Canon LTM Canon 19, 25 and 50 lenses

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
S

sreidvt

Guest
Given that I really like the look of pictures made with the R-D1 and Canon 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 I'm interested in perhaps picking up some other focal lengths. Would love to read feedback or links to reviews, etc. on the following:

Canon 19/3.5

Canon 25/3.5

Canon 50/1.8

Canon Serenar 50/1.8

Thanks,

Sean
 
Taffer,

Thanks, I had forgotten to check davidde.com

Cheers,

Sean
 
Does anyone have first hand experience with the difference (in terms of picture characteristics) between the 50/1.8 Serenar and the later 50/1.8 lenses?

Thanks,

Sean
 
I believe that the Canon 50 F1.8 were all the same optical formula, but changed mostly in construction and weight. I did not even check the later Black and Chrome one that went to Frank, it looked perfect and I was afraid that it would get stuck in my camera bag.

They are quite sharp.
 
Thanks, which one are heavier and more solid? The serenars?
Is the contrast moderate like the 35 and 28?

Thanks,

Sean (headed out to shoot soon)
 
the chrome models are heavier, they came in both canon & serenar versions. the black & chrome and black versions are canon.

joe
 
Are the lighter models as sturdy? Any change in contrast throughout the 50/1.8 series? Thanks,

Sean
 
i've never read anything about them being less sturdy.
don't know about the contrast.

the canon museum can give you the glass make up of each lens but like brian said i don't think it was the glass that changed only the materials, going from chromed brass to more lighter weight materials.

joe
 
I need this book don't I? What is it called? I'm headed out to shoot and will check in this evening. Thanks all for the help. This is a great list.

Sean
 
Sean, the book is called Canon Rangefinder Cameras 1933-1968, by Peter Dechert, Hove Photo Books.

What he says about the 50mm 1.8 (corrections welcome if I'm wrong, it's what my 5 min reading found) is that it went unchanged optically. First as a Serenar version, then renamed to Canon Lens with the introduction of the IVSB in 1952.

Then the lens appears again with a new face with the VT, the book mentions it as a (literally) redecorated version of the 50/1.8 standard lens

He also talks about his predilection for the late 50/1.4, and 35/2, as well as the 25/3.5 which he describes simply as a superb lens, doesn't seem to think the same about the 28/2.8 though...

However, only real use can show you the potential, we all have our different preferences and ultimate sharpness and contrast may be important for some people and not so important for others...

After all, it's all about the image :)
 
I think he mentions that in the final production run of lenses, they all were excellent except for the 28/2.8 and 50/1.2. I can't confirm that because my copy is on it's way to Edmonton as part of a trade and its replacement is in a UPS truck somewhere.
 
rover said:
I think he mentions that in the final production run of lenses, they all were excellent except for the 28/2.8 and 50/1.2. I can't confirm that because my copy is on it's way to Edmonton as part of a trade and its replacement is in a UPS truck somewhere.
Click to expand...

Rover, I can confirm it, he says exactly that.

Btw I've just taken a look at the RF members map. Oddly there's a lot of Canon icons surrounding a green dot located in Edmonton, Canada.

I wonder who's that guy... :rolleyes:
 
sreidvt said:
Are the lighter models as sturdy? Any change in contrast throughout the 50/1.8 series? Thanks,
Sean
Click to expand...

I don't know about contrast, but yes, in my experience, the lighter models are just as sturdy as the earlier heavy ones.

The only difference is that the older ones use brass tubes throughout; the later ones use aluminum tubes for the fixed mountings, but still have all-brass helixes in the focusing mount.

Also, all the later Canon 50s use the same style of modular construction, which makes them very easy to clean and service. The focusing mount is a separate module, into which the entire optical section is secured by a threaded ring around the rear element. The optical section consists of a front assembly that threads into a "cup" that holds the rear assembly and the aperture blades. This design makes it easy for a technician to get to the part of the lens that requires service.

The only thing that bothers some people about the late design is that there's sometimes a very slight amount of radial play as you twist the focusing ring. This play is NOT in the actual focus helix, so optical alignment is not affected. It's caused by the parallel focusing guide block that fits into a slot on the helix. This block needs a small amount of clearance to allow for smooth focusing -- otherwise it would bind in the slot -- and over time it can wear just enough that you can feel that slight dead spot. Again, it doesn't affect lens performance, so there's no reason to shy away from buying a lens with this quirk unless it absolutely drives you crazy.
 
I think one of the challenges of rating and reviewing lenses is that one first has to be clear about what the definition of a "good" lens is. The most common modern definition refers to a lens with high resolution and high contrast. That, of course, is not necessarily what all photographers are after.

I've heard the Canon 28/2.8 called both an excellent and mediocre lens. I've heard the same about the 35/2.8. I've done my own testing of each so that I can draw my own conclusions.

Right now, I'm in the middle of a large review of ten lenses used on the R-D1: 8 by Voigtlander and 2 by Leica (a third lens is due soon from Leica USA). In that piece, I try to somewhat objectively describe the pros and cons of each lens (based on my tests) but I also raise the issue of contrast. For reasons too detailed to get into in this post, I think that there are good reasons to reconsider the high resolution/lower contrast lens recipe for digital cameras in general and for black and white work in specific.

I appreciate all the information in the posts above. As I said earlier, this is a great list. I would very likely dislike having freeplay in the focus ring and so I better go for a brass earlier model. Thanks for that tip and to all of you for the information above.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Hi Sean,
unfortunately I own neither of them, because I concentrated at "late" lenses in my collection except my 1.5/50, which is from ~1955. I would be curious to compare the Canon 3.5/25 against the new Voigtlander Skopar, but not enough to pay 500 USD for the lens... the 3.5/25 is well reputated, but I cannot imagine that a prewar Zeiss Topogon derivate will beat the Skopar, which all cites as one of the best wideangle lenses ever designed for Leica screw mount...
Another thing is the rear element of the Canon, which some sources like Canon museum say it's a flat glass (center filter), some deny... I suppose the last series has the center filter.. without it a classic symmetric design like the Topogon will create huge light fall-off...

As you probably know from Canon museum, the 3.5/19 comes in two designs, one small and very deep, two was a modified SLR lens with big front element (Canons first retro-wideangle and as sources say better performer than the first one). I don't see the point buying such a big lens having such a small and excellent lens like the 4.5/15 Heliar in my journey case.

The 1.8/50 is a fine lens. Optically the Serenar/ brass and later "black-chrome"/alloy are the same- I had a late one which I sold because I'm so happy with my 1.5/50, a "classic 7-elements/ 3-groups Sonnar design" when the 1.8 is "another boring Planar type" :)

Maximum contrast isn't always required, that's I agree to you. Some high contrast motives attain if the lense is not too contrasty, in particular in bright sunlight or with slides film. But not this kind of softness coming from a lack of optical corrections, leading to a dull image in this kind of motives... overall, I would encouarge you to compare the Canon RF lens line with the new digital RD-1. The older Canons don't belong to the last class.. in particular the late series: 1.4/50, 2/35, 1.8/85, 2/100 (as well as the older 3.5/100) ... and, yes, the "monster" 0.95/50... :) as far as I know, the 2.8/28 is also one of the latest. I don't have it, and Peter Dechert denies its quality in his excellent book, but who knows... as far as I'm concerned (as a user) I have a hard time deciding which lens I shot when getting the pictures back... all excellent up to 10x enlargement...

cheers, Frank
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom