jyl
Just learning to focus
Continuing on the Canon P theme, I just bid on and won this lens on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3830914333
It is described as a Canon 100mm f3.5 for the Canon rangefinders. Comes with viewfinder and case.
I didn't do a ton of research before bidding, so hopefully I haven't bought a pig in a poke. Anyone have this lens and want to share some impressions?
P.S. I recently saw couple of 85mm Canon rangefinder lens, the cheaper one for $160, at the local photo swap meet, but since my P doesn't have framelines for 85mm, I passed. Seems like a nice focal length. Was a little more than I wanted to pay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3830914333
It is described as a Canon 100mm f3.5 for the Canon rangefinders. Comes with viewfinder and case.
I didn't do a ton of research before bidding, so hopefully I haven't bought a pig in a poke. Anyone have this lens and want to share some impressions?
P.S. I recently saw couple of 85mm Canon rangefinder lens, the cheaper one for $160, at the local photo swap meet, but since my P doesn't have framelines for 85mm, I passed. Seems like a nice focal length. Was a little more than I wanted to pay.
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Oh it's a pig alright. Horrible. Looks like in pretty raggedy condition as well. Canon is really more of an artillery-manufacturing company.
But..you can send it over here - throw in the XA as well and I may be persuaded to split the shipping costs...
But..you can send it over here - throw in the XA as well and I may be persuaded to split the shipping costs...
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Should you decide to keep the lens anyway... 
Here's some stuff;
From cameraquest:
"The lenses which stand up best today are probably the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/3.5, 100/2, 135/3.5. "
Dante: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
Compared to the Serenar 100/4: http://www.davidde.com/articles/canon100.html
Some more: http://www.pgallery.net/stevechan/folder-4713.html
The most important question now is...what body are you gonna get...? 7, P, VI-L, etc...?
Second question - when will there be a canon discussion forum setup? ;-)
Here's some stuff;
From cameraquest:
"The lenses which stand up best today are probably the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/3.5, 100/2, 135/3.5. "
Dante: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html
Compared to the Serenar 100/4: http://www.davidde.com/articles/canon100.html
Some more: http://www.pgallery.net/stevechan/folder-4713.html
The most important question now is...what body are you gonna get...? 7, P, VI-L, etc...?
Second question - when will there be a canon discussion forum setup? ;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
back alley
IMAGES
richard, he already has the canon p body.
and i second the need for a canon section on our little forum.
hey jorge!
joe
and i second the need for a canon section on our little forum.
hey jorge!
joe
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
oopps...missed that....
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Threadjack - I've just bought a used Mamiya 645E and would like to know the local concescess of just what the best wide angle in the Mamiya line is. (I ask here as you all seem to actually really know whereof you speak and that's not a small thing. Sorry if I offend... )
William
William
back alley
IMAGES
i had a mamiya 645 years ago and found all their lenses to be top notch.
now go stand in the corner for, a) hijacking this thread and, b) talking about slr cameras in a rf forum.
joe
now go stand in the corner for, a) hijacking this thread and, b) talking about slr cameras in a rf forum.
joe
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Yes sir.
I only did so as RF people know wides better than SLR people do, IME and all that. But my budget was such that that bit was best for me. I'd still count opinion here higher than most places.
Thanks,
William
I only did so as RF people know wides better than SLR people do, IME and all that. But my budget was such that that bit was best for me. I'd still count opinion here higher than most places.
Thanks,
William
I would like to see some results from your 100mm f3.5. I have the 100mm F4, it is a nicely made lens, a bit soft wide-open. It is solid. I tend to use the 85mm F2 Nikkor on the Canon 7, preferring the speed. The Canon 85mm F2 and 85mm F1.9 go for less. Canon also makes a 100mm F2; it is expensive compared to the others.
S
Stu :)
Guest
On the subject of 'tele' lenses, anyone use a Nikkor 105mm before?
Most of the reviews online seem pretty positive and thinking of trading the Leica 90mm in for one.
Stu
Most of the reviews online seem pretty positive and thinking of trading the Leica 90mm in for one.
Stu
back alley
IMAGES
the 105 has a great rep. i have owned several 100s over the years and i like the focal length. the 105 has to be similar. i now have the 75 and it's not quite the same. if finances ever permit i would like to get the 100 for the canon.
joe
joe
I have the Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 for my Nikon RF's, and for my SLR's. It is a great lens. But, for whatever reason I end up using the 8.5cm F2 much more often. If you have the 90mm F2 Summicron, I would not trade it for the Nikkor. The 10.5cm f2.5 in LRM is scarce, but the 8.5cm is much more plentiful. I have one near mint, went under $300. I have seen users for under $200 in LTM.
jyl
Just learning to focus
I finally received this lens. I am surprised at how small (barrel diameter) it is. Won't have time to take any shots (leaving town for a week) but will post some later.
back alley
IMAGES
well john, should you ever decide to sell it, please call me first!
it looks to be in great shape and you know that we all want to see some pics from it (when you return).
joe
it looks to be in great shape and you know that we all want to see some pics from it (when you return).
joe
T
taunusreiter
Guest
I highly recommend the Canon 3.5/100. recently bought another one (and sold it again) in order to get the proper sun shade...
The Canon RF 3.5/100 is a tele lens I use even more often as my Zeiss SLR tele lenses. I've got a Canon RF 1.8/85 and a Nikkor-P 2.5/105 LTM (a fullsize beauty).
As a user I would keep away from the older 1.9 or 2/85. Design from late 40's, early 50's and even bigger and heavier than the Nikkor-P. The 1.8/85 is *much* lighter and the design is quite up to date, Canon used it well into the 80's.
Instead, try the 135/3.5. Same weight, same nice solid chrome-brass construction, but sharp and cheap to have (50-150 USD)
Frank
The Canon RF 3.5/100 is a tele lens I use even more often as my Zeiss SLR tele lenses. I've got a Canon RF 1.8/85 and a Nikkor-P 2.5/105 LTM (a fullsize beauty).
As a user I would keep away from the older 1.9 or 2/85. Design from late 40's, early 50's and even bigger and heavier than the Nikkor-P. The 1.8/85 is *much* lighter and the design is quite up to date, Canon used it well into the 80's.
Instead, try the 135/3.5. Same weight, same nice solid chrome-brass construction, but sharp and cheap to have (50-150 USD)
Frank
back alley
IMAGES
jyl,
i'm curious as to how you like the 100/3.5?
and if you're ready to sell it yet?
frank,
got a spare 100/3.5 around?
joe
i'm curious as to how you like the 100/3.5?
and if you're ready to sell it yet?
frank,
got a spare 100/3.5 around?
joe
S
Sonnar
Guest
Just missed a black 100/3.5... waiting for a chrome-black late series with ft/m ... cheers Frank
P
Paul Connet
Guest
Canon 100/f3.5
Canon 100/f3.5
I'll butt-in here to post a sample pic taken with my 100/3.5 black-chrome model. IMO this is a very underrated lens, small, light weight and plenty sharp enough for most folks.
Regards, Paul C.
Canon 100/f3.5
backalley photo said:
I'll butt-in here to post a sample pic taken with my 100/3.5 black-chrome model. IMO this is a very underrated lens, small, light weight and plenty sharp enough for most folks.
Regards, Paul C.
back alley
IMAGES
thanks paul!
examples always welcome.
i need to play with my newly acquired 100/4 serenar to see what it can do.
i think the 3.5 is normally viewed as the better lens.
joe
examples always welcome.
i need to play with my newly acquired 100/4 serenar to see what it can do.
i think the 3.5 is normally viewed as the better lens.
joe
R
Rockford
Guest
100 F3.5 Canon
100 F3.5 Canon
I know this is an old thread, but his is one of my all time fovorite lenses. I had a 100 F3.5 Canon with my FT-QL back in late 1960's. Great lens. I bought a 100 F3.5 RF for my rangefinder. I wonder if the formula is the same. The RF lens was great. Dropped it. Only lens I ever dropped. After searching for another, I found one. All three of these lenses have been tack sharp wide open and great for portraits. Focus on the eyes or mouth at near distance, and the depth of field is just enough. I had a chance to buy a 90 Tele-Elemrit for a great price. Shot my standard city scape with it. Shot Canon side-by-side. At F11 Leica had just a Little more resolution in my scanned 2900 dpi pics---a distant tv antena at the edge of the field was a little more distinct---by a fraction , but wide open at3.5 and 3.5 respectively, the Canon had better contrast.. As the lens is stopped down, the Tele-Elmerit gets better but not by much. Price of this lens can be quite reasonable. Mine came with finder, case, and filter for c. $135. It is literally like new. I am told that Canon used artifical lubricants, so these lenses do not have the haze problem that some German lenses from the same period do. I am posting this because this forum has been so helpful to me in seeking out these old affordable RF lenses. By the by, I have not had a problem using this lens with the 90mm frame on my RF. It is small, light. Delightful.
100 F3.5 Canon
I know this is an old thread, but his is one of my all time fovorite lenses. I had a 100 F3.5 Canon with my FT-QL back in late 1960's. Great lens. I bought a 100 F3.5 RF for my rangefinder. I wonder if the formula is the same. The RF lens was great. Dropped it. Only lens I ever dropped. After searching for another, I found one. All three of these lenses have been tack sharp wide open and great for portraits. Focus on the eyes or mouth at near distance, and the depth of field is just enough. I had a chance to buy a 90 Tele-Elemrit for a great price. Shot my standard city scape with it. Shot Canon side-by-side. At F11 Leica had just a Little more resolution in my scanned 2900 dpi pics---a distant tv antena at the edge of the field was a little more distinct---by a fraction , but wide open at3.5 and 3.5 respectively, the Canon had better contrast.. As the lens is stopped down, the Tele-Elmerit gets better but not by much. Price of this lens can be quite reasonable. Mine came with finder, case, and filter for c. $135. It is literally like new. I am told that Canon used artifical lubricants, so these lenses do not have the haze problem that some German lenses from the same period do. I am posting this because this forum has been so helpful to me in seeking out these old affordable RF lenses. By the by, I have not had a problem using this lens with the 90mm frame on my RF. It is small, light. Delightful.