Canon LTM Canon Lens Price & Info Guide - updated again

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Hey, that's my Canon 7 article there :) Fun Dan, because you sold me that Canon :D

Must remember to try to find those missing links and add the results from the 50/1.2, must also add links to your Canon pages as well.

Thanks for the update !
 
dan,

the 100/4 is better than you give it credit for. a 3 element lens does not have to be unsharp.
and the 85/2 is razor sharp, and does not seem to get the credit it deserves, from anyone.

and i think you changed the description for the 35/2.8 - a lens i like a lot. not painfully sharp but sharp and delivers an nice old time look, as you stated high res, moderate contrast.

i'll make this a sticky so it's easier for us canon lovers to find.

joe
 
Joe,

the Triotar design, which Canon copied for this lens, is not known for great performance, because it suffers from astigmatism. In reality, its not too bad in terms of contrast or resolution. But, for the extra $$, the 100mm/3.5 is much better...

PS - I recently tried a 35/2.8 based on Sean Reid's comments, and although the 35 Summaron 2.8 is better ( me thinks ), this is a nice lens that gives a pleasant smoothness to images.
 
Last edited:
I just made a couple of telephoto test shots (I've gained half a dozen in the meantime...) at a Roman castle in the neighborhood. The 3.5/100 was one of the sharpest, better than the Nikkor 2.5/105! Even wide open! Amazing for a 40 year old design. The new C/V 2.5/75 wasn't better

cheers Frank
 
Thanks Joe ! I'll let you know, I liked what you told me about the lens, and for contrast the 35/2.5 cannot be beaten. I considered a screwmount Summaron 2.8 but man, those things can go up to $600 (!).

As for the 100/3.5, I was looking at the Canon museum yesterday, seems there were three versions (two black/chrome and a late black one), and that the first one was indeed a 3 element lens while the other two were 4 elements in 3 groups.
 
Hi Taffer, Canon Museum is wrong in that point, 3.5/100 is always 5 elements and the same excellent construction: black-chrome with "feet" scale, black-chrome with dual scale ft/m, and the late all black version with other filter (40?). All of them great shooters for the money. In the same league as my new C/V 2.5/75 or even better. Don't know how the C/V 3.5/90 is.
4/100 is it's precurser, a triplet.

cheers, Frank
 
Sonnar2 if you go to the Canon Museum site you will see your are correct so is the museum site. The misinformation is from Taffer (I guess as what he states isn't in the info I read at the museum)

. The museum shows exactly what you state in your post above nothing about any version other then a 5 element 4 group formula is mentioned on the Museum site. There are variation in the number of diaphram blades but thats seperate from the formula.

Peter Kitchinghams info on this lens shows 6 variations with 1 maybe two predating the dates shown on the museum site including a Serenar version dating to 10/52 (no info on formula is given). Peters info is of course backed up by known examples.

Peters info is here: http://tinyurl.com/78yg8

MArk W.
 
"but may benefit from good internal cleaning"

Probably haze around the two surfaces surrounding the aperture, but hard to say until you open it up. The rear module pops out easily.

Anyone here buy it?

Just to add to the old comments: I have a mint Canon 100mm F4; nice lens, very heavy, but not too sharp. Overall, the 9cm F4 Elmar is sharper. The Canon 100mm F4 makes a Good portrait lens. The 100mm F3.5 is the one to get for sharp.
 
Last edited:
frenchie is a dealer, that will surface again at a higher price. I have lost a couple auctions to him and later have seen the items again.
 
A very good 2/100 gone for 382 USD (321 EUR) 7569894729 to gregrsa (USA)
A good 1.8/85 from Portugal for 320 USD (269 EUR) 7573443398 to pc1480 (Australia)
 
Both my 35 Canons were good users with some wear and non serious issues (some oil on blades on the 35/2.8, bit of 'Jupiter-like' focus ring on the 1.8).

The 2.8 ran me $151, the 1.8 a bit more, $214.

And I still need to finish that Canon 7 page :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom