Canon LTM Canon 100mm f3.5 rangefinder lens

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Should read, "As the lens is stopped down, the Tele-Elmerit gets better than the Canon but not by much." Sorry.
 
Should also add that, at near distance, wide-open, I like the Canon rendition better. Should also note that the Canon has a 10mm advantage. Leica is great glass. Just not worth huge difference in money to a fellla on a budget. In Short, the Canon is a great lens. Do I seem enthusiastic? I hope not bombastic.
 
Yes the Canon 3.5/100 RF is the same design as the SLR lens of that era. Thanks for your comparison with the Tele-Elmarit. This was the smallest LEICA short telephoto, right? I know there are bigger Elmarits now - which may be better optically, but not in the "backtrousers league" which was the pristine audience of the Mountain-Elmar... amazing that LEICA now introduces a new folding 4/90 in that class...
About the performance of the CANON; I too was surprised of wide-open sharpness and contrast. This isn't to expect from a 50 year old design, in particular if it's a simple "triplet" design with 2 added lenses. I guess the Japanese designers wanted a lens usable unrestrained wide open when it's such a "slow" lens. But it can be said as well that it could improve more at f/8... a behavior like the modern C/V lenses.
For critical applications like landscape and architecture, the CANON 3.5/100 is equal with my C/V 2.5/75 and beats the "portrait lenses" Nikkor 2/85, Jupiter-9. It's on a par with the CANON 1.8/85, but at a smaller weight and fast handling. A very similar approach to the "Mountain Elmar class" is the C/V 3.5/90 "Apo" (really?). I haven't compared these two, but from readings I guess they are very similar as far as sharpness is concerned.

cheers, Frank
 
How does this Canon 100/3,5 perform compared to the old 50's collapsible Elmar 90? Does anyone know about that?
I will post some pics later from this one. As small as a Summicron 50 and almost as sharp as far as I can tell...

Rob
 
Sonnar2, my 3.5 is the later design with, I think, five elements. I have the Nikkor 85mm F2 and I agree that the Canon is sharper. However it cannot compete with the last generation 105 F2.5 AIS which is the sharpest lens I have ever used. I have never used the early 90mm Elmar. I am told that the Canon has less problem with developing haze, etc., because Canon used artificial lubricants. Thanks for the tip as to the Canon SLR lens. I moved to Nikkormat c. 1972, but always admired the Canon FT with the very intuitive stop-down metering. I had a "rangefinder kit" with mine. 100 F3.5 (for which I traded a 135mm 2.5), a 35 F2.5, and a 50mm F1.8. I think my favorite was the 100 F3.5. I wonder if Canon made that 100F3.5 in an FD mount?
 
Sonnar2 said:
Yes the Canon 3.5/100 RF is the same design as the SLR lens of that era.
Click to expand...

Somewhat on this topic, is the 100/2 FD (or EF) design similar to the 100/2 RF lens?
 
I have lens diagrams for both the 100/2 RF as well as the FD 100/2 and they're totally different.

I know that Canon made an "R" version of the rangefinder 100/2 for the Canonflex which delivers outstanding results (I own one). You can mount this on most FD cameras if you wish (I use mine on an original F-1).

Jim Bielecki
 
I've had 2 of the collapsible 90/4 Elmars, 1 black & chrome Canon 100/3.5 & 1 all-black Canon 100/3.5. IMHO, the all-black Canon 100/3.5 is the best, but it's also the newest. It's more of a wash between the 90/4 Elmar & the black & chrome 100/3.5.

laptoprob said:
How does this Canon 100/3,5 perform compared to the old 50's collapsible Elmar 90? Does anyone know about that?
I will post some pics later from this one. As small as a Summicron 50 and almost as sharp as far as I can tell...

Rob
Click to expand...
 
FYI - I bet the Canon FL 100/2 lens is identical to the 100/2 LTM lens. I just swapped the front element and rear optical cell from an 85/1.8 FL lens into my 85/1.8 LTM lens, and they fit perfectly (the original lens elements had 30+ years of cleaning marks on them). Sharpness in the photos that came back are excellent, but it looks like the focus is off.
 
Wow, in my experience, my Tele-Elmarit has done better than my 100/3.5 Canon. I like them both, but if I had to keep one, it would undoubtedly be the Tele-Elmarit -- it's not much larger, it fits my framelines, and it is faster. Not to knock the Canon at all, it is a beautiful lens, but not the one I prefer in this case.
 
Which time was the Tele-Elmarit? I don't think LEICA has such a small telephoto today (except the brad new started Macro_Elmar 4/90) or am I wrong??
 
I think they stopped making the tele-elmarit in the early 90s, but I could be wrong. The current elmarit is not really that much bigger. It is still rather small. The Macro Elmar is smaller than either the Canon or the Tele-Elmarit when collapsed.
 
sychan, I think you should swap ALL the glass between your FL and LTM 85/1.8 lenses. They really are matched sets.

Then you will need to have the LTM lens recollimated. The focal length of each lens is slightly different, and that spacer washer is selected to match the focal length. It's selected to focus at infinity at the infinity setting. (There's presumably a similar spacer in the FL lens, but so long as the lens can focus to inifinity, it's not as crucial.)

In theory, the rate of the focusing cam also should depend on the focal length of the lens. But I don't know how tight the tolerances are there, you may be "in band". They didn't make many different cams.
 
Canon 28/3.5 comments?

Canon 28/3.5 comments?

Anybody care to comment on the quality vs current CV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom