jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Maybe so, but if possible, try a late one first before you make up your mind. The radial play I meant is usually barely perceptible at worst (fractions of a degree) and many people don't notice it at all. It seems to be more common on the 50/1.4 than on the 50/1.8, also; I've got a 50/1.8 on which I can't feel it at all, a 50/1.4 on which it's barely perceptible, and another 1.4 on which it's a bit more perceptible but not bothersome (to me, at least.) It probably depends on how much use the individual lens has had.
The only reason I mentioned it was that I corresponded with someone who was disturbed by it (on a 50/1.4) and wanted to know if there was any way to fix it (which I don't think there is, short of maybe splitting the guide block and inserting a setscrew to make it a bit wider, eliminating the play.)
S
sreidvt
Guest
Thank you jlw. I'll have to try one soon.
Cheers,
Sean
Cheers,
Sean
bmattock
Veteran
taffer
void
Nice work Bill !!!
Agree that that according to the images and with that conditions the Steinheil 135 flares like mad ! I didn't know very much about the Schacht lenses. The 35 looks indeed pretty sharp and contrasty. The Canon 35/2.8 gives some kind of dreamy component, low contrast, but the winner in the 'dream' category is that Industar for sure !!
Agree that that according to the images and with that conditions the Steinheil 135 flares like mad ! I didn't know very much about the Schacht lenses. The 35 looks indeed pretty sharp and contrasty. The Canon 35/2.8 gives some kind of dreamy component, low contrast, but the winner in the 'dream' category is that Industar for sure !!
S
Sonnar
Guest
Great page, Bill... wish I could manage to bring a comparison of my Canon, Voigtlander lenses together and on my homepage...
what embarras me is:
- to compare contrast/solution of different focus length (15-135mm) at a similar basis
- a "test scenario" big enough, and distant enough.. most of my work isn't close-up-range so it wouldn't make sense with an test-object 2m away.
- to compare lenses with different focus lengths, my thought environment should be a factor x * focus-length, i.e. 3m away for 15mm, 10m for 50mmm and 27m with 135mm lense.
- sharpness and contrast isn't everything (USAF charts, newspapers...)
How to compare color rendition? Your Idea with flowers is a good one... But what about red, blue colors? Flowers, coke can, small tree twigs (against bright skylight and so on)
..I didn't found the right idea for a scenario which covers most of this aspects at reproducable conditions not leading to huge technical effort... But you made it right to start with something..
cheers, Frank
what embarras me is:
- to compare contrast/solution of different focus length (15-135mm) at a similar basis
- a "test scenario" big enough, and distant enough.. most of my work isn't close-up-range so it wouldn't make sense with an test-object 2m away.
- to compare lenses with different focus lengths, my thought environment should be a factor x * focus-length, i.e. 3m away for 15mm, 10m for 50mmm and 27m with 135mm lense.
- sharpness and contrast isn't everything (USAF charts, newspapers...)
How to compare color rendition? Your Idea with flowers is a good one... But what about red, blue colors? Flowers, coke can, small tree twigs (against bright skylight and so on)
..I didn't found the right idea for a scenario which covers most of this aspects at reproducable conditions not leading to huge technical effort... But you made it right to start with something..
cheers, Frank
Last edited by a moderator:
justins7
Well-known
I have the Canon 25/3.5. It is superb, and appears quite modern (although I haven't used it in a while).
However, "in the field" I find it somewhat awkward to use, since the aperture ring moves with focusing. When you focus, f3.5 dissappears under the lens, which is really annoying under shifting light conditions. (I think this was not uncommon at the time.)
Just something to remember.
However, "in the field" I find it somewhat awkward to use, since the aperture ring moves with focusing. When you focus, f3.5 dissappears under the lens, which is really annoying under shifting light conditions. (I think this was not uncommon at the time.)
Just something to remember.
l.mar
Well-known
Bill: An excellent, funny and informative "user's eye" test of many different LTM optics.
sreidvt: I picked up a Canon 50 mm f1.4 "newer" model LTM lens at a bargain price. It's got the dreaded "focus-ring play," but find that I like it very much --- it's capable of producing photographs with incredible contrast and definition under extreme poorly lit/low-light situations! The lens also retains, oddly enough, a focus tab and infinity lock. I found that using the focus tab instead of the ribbed SLR-like focus ring minimized any feeling of "play" (made the lens less playful?) Until I can find the mythical Summi (or Nocti) lux for less than $200, I'll happily keep shooting with my Canon (on non-Canon rangefinder camera bodies! )
sreidvt: I picked up a Canon 50 mm f1.4 "newer" model LTM lens at a bargain price. It's got the dreaded "focus-ring play," but find that I like it very much --- it's capable of producing photographs with incredible contrast and definition under extreme poorly lit/low-light situations! The lens also retains, oddly enough, a focus tab and infinity lock. I found that using the focus tab instead of the ribbed SLR-like focus ring minimized any feeling of "play" (made the lens less playful?) Until I can find the mythical Summi (or Nocti) lux for less than $200, I'll happily keep shooting with my Canon (on non-Canon rangefinder camera bodies!
)
S
Sonnar
Guest
justins7, has yours a flat glass/ center filter as last element like Canon museum says here ? http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_25_35.html
L.Mar, how was your bargain price? Every 1.4/50 I looked at the last time went over 250 USD... more what I paid for my 1.5/50 which makes a lot of fun and brings sharp and contrasty pictures and somewhat old-stylish "sonnar" charme... to complete my Canon collection I'm looking for the well-reputated 1.4 but not for too much $$$
cheers
L.Mar, how was your bargain price? Every 1.4/50 I looked at the last time went over 250 USD... more what I paid for my 1.5/50 which makes a lot of fun and brings sharp and contrasty pictures and somewhat old-stylish "sonnar" charme... to complete my Canon collection I'm looking for the well-reputated 1.4 but not for too much $$$
cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
l.mar
Well-known
If you could get one for $250 USD, I'd definitely snap it up. I paid more than that for mine (but again, less than a new V/C Nokton and way less than a used Summilux).
S
sreidvt
Guest
Just got this e-mail from the man who sold me the 35/2.8:
"I have one Canon 50/1.8, Serenar, SN71056, with
sunshade, adapter, and rear plastic cap. Very clean chrome body. Front element has some light cleaning marks, but in overall very nice condition. $75 + shipping."
So I figured, for $75, why not try it. I'll report back when both lenses arrive.
Cheers,
Sean
"I have one Canon 50/1.8, Serenar, SN71056, with
sunshade, adapter, and rear plastic cap. Very clean chrome body. Front element has some light cleaning marks, but in overall very nice condition. $75 + shipping."
So I figured, for $75, why not try it. I'll report back when both lenses arrive.
Cheers,
Sean
back alley
IMAGES
very good deal.
sometimes you're the windshield - sometimes you're the bug!
joe
sometimes you're the windshield - sometimes you're the bug!
joe