Canon LTM Canon 50mm F1.8 Lens .Opinions Needed

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
jonwardle

jonwardle

Member
Local time
12:25 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
21
I am considering adding a Canon lens to my Leica III.
What do users think of this lens ?
I am at present using the traditional F3.5 Leica Elmar but need the extra stops for indoor low light work.
I have looked around and found the below.
Is it good value for money? Fleebay doesn't seem to be offering much at the moment.

Thanks for your interest.

Jon

http://www.collectcamera.com/bladenleica/lenss/canon1850.htm
 
The Canon 50/1.8 is a very good fast standard lens. It would be a good match for your camera, in fact, bang for your buck, I think the Canon 50/1.8 is a great option. I think this one is priced at the very top of the range for these lenses though. You see them regularly for @$150, maybe less. Have you looked through the classified ads here? I think there have been a few offered in the past couple weeks.

I think a little shopping can find you a good sample for less $.

I am going to put in a plug for the Canon 50/1.4 too. Have a look at this one.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=215224#post215224

Honestly, with the hood and caps this is a very good buy, and the Canon 50/1.4 is said to be the best 50mm RF lens Canon made, and better than the 1950s version Summilux. If I didn't already have one I would buy this lens, and in a second I would opt for it and all the included items over the Canon 50/1.8 priced at $200. Not because the 1.8 is not good, but the 1.4 is better.
 
i agree with rover.
hard to go wrong with the 1.8 but that one is a bit too much $$.
the 1.4 is a bit bigger in size but sharper and if you're looking for a low light lens that would be perfect.

joe
 
Ditto on what everyone said about the Canon 50mm f1.8... they seem to be selling for a bit more money than last year also.. I use the f1.8 and the f1.4, the f1.4 is a superb low light lens, equal to any early 50mm Summilux. I would cut to the chase and get a f1.4 for low availabe light shooting. I use the Leitz VIDOM finder on my Leica IIIf with the f1.4 , as the size of this lens blocks a good portion of the already squinty finder on the IIIf.
 
According to the Canon Museum, there were three different Canon 50mm f1.8 lenses:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_sere_50_18v1.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_50_18v2.html
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_50_18v3.html

I have the first version, the chrome "Serenar" one. I am quite pleased with it, but tend not to use it - I have a Canon 50mm f1.4 that pretty much stays on my Bessa R all the time.

Beware the 50mm f1.8 (all versions) uses the difficult-to-locate 40mm filter size. The f1.4 uses the more-common 48mm size. Just FYI.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I find filters unimportant these days with rangefinder lenses. I used to use some filters with SLR systems, but having a scanner for adjustments and trying to stay "pure" with rangefinder photography, I am not worried about scarceness of reasonably priced 40mm filters. I have several of those, but I hardly use them. Maybe I should with B&W photography or for protection of fron of lens.

I have the chrome Serenar version of the Canon 50mm/1.8 lens, and I like it. After doing my personal eight 50mm lens test, I am not really sticking to any particular lens when it comes to choose the appropriate 50mm lens in LTM. It seems that several such lenses exists and are reasonably priced. The remaining factor is collecting or wishing to use a lens from the same brand as the camera and here Canon users seem to favor keeping a Canon lens on a Canon body. I like the Nikkor 5cm/2 lens a lot and also the Canon 50mm/2.8 which is a Tessar design. Once you have a good 50/1.2, you may not want to get the 50/1.4 anymore. This is especially true when considering the excellent performance of the Canon 50/1.2 lens at many aperture settings. Take a look at my Gallery here; I have nothing posted except a test for the 8 50mm lenses for flare.
 
I have never had a Canon 50/1.8 chrome and I don't normally comment on something unless I have personal experience, but the older Canon lenses I have are really good. This 50/1.8 does seem overpriced; both KEH and Kevincameras have them for less. I do have a Canon 50/1.4 and it seems way too big for an LTM body, Canon or Leica. I also have had a 50/2 Nikkor since 1969 and it is a good fit on my IIIf. I would expect the Canon to be about the same. The coatings on the older Canons seem to be better than those Nikon used on the 50/2 and are less likely to be badly scratched.
 
Hi,

I use a 50/1.8 Serenar on a Leica IIIc. It appears to be just the right size with a larger lens becoming unproportional in size on the III.
The results left nothing to desire, very sharp, very usuable wide open.
I agree that there are other lenses with different flavors, but oyu cant go wrong with the 1.8 for all around.


Joerg
 
back alley said:
ithe 1.4 is a bit bigger in size but sharper
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd say flatly that the f/1.4 is sharper than the f/1.8. Based on the examples of both that I owned, I never saw what I considered to be a significant difference. If pressed, I'd say that the 1.4 might render a bit more fine detail, while the f/1.8 has a bit better microcontrast -- but that would be hairsplitting. I doubt if anyone could tell their images apart in a double-blind comparison test. Suffice it to say that both of them perform really well, without giving up the "vintage" look.

That being the case, I'd say you could safely choose between them on other grounds: the f/1.8 is more compact and less expensive, while if you shoot under dark conditions the f/1.4's extra maximum aperture might be worth the extra money. It's true that the difference is only about 1/2 stop -- but sometimes when you're working at the lower limits that's enough to make the difference between getting printable shadow detail and not getting printable shadow detail.
 
Get the earlier chrome version. The taper covers less of the Viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
jlw said:
I don't know that I'd say flatly that the f/1.4 is sharper than the f/1.8. Based on the examples of both that I owned, I never saw what I considered to be a significant difference. If pressed, I'd say that the 1.4 might render a bit more fine detail, while the f/1.8 has a bit better microcontrast -- but that would be hairsplitting. I doubt if anyone could tell their images apart in a double-blind comparison test. Suffice it to say that both of them perform really well, without giving up the "vintage" look.

That being the case, I'd say you could safely choose between them on other grounds: the f/1.8 is more compact and less expensive, while if you shoot under dark conditions the f/1.4's extra maximum aperture might be worth the extra money. It's true that the difference is only about 1/2 stop -- but sometimes when you're working at the lower limits that's enough to make the difference between getting printable shadow detail and not getting printable shadow detail.
Click to expand...


that's what i get for trying to answer quickly while the morning coffee was brewing.
i just notied it was for a leica bottom feeder. in that case i might go for the 1.8 just based on size.
joe
 
As Brian & Joe said, go for the chrome version. Either Serenar (earlier) or Canon labeled, they used the same optical formula. These are pricier lately, but $200 is too much to pay. I use one on a Leica IIIa, and it looks good, and feels "right". Also, it doesn't intrude on the VF, while the 1.4 would. Even the later black 1.8 will be more intrusive than the chrome.

Harry
 
I recently picked up one of the chrome Serenar 50/1.8 lenses for about $100. It had very visible haze, so I sent it right off to DAG for a CLA. I just got back my first roll of ISO 400 B&W negs, plus 1842x 1240 scans.

For critical sharpness evaluation, I'll really have to use a loupe, but on the scans, the Canon looks only a little behind the modern Summicron in contrast and the finest detail I could see on the scan. But only a little. I wouldn't be ashamed to use this lens of for any work at ISO 400. For the tripod-and-Kodachrome-or-Velvia crowd, stay tuned.

It would probably be a great bright-weather lens for a digital M or R-D1 due to the slightly lower contrast. I haven't shot color with it yet, but Canon tends to be a little cooler in rendition than Leitz.

--Peter
 
Brian Sweeney said:
And the winner for size is: The Canon 50mm F1.5. But the F1.8 in Chrome is "almost" as small. I recently bought a Summitar and Canon 50/1.8 in chrome. I'll have to update the gallery.

Page down to Reply #21.

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10098&highlight=leica+iiif+canon+f1.5
Click to expand...

I was going to post some examples, but this post of Brian's shows it all. The difference in size between the 1.8 & the 1.5 is very small, they both have a 40mm filter size. The 1.8 is the smaller, of course, and much cheaper and easier to find. The prices are inching up, because more people are becoming aware of how good, and how reasonable Canon glass really is... to my distress.

Just a few lenses that I really want... :bang: Yeah, just a few...

Harry
 
I am not looking to buy more Canon lenses since I already have several excellent Canon and Leitz lenses for my needs. I may "need" a fast lens (F 1.4) in the 75-85mm range, but I am content with my Summicron 90/2 and Canon 85mm/1.9.
 
I just got the results from the Canon 50/1.8 "Serenar" project lens that I picked up here.

The results were very sharp. I'm not going to say its sharper than the 50/1.5 and 50/1.4. Not until I do a test on a tripod.

But it is a great value for the money, and with a little patience you can find them under $150.
 
Brian: opinions??

Brian: opinions??

Brian, did you film test the Canon 50/1.9 ?? That would be a really nice looking combo on a III. I tend to overlook the 1.9, because of the faster, newer lenses, but it doesn't deserve the poor reputation it has in some quarters, IMHO.

I don't think there is much internal difference between the III-series Leica and the early Canon's, at least in the lens chamber. Shouldn't be a problem collapsing the lens. Have to try it....

Harry
 
Harry, The 50/1.9 is gorgeous. I packed it up and quickly sent it back before I got attached to it. I'm thinking its on par with the Coated Summitar. Also a very good lens that is much sharper than its reputation would have you believe.

I'll be looking for a 50/1.9..

And you need to Shoot some with those freshly cleaned lenses, including the "3.5's".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom