Canon LTM Canon 100mm/f3.5 ltm

[Gordon Coale]

A few kind words about the tiny Canon 100/f3.5 in Leica thread mount. I have a chrome and black version from around 1955. I hadn't used it yet but I want to use it for some Gigapans on a Pen Mini so I did some test shots with it on my Panasonic GX1.

Wow!

I printed this at 16x20 and it is beautiful! On a micro four thirds camera it is equivalent to a 200mm lens.

 

[rhl-oregon]

This is a favorite for me too. (Dante Stella is to blame for my Serenar lenses.) I have used it at FF/film, APS (150mm), and M43.

When the Dalai Lama visited here recently, I had it on the GXR and shot a series from about 80 feet away at 3200 iso/ 1/200-250 wide open.

More in the RFF gallery.

 

[rfaspen]

Robert,
That's a nice shot of the Dalai Lama. When was he here last (fellow Willamette Valleyan)? Did he make it to Eugene or Salem? I remember a visit to Portland some years ago...

That GXR does a nice job with an old LTM lens in front.

 

[rhl-oregon]

He was here in May(?) I have a number of shots from this "roll" in my gallery. My son and I got very good seating, because my partner/his mother is an Associate Dean at UO.

I have another 100 3.5, the later black version, bought from Japan, but someone must have rebuilt it wrong, because it works only as an extreme closeup, very nearly a macro, but without the advantage of sharp focus. Some day I will travel to Japan and locate their shop and use it as a brick to throw through the window. (No, I won't, really.)

 

[bennyng]

I'm a big fan of this lens too. It's a real pocket rocket and the images are fantastic if your copy has clear optics. Really under-rated for what it can deliver.

Cheers,

 

[rhl-oregon]

Another APS-c variant, the XE1:

I have a later version of the lens that was sold to me as standard, but in truth (and probably unknown to the seller) had a +2 diopter rear element, so is good only as a super- macro on digital. I'll post some images from it soon.

 

[bennyng]

I have a later version of the lens that was sold to me as standard, but in truth (and probably unknown to the seller) had a +2 diopter rear element, so is good only as a super- macro on digital. I'll post some images from it soon.

That's very interesting. Do you have pictures of the lens and the rear assembly? I'm curious as to why it does not focus.

Cheers,

 

[charjohncarter]

My version is a 100mm Serenar, f4.0, all chrome. The focus works but dies at about 8 feet. I'm just too lazy to unscrew the lens portion and put the rest in carburetor cleaner to free up the dried grease. Well, some day, but it sure is every bit as sharp as my leitz mid teles from the same era.

 

[bennyng]

My version is a 100mm Serenar, f4.0, all chrome. The focus works but dies at about 8 feet. I'm just too lazy to unscrew the lens portion and put the rest in carburetor cleaner to free up the dried grease. Well, some day, but it sure is every bit as sharp as my leitz mid teles from the same era.

Ohh... I know this lens. It's no slouch either! If you do get around to cleaning it, i think you will find that it is well worth the time you spent.

Hope you'll get around to it one day.

Cheers,

 

[Scrambler]

I'm a big fan of this lens too. It's a real pocket rocket and the images are fantastic if your copy has clear optics. Really under-rated for what it can deliver.

Cheers,

And sadly very many don't. Which may be why on the average its under-rated.

 

[charjohncarter]

Ohh... I know this lens. It's no slouch either! If you do get around to cleaning it, i think you will find that it is well worth the time you spent.

Hope you'll get around to it one day.

Cheers,

Mine is beautifully clean too. The glass is clear, clear. I have used it but at 8 feet or more.

 

[traveler_101]

I bought one on the bay and the aperture ring is loose; should have sent it right back to the seller, but I didn't have time on that trip back to the States . . . so I kept it . So I used it to take semi-candid portraits of my daughter on my Bessa-T. Out of a whole roll one or two shots were in focus. It seems to work o.k. for long distance shots, suggesting to me that focus problem was with me not the lens--but I am not sure.

In the meantime, I've been using an Olympus E-PL1 to take digital images of my daughter with much better success. In that case, however, i found that while the Canon 100/3.5 is good on the E-PL1, it is not quite as good as the OM 100/2.8 SLR lens I have. And the OM lens is one stop faster.

 

[marek_]

I've just service my black & silver version. A previous owner after dissembling the lens had reassembled it incorrectly, placing the 4th element back-to-front. Other than a small centre portion, pictures were everywhere, rendering swirling, out of focus images. But now it's excellent. Bit surprised how good - don't now why, as I've a few Canon lenses from that era and all are excellent. Think I'll be using this lens for close-up shots.

 

[porktaco]

love mine. really great lens

 

[KoNickon]

Sad to say that I have two of these (black and chrome), and both are far out of whack and need to be collimated. The glass is clear, though....

 

[uhoh7]

At this distance the lens is incredibly sharp.

Shot on the nex 5 aps-c sensor.

 

[marek_]

Sad to say that I have two of these (black and chrome), and both are far out of whack and need to be collimated. The glass is clear, though....

The black and silver version is a simple construction. Have a look, getting it sorted may not be too difficult.

Here's a landscape.

 

[Bingley]

It's a lovely lens, very sharp and capable of nice 3D effects. I don't use mine nearly enough. How sharp is it? Well...


Cholla-Blooms by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[burancap]

This thread just cost me!

 

[dxq.canada]

By any chance is there anyone with a diagram showing the lens elements of the later all black version ?

I was disassembling it and the rear elements fell out ... tying to figure out if I put them back in the correct orientation.