Swift1
Veteran
One from my 50/2.2 wide open and focused around 1.8 meters IIRC
Canon 7 rangefinder
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Kodak Ektar 100
Nikon Coolscan V ED
Canon 7 rangefinder
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Kodak Ektar 100
Nikon Coolscan V ED
Swift1
Veteran
Here's a recent one from the Canon 50/2.2 LTM. I shot this yesterday, while out on a photo walk with GerryM. It was shot wide open, using my Voigtlander Bessa R, and Fujicolor 100.
peterm1
Veteran
Proves what I have long thought....that there is much to be said for old relatively slow lenses. I guess because they did not tax the designers' skills so much in days when lens computation was still done manually. And of course they tend to be quite low contrast due to the coatings then available, which is a useful characteristic with digital imaging.
In any event I like very much the colors and tones in this image. And in fact all images in this thread exhibit similar characteristics.
Another example that springs to mind is the old auto-Takumar 55mm f2.2 which also produces some pleasant images. This lens is said to be basically identical to the f1.8 and f2 variants of Takumars. https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Auto-Takumar-55mm-F2.2.html
Swift1
Veteran
Thanks Peter.
I used to have that Auto Takumar 55/2.2. Very different lens in my experience. Wide open it very dramatic bokeh, but everything in focus had a soft focus glow.
I think the Takumar was designed as a budget lens, but I have a hunch that the Canon was designed as a special lens.
There isn't much info on this lens looks that isn't specs. I've read that it was only sold in Japan as part of a kit with the Canon P, but I don't think that is true.
I recently ran across an ebay listing for an original black paint Canon 7, along with the Canon 50/2.2 and the original box and sales certificate. What was really interesting was that the sales certificate showed that that camera was originally sold with that particular 50/2.2
peterm1
Veteran
Yep I agree, I have the Takumar too and like it for the reasons you mention. It has a slightly more complex lens design than the Canon, with 6 elements in 5 groups.
As to being a budget lens that is true, but one factor is that should be considered is that Pentax sometimes released essentially the same equipment with very slight modifications at different price points (all camera makers still do this now that I think about it). The 55mm f2.2 apparently has the same lens design as the 55mm f2 and 55mm f1.8. So it is a budget lens - but more of a "badge engineered" budget lens to my way of thinking.
I have considered buying the Canon 50mm f2.2 on a few occasions when I have seen them but somehow have missed out.
aoresteen
Well-known
Oh crap! I feel GAS!!!! I have the Canon 50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/2.8. Now I have to look for the F/2.2? Well, after looking at all the photos with the f/2.2 here, I will start the hunt!
Swift1
Veteran
Here's a recent one from the Canon 50/2.2 and my recently acquired Leica M2.
Leica M2
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V750
Leica M2
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V750
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Why stop with the f/2.2? Gotta collect all the 50mm!
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=s
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Here's a recent one from the Canon 50/2.2 and my recently acquired Leica M2.
Leica M2
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V750
Colton, looks like you and that M2 are going to get along just fine. And we'll get to enjoy all the results.
Swift1
Veteran
Colton, looks like you and that M2 are going to get along just fine. And we'll get to enjoy all the results.
I'm loving the M2, and the Canon is a great 50mm for it
Swift1
Veteran
Yup, I think the M2 and the Canon 50/2.2 are going to make a great combo...
Sonnar2
Well-known
It's smaller than the 50/1.8, and I also like the focussing "tab".
The classic TLR Rollei and Hasselblad Planars, famous at their time as portrait lenses with decent sharpness, were also 5-element designs.
I also found out that performance in close distance is better.
To me it's a mystery why CANON cancelled production of such a good lens just after 1 year. I guess it was too expensive to manufacture as a starter-kit-lens, and too close to the 50/1.8. The Tessar-type 50/2.8 were cheaper made.
davhill
Canon P
To my eye, its that near-distance performance which is a truly fine characteristic of this lens. Colton has shown us its a good landscape lens, but the punch and clarity and three-dimensionality at closer distances is very special indeed.
Yes, its a shame there's not more of them ...
Mackinaw
Think Different
Looking at Peter K's Canon rangefinder lens book, this lens was only made for six months, January to July, 1961. You're probably right as to why it was discontinued.
Jim B.
davhill
Canon P
As an aside, Tony, why do you have the 50/2.8? What do you like about that lens? What does the 2.8 bring to your table?
-dave
Swift1
Veteran
Before finding my 50/2.2, I was somewhat interested in getting a 50/2.8. I could be wrong but I think the 2.8 is a Tessar design and should have very little distortion.
The 2.2 does pretty well with distortion , but does have some slight pincushion distortion.
davhill
Canon P
My notes on the 50/2.8 agree: “Canon 50/2.8 — 4/3 Tessar, less well corrected than the [Planar] 50/1.8. Economy option late 50’s early 60s”.
The 50/2.2 is a 5-element Gaussian type.
The 50/1.8 is a 6/4 Double-Gauss Planar.
... for whatever that’s worth.
peterm1
Veteran
What is people's "take" on how this lens compares to the 50mm f1.8? To me the photos shown here suggests its an extraordinarily good lens but with perhaps a slightly more classic rendering. I like the f1.8 but I have a feeling that the f2.2 is a lens I could fall seriously in love with.
Swift1
Veteran
I haven't really used the 50/1.8 at all. Not long after getting this 50/2.2 I borrowed GerryM's 50/1.8 and did a few shots for comparison. The results didn't really show me any noticeable differences. The 50/1.8 was maybe just slightly cooler in its color rendering.
Swift1
Veteran
Here's a somewhat recent one from the Canon 50/2.2
