true condition had been described ... still, the lens is now in perfect condition with crystal-clear optics after its service.
I've now had a chance to test the lens and compare it to my modern Voigtlander 90/3.5, and I'm very impressed. In most situations, you simply can't tell the difference between images from the lenses, which is remarkable considering that the Voigtlander lens is an extremely good modern computer design, while the Canon was designed by manual calculation over 50 years ago (the Canon's barrel and its lens coatings were altered over the years, but its optics didn't). I'll say more on the Canon's performance later, but first I'll comment on lens design itself.
Description
The Canon 100/3.5 is fairly common - there are usually one or two to be found on eBay - but these tend to be one of the chrome/black versions from the 1950s. I wanted an all-black-version from the 1960s, which are harder to find and more expensive:
Canon Camera Museum
• 1950s chrome 100/3.5: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/100-1000/s_sere_100_35v1.html
• 1960s black 100/3.5: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/100-1000/s_100_35v3.html
See also:
• Versions: http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/index.php?page=lenses&type=telephoto_lenses&id=25
• Price: http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrflens.html - I've always found prices on this website far too optimistic (esp. for Europe), and almost doubling them is more realistic!
The black lens is a few millimetres larger and a couple of grams heavier than the chrome version, and the lens coatings are more advanced on the black lenses, giving (in theory) slightly better flare control and contrast (though the chrome lens is no slouch, so I've heard). Possibly, it just comes down to looks - and I prefer the more modern look of the black lens.
There’s a photo on http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Main.html of short telephoto lenses with the LTM mount that allows the size of the lenses to be compared (including both the chrome and black versions of the Canon lens).
The lens is very small and light - similar to the Voigtlander (without its hood) - the Canon is about 1 cm longer, 1 cm narrower and 10 g lighter. It's got a long focus throw, much longer than the Voigtlander, which is no bad thing for a telephoto lens, since focus accuracy is crucial. One thing I dislike is that turning the focus ring moves the whole of the front of the lens, including the aperture ring: this makes it difficult to change the aperture without inadvertently altering the focus (I believe the earlier chrome lens do this too).
The filter rings are strange sizes - the black version is 40mm, which makes finding a hood awkward (the standard hood for the black lens is a 42mm clamp on type, model T-42 - not horribly expensive but hard to find). I'm using a 40mm/40.5mm adapter ring so I can fit a 40.5mm hood (easier to find).
Performance
As I mentioned, it's hard to tell images from the Voigtlander and Canon apart: resolution, colour rendition (both very neutral) and contrast appear almost identical (on very close inspection, the Canon has perhaps a hair less contrast). Some samples images are shown below.
This is a pretty incredible performance from the Canon, because the Voigtlander 90mm at f8 is almost the equal of Leica. As Erwin Puts says: "[the Voigtlander] lens is a better choice than most second hand 90's from Leica ... and is very close to the performance of the current 2.8/90, which is some act" (http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/zeiss/zeiss/page53.html).
The main difference is flare. Neither lens suffers overly from reflection-type flare (e.g. rings and star shapes) when pointed at light sources; however, they both suffer from veiling flare that reduces contrast uniformly across the frame when pointed at a low sun or when shooting against the light (veiling flare is the Voigtlander's Achilles' heel - a flaw in an otherwise brilliant design). At f3.5 (wide open), the Canon flares more than the Voigtlander, but at f5.6 and smaller, both lenses show the same amount of flare. However, all this said, neither lens is particularly sensitive to flare, and they're no worse than most typical modern lenses - but Leica and Zeiss lenses are more flare-resistant (but then are among the best-performing lenses you can buy). I've had my Voigtlander 90mm for a couple of years now, and have never had a problem with flare, and from my brief tests, I expect the Canon to be equally trouble-free, especially as I always use a hood with my lenses, and very rarely shoot wide open.
In summary, I can thoroughly recommend this lens, and agree with Dante Stella, who wrote "Tiny, sharp, and highly coveted, this lens is a must if you are a compactness freak" (http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html).
Leica M8 framelines with the Canon 100mm
Lastly, how well does it work with the Leica M8's framelines? Well, iit's a perfect match over 10 feet; at 3 feet (the closest focusing distance), the framelines show more than what's captured - you need to add half the height of the focusing patch to ensure that your image matches the framelines. So, you have a choice: a 90mm lens like the Voigtlander always captures more than what the framelines show, while the 100mm lens is accurate from 10 feet to infinity but captures less close up.
Sample images
Notes:
1. JPGs straight from my Leica M8 (no sharpening, colour corrections, etc.). These shouldn't be used to judge ultimate quality (of the lenses or the M8) but to compare the two lenses - to keep file sizes manageable, the full-size images have been reduced in quality, leading to loss of resolution, "stair-stepping" and other JPG artefacts.
2. The Canon images look at first glance sharper then the Voigtlander ones - this is an illusion (they're equally sharp) as the Canon lens with its slightly higher magnification is of course enlarging detail.
3. The flare images have been resized but all the others are 100%.
Click on thumbnails for larger images.
Canon at f3.5
Canon at f8
100% crop:
Voigtlander at f8
100% crop:
Flare - taken at 11 am, sun in front of lens (no hood)
Canon at f3.5:
Voigtlander at f3.5:
Canon at f8:
Voigtlander at f8:
Last edited: