Meleica
Well-known
Prices have been updated since 1-15-05. I have also added a column called, "price trend."
If there is enough data, I have indicated where prices have gone since my last update. I actually believe that this forum has created some trending of these lenses upward.
Other comments on forums like photo.net, can create price swings. For example, the 50mm 1.9 Serenar was considered the lonely, ugly stepchild of 50mm Canon's ( and usually sold for $ 75 or less )....then someone mentioned it is similiar to Leica's Summitar, and now I see sales at $ 100 and sometimes more...
SEE
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm
I also have a fairly new price guide for "other" M39 screw mount lenses ( like the Voigt/Cosina lenses ) at
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/lsm.htm
thanks
Dan
If there is enough data, I have indicated where prices have gone since my last update. I actually believe that this forum has created some trending of these lenses upward.
Other comments on forums like photo.net, can create price swings. For example, the 50mm 1.9 Serenar was considered the lonely, ugly stepchild of 50mm Canon's ( and usually sold for $ 75 or less )....then someone mentioned it is similiar to Leica's Summitar, and now I see sales at $ 100 and sometimes more...
SEE
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm
I also have a fairly new price guide for "other" M39 screw mount lenses ( like the Voigt/Cosina lenses ) at
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/lsm.htm
thanks
Dan
Sonnar2
Well-known
Well done, Dan
A 1.5/85 late series black-chrome, S/N 12169 exc+ withot caps (focus in m and ft) went for 810 USD a couple of hours ago... seller leicavitmp (Swedish dealer), winner scioneri7 7507444997
cheers, Frank
A 1.5/85 late series black-chrome, S/N 12169 exc+ withot caps (focus in m and ft) went for 810 USD a couple of hours ago... seller leicavitmp (Swedish dealer), winner scioneri7 7507444997
cheers, Frank
R
Roman
Guest
Hmm, those prices mainly reflect prices on US Ebay, I guess - here in Europe, where Canon LTM lenses are much rarer, you'd have to take at least Euros for dollars, and then maybe an extra 15 to 20%. Eg. I had been looking for the 50/1.8 for quite a while, and among the few I found none went for less than 150 Euros - they were rather in the 200 Euro range...
Roman
Roman
back alley
IMAGES
roman, maybe none of my business...but...why not buy frank's 50/1.8 at 150 u.s.?
that's about 116 euros according to my handy internet currency coverter.
joe
that's about 116 euros according to my handy internet currency coverter.
joe
R
Roman
Guest
joe,
I did get one a few months ago, from a German seller (member of a B&W darkroom forum - very knowledgeable and helpful guy, former head of Ilford PR department before they downsized, so I knew he was reliable), for 180 Euros including shipping, and the glass was absolutely spotless, like new...
There were no offers of Canon 50/1.8 at that time (I had asked in the forum), and don't forget: on top of the prize you'd have to add about 20 to 25 $ shipping, 20% Austrian VAT, and around 6 to 7 % customs duties (both applicable on prize and shipping!) - that would make around 215-220 $ = 165-170 Euros, plus longer waiting times for shipping, and added inconveniences for getting the money across (inside the EU you can transfer money from one account to another without charges).
But had I known about such a deal at that time, I might have gone for it, nevertheless...
Roman
I did get one a few months ago, from a German seller (member of a B&W darkroom forum - very knowledgeable and helpful guy, former head of Ilford PR department before they downsized, so I knew he was reliable), for 180 Euros including shipping, and the glass was absolutely spotless, like new...
There were no offers of Canon 50/1.8 at that time (I had asked in the forum), and don't forget: on top of the prize you'd have to add about 20 to 25 $ shipping, 20% Austrian VAT, and around 6 to 7 % customs duties (both applicable on prize and shipping!) - that would make around 215-220 $ = 165-170 Euros, plus longer waiting times for shipping, and added inconveniences for getting the money across (inside the EU you can transfer money from one account to another without charges).
But had I known about such a deal at that time, I might have gone for it, nevertheless...
Roman
back alley
IMAGES
i can sympathize with the waiting, my m-grip seems in limbo.
and yes, of course, the shipping plus the taxes, what a pain.
it is similar for me but maybe so bad.
joe
and yes, of course, the shipping plus the taxes, what a pain.
it is similar for me but maybe so bad.
joe
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
backalley photo said:
Hey Joe! There is a queue for that lens, you know?!
Although as a newbie round here I of course won't be offended if I've missed out for someone with a longer history of canon-lens-lust :bang:
Tom
taffer
void
Who ? We !? Naaa...
T
tedwhite
Guest
I just noticed that a Canon 1.8/35 in LTM went for $233.50 on ebay. Not knowing squat about Canons I tuned into this thread and took a look at Meleica's chart. I'm impressed at the value of these lenses. May I assume (please don't hit me, I know I'm consorting with rabid Canonophiles here) that these lenses, in terms of quality, are worth the money? As good as, or, in some cases, better than Leica glass? How would they compare with the current crop of M39 CV lenses?
Ted
Ted
John Shriver
Well-known
Many of the Canon lenses were better than the lenses that Leica was making at the same time. But better than new Leica lenses? Not likely. Competitive with CV lenses, at least somewhat.
Most of the Canon RF lens prices fairly represent their value as shooters. Only the more collectible ones could be considered priced more for rarity than function, the best example of that is the 85/1.5. The prices for the 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 are a combination of quality and rarity. (Both are quite competitive with the Summicron 90/2.0.) The 19/3.5 and 25/3.5 are very fine, but priced more for rarity.
Most of the Canon RF lens prices fairly represent their value as shooters. Only the more collectible ones could be considered priced more for rarity than function, the best example of that is the 85/1.5. The prices for the 85/1.8 and 100/2.0 are a combination of quality and rarity. (Both are quite competitive with the Summicron 90/2.0.) The 19/3.5 and 25/3.5 are very fine, but priced more for rarity.
back alley
IMAGES
ted,
i think the canon lenses aquit themselves very nicely on their own merit.
i truly believe that my canons have more potential than i have mined from them.
i doubt highly that any of my photos would be 'better' had they been taken with cv or leica glass.
i prefer the 'look' of these lenses to others.
i think the 2 cv lenses i had were remarkably good, cost not considered.
the big difference for me is the look of low contrast and high resolution lenses, a more old time look.
the best lenses i have ever used, bar none, were the lenses for my mamiya 6.
but that apples and we're talking oranges here.
joe
i think the canon lenses aquit themselves very nicely on their own merit.
i truly believe that my canons have more potential than i have mined from them.
i doubt highly that any of my photos would be 'better' had they been taken with cv or leica glass.
i prefer the 'look' of these lenses to others.
i think the 2 cv lenses i had were remarkably good, cost not considered.
the big difference for me is the look of low contrast and high resolution lenses, a more old time look.
the best lenses i have ever used, bar none, were the lenses for my mamiya 6.
but that apples and we're talking oranges here.
joe
T
tedwhite
Guest
Thank you John and Joe for your informative prose. I know more than I did yesterday.
And, Joe, re the apples and oranges, the 80/2.8 on my Kowa 6 was the best lens in my life, followed closely by whatever it was on my Rolleiflex years ago. But we are, indeed, talking about an unfair comparison.
While it is true that I have made maybe 20-25 16X20's from 35mm black and white negatives in my life that held together at that size and looked quite good, they were rarities. Whereas you could do that all day long with 6X6 or 6X7 negatives.
Have you looked Gevorg's ARAX 60 TTL's that are a fine tuned version of new Kiev 60's?
For $300 and change (with an 80mm lens) it's hard to avoid temptation.
(clearly a GAS attack)
Ted
And, Joe, re the apples and oranges, the 80/2.8 on my Kowa 6 was the best lens in my life, followed closely by whatever it was on my Rolleiflex years ago. But we are, indeed, talking about an unfair comparison.
While it is true that I have made maybe 20-25 16X20's from 35mm black and white negatives in my life that held together at that size and looked quite good, they were rarities. Whereas you could do that all day long with 6X6 or 6X7 negatives.
Have you looked Gevorg's ARAX 60 TTL's that are a fine tuned version of new Kiev 60's?
For $300 and change (with an 80mm lens) it's hard to avoid temptation.
(clearly a GAS attack)
Ted
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
John Shriver said:
Speaking as an 85/1.5 owner, I'd like to say that I consider it pretty darn functional and have used it quite a lot. It's not as sharp at full aperture and close distances as a modern super-speed 85 -- such as the highly-regarded 85/1.4 Minolta AF that I used to own when I had a bunch of Minolta Maxxum gear -- but it produces very usable results. Yes, it's pricey, but ultra-speed teles always are. As far as I'm concerned, its main drawbacks are usability nuisances such as hefty weight and an unevenly-spaced f/stop ring. Mine also focuses a bit stiffly, and someday when I've got a lot of spare money I should send it off to DAG or Focal Point and have it gone over.
So if it appeals to you and someday you run across the chance to bag one at a price you can afford, don't hesitate just because you're "a user, not a collector." It's a good user lens if you shoot a lot in low light.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi jlw, 730g weight single helicoil is always a bit "stiff" focussing, isn't it? The same with my 1.8/85! It improves when use it more often! Good you mentioned the Minolta SLR lens, otherways I would think you are SLR-hater and RF-daffy...
Seriously, how is junk-percentage due to ill focussing with the 1.5/85 at a CANON RF camera with 41mm baselength? Or do you use it on a M-2?
I have one single space for a "very fast" telephoto in my vitrine, but not the money yet... and pity I missed that Nikkor-SC in LTM going at ebay two weeks ago..
cheers Frank
The same with my 1.8/85! It improves when use it more often! Good you mentioned the Minolta SLR lens, otherways I would think you are SLR-hater and RF-daffy... Seriously, how is junk-percentage due to ill focussing with the 1.5/85 at a CANON RF camera with 41mm baselength? Or do you use it on a M-2?
I have one single space for a "very fast" telephoto in my vitrine, but not the money yet... and pity I missed that Nikkor-SC in LTM going at ebay two weeks ago..
cheers Frank
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi Ted,
I use C/V and Canon lenses side by side - usually landscape. These are my "journey" lenses. They have to be compact and sharp. Two of the best new C/V lenses are the 4.5/15 and the 4/25. I.e. I found out that the best supplement to them is the CANON 2/35, not the C/V 1.7/35 (sharpness, contrast and color rendition). A 2/35 Summicron is out of my reach and wouldn't be much better (if ever) in LTM version, since all my RF-glass is screwmount yet.
One thing where C/V lenses are improved to old CANONs is backlight behavior/ flare. But with a proper hood used, you would be surprised how less flare i.e. a 1.5/50 Canon produces even with sun in the picture.
I use C/V and Canon lenses side by side - usually landscape. These are my "journey" lenses. They have to be compact and sharp. Two of the best new C/V lenses are the 4.5/15 and the 4/25. I.e. I found out that the best supplement to them is the CANON 2/35, not the C/V 1.7/35 (sharpness, contrast and color rendition). A 2/35 Summicron is out of my reach and wouldn't be much better (if ever) in LTM version, since all my RF-glass is screwmount yet.
One thing where C/V lenses are improved to old CANONs is backlight behavior/ flare. But with a proper hood used, you would be surprised how less flare i.e. a 1.5/50 Canon produces even with sun in the picture.
Last edited:
T
tedwhite
Guest
Sonar2:
Good comments. I actually have the c/v 4/25 and it is indeed sharp. My only other c/v lens is the 2.5/35, equally sharp. The 4/25 stays on the Bessa Land the 2.5/35 stays on the Bessa R. And you are right about backlight, flare, etc. Much improved.
I have a Jupiter 9 (2/85) but it's in M42 and fits only on my Spotmatic bodies. Like all Jupiter lenses, they need lens hoods. Then they are quite good and dirt cheap compared to c/v, Canon, Minolta, etc.
Ted
Good comments. I actually have the c/v 4/25 and it is indeed sharp. My only other c/v lens is the 2.5/35, equally sharp. The 4/25 stays on the Bessa Land the 2.5/35 stays on the Bessa R. And you are right about backlight, flare, etc. Much improved.
I have a Jupiter 9 (2/85) but it's in M42 and fits only on my Spotmatic bodies. Like all Jupiter lenses, they need lens hoods. Then they are quite good and dirt cheap compared to c/v, Canon, Minolta, etc.
Ted