Canon P and Three Lenses Test

[farlymac]

This camera had been sitting around a long time before I got it. The shutter needed some adjustment to be able to get some functionality out of it. It's still not right, alternately capping and gapping, so I'll be sending it in some time later for a service.

It came with a Canon 2.8/50 that had a bit of fungus. I cleaned that out, and also did some more work on my Canon 1.8/50, hoping to completely remove the haze. It didn't happen, but at least it is usable as is. I also have a Leitz Elmar 4/90 with a scratched front element I got really cheap (it could be used for a portrait lens). And, I was able to get a Canon Auto-Up II for 1.8/50 to be able to do close-up work. The camera also came with the Canon Meter-2 which still works, and seems accurate.

I loaded up a roll of Ilford FP4, set the shutter speed on 1/125, and put the camera with meter and three lenses in a bag, and headed up the road for some random photo opportunities.

For the Canon lenses, I was using an Ednalite 40mm-Series VI adapter with an Ednalite 6-B hood, no filter, and the Auto-Up II (on the 1.8/50). For the Leitz Elmar, I used a Ricoh clamp-on Series VI hood, and a screw-in Ricoh Y2 filter.

I like this rig! Other than the pain of changing screw-mount lenses, it's a great handling camera. It's just the right size for my hands, and I like the weight of it. It's also very good looking. I could agree with the meter output, though maybe mis-read it a bit on a couple of shots. It figured that the 40-40.5mm adapter I ordered came in the mail while I was out shooting. The Ednalite rig is okay, but it's not the easiest to get on and off the lens. And I've got a perfectly good set of filters and hood in 40.5mm.

The two Canon lenses performed well. The Leitz? Well, I've had plans to replace it anyway. It's just mostly for testing purposes. The rangefinder is accurate, and the Auto-Up II worked perfectly.

It's a keeper.

PF

The Good

2.8/50 (after exposure correction)

Carvin's Creek by br1078phot, on Flickr

2.8/50

Verndale Park Shelter by br1078phot, on Flickr

2.8/50

Standing Tall by br1078phot, on Flickr

2.8/50

Looking Into The Past by br1078phot, on Flickr

1.8/50

Saltpetre Cave Home by br1078phot, on Flickr

1.8/50 plus Auto-Up II

Weathered Fence by br1078phot, on Flickr

And the Bad

2.8/50

76 Gapping by br1078phot, on Flickr

2.8/50

Capping by br1078phot, on Flickr

1.8/50

Flare by br1078phot, on Flickr

4/90 (scratched up front element)

Saltpre Cave Road Church by br1078phot, on Flickr


Make sure to review the entire set on Flickr to see which lens or accessory was used (check the tags) for each shot, along with other explanations and narrative.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7699588@N07/sets/72157642552668823/

 

[Ranchu]

Looking good, man. I particularly like the first and the weathered wood. From old posts it seems like the Canon P was the most popular camera around here a while back. Have fun with it!

 

[back alley]

the canon p is a classic camera...

 

[Spicy]

Spread the Canon P love around.

I've got one and the 1:1 finder is epic -- worth buying one just to experience shooting with both eyes open 😱

 

[Tim Read]

Particularly liked Carvins Creek. Great work.

Tim Read

 

[Bingley]

Nice shots! That little Canon 50/2.8 is definitely a keeper. I understand it's a Tessar design. I also like the Calvin Creek shot as well as the 76 shot.

 

[Scrambler]

If ultimate speed isn't your need with the 90 Elmar, consider using a black marker on the scratch to reduce glare. Then you will have an f4.1 Elmar with no visible deterioration in imaging.

 

[Steve M.]

I agree, try the black marker. Don't give up on the Elmar yet. Not sure of it's portrait capabilities as it is f4, but the ones I had made very nice images, and they were all beat up lenses. I like the first shot best as it has more of a Tri-X look. FP-4 is a great film, but I'm a Tri-X man all the way. However, if I was a landscape shooter in 35mm I might give it a go due to it's tight grain. Good film for that usage. The crossing guard shot has FP-4 written all over it! Nice.

I'm no longer a Flickr user. Do you have to be one one to see the tags? I couldn't figure out which lens took which pic.

 

[02Pilot]

Nice shots. I've found the P plus 35/50/90 is a really versatile kit for just about anything. I have a 135 for mine as well, but it's quite heavy and needs an auxiliary finder, so it doesn't see a lot of use.

Don't know if you have any plan to add a 35, but if you want a cheap buy-in the Soviet J-12 will just clear the light baffle. I used one for a while with no problems before I went to a Canon 35/2.8.

 

[farlymac]

Thanks, all.

Yes, I have been planning on trying the Sharpie trick, it's just that since the lens hasn't been getting any use, I haven't done it yet. And nice to know the J-12 does work on the P.

For those who can't see the tags on Flickr (and I didn't know that would happen), as you look through them, all photos from "Carvin's Creek" to "Capping" were with the 2.8/50; "Cap'n Jack West Memorial" through "Lens Comparison 1" were with the 1.8/50; "Lens Comparison 2" and "Saltpetre Cave Road Church" were with the 4/90; and "Weathered Fence" was with the 1.8/50 plus Auto-Up II.

I'll add some notes to the above photos.

PF