Canon LTM Canon-P with 100/2

[ScottMac]

Will the Canon-P reliably focus the Canon 100/2, shooting wide open? I realize that the only conclusive way to find out is to do my own testing, but I'd really like some input from anyone who may have tried this combo. I'd rather use the Canon-P for this lens because of the built-in 100mm framelines, and because the rangefinder and viewfinder are combined as one unit, but I have noticed that the effective base length of the P may not be enough to handle it. If my memory serves me correctly, the effective base length for the P is 41mm, isn't it? In comparison, I believe the Leica IIIc and the Bessa-T is something like 58? I suppose I could use the lens on either the Bessa or the Leica, but I'd rather not deal with a seperate finder, if I can help it. I seem to remember that moving your eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder could be enough to throw the focus off, given the shallow depth of field of this lens. What are your thoughts and experiences on this?

 

[Terao]

No experience with the 100/2 or the P (yet!) but I do use an R-D1. That has an effective baselength of 37mm and I can reliably focus the Jupiter 9 (85 f/2) and the Voigtlander 75 f/2.5. I did find it much easier to focus both on my T though (before it died 🙁 )
A 100/2 is never going to be easy though...

 

[jlw]

I own a 100/2 and used to own a P; I still own a VI-T, which I believe has the same rangefinder base length.

I expect Canon had designed this lens with the expectation it would be used on their V and VI-series cameras, with their built-in RF magnifiers. Still, I don't recall ever having any problems with focusing accuracy when using the lens on the P, at least at moderate distances. If you're planning to use it at tight-headshot range, you'll need to be very careful AND make sure your rangefinder is perfectly calibrated.

As to Ferider's question, I don't recall ever hearing of Canon selling an accessory viewfinder magnifier... but then again, they didn't need to! Except for the P, I believe every Canon RF model from the IIB (introduced 1949) to the VI-T/VI-L (discontinued 1961) had their three-mode viewfinder with a built-in magnifier position, as noted above.

Switch your V/VI-series Canon's viewfinder to the "M" position, slip the appropriate brightline finder into the auto-parallax-compensating accessory shoe, and you had the best setup for shooting with your 85/1.5 or 100/2 lens of anything available in the mid-'50s. (The later Canon 7 and 7s models dropped the three-position finder and the parallax-compensated accessory shoe, but those models' longer RF base length and projected parallax-compensated framelines took the place of both.)

 

[Sonnar2]

I use the 85/1.8 on my Canon 7, P or Bessa-.R, and all of them are capable of correct focussing. AFAIK the 100/2 was introduced 1959 when the P was still in production, giving the buyers a great telephoto choice between the f/3.5 and f/2.0 100mm. Between the 7 and the P there is no noticeable difference in focussing accuracy, both do quite well. The 100mm-framlines of my Canon P would be an argument to hunt for a 100/2 too, but after all both are very similar lenses optically and the 85/1.8 is noticeable smaller.
cheers Frank

 

[ScottMac]

Update.....I did a little experiment with the Canon-P, and the Bessa-T, both using the 100/2, low light, close focus. Shutter speed was 1/15, shooting wide open. The P did considerably better than the T (more shots in focus). I'm guessing that this is partly due to some movement on my part when I moved my eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder on the T.........I wonder what would happen if I composed first, and focused last........

 

[clarence]

I do not see how it is humanly possible to shoot at 1/15 with a 100mm lens at close range.

Update.....I did a little experiment with the Canon-P, and the Bessa-T, both using the 100/2, low light, close focus. Shutter speed was 1/15, shooting wide open. The P did considerably better than the T (more shots in focus). I'm guessing that this is partly due to some movement on my part when I moved my eye from the rangefinder to the viewfinder on the T.........I wonder what would happen if I composed first, and focused last........

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Very, very, very steady hands.

I could shoot at 1/15 with the 85mm J-9, but I don't know if 100mm would be possible for me. Different for everyone.

 

[clarence]

Very, very, very steady hands.

I could shoot at 1/15 with the 85mm J-9, but I don't know if 100mm would be possible for me. Different for everyone.

Can you make a sharp 8x10 enlargement with that?

 

[ScottMac]

I do not see how it is humanly possible to shoot at 1/15 with a 100mm lens at close range.

It's not something I'd normally try to do with any expectation of getting any number of good shots. I merely wanted to test both cameras , to see which would produce a greater percentage useable shots in an extreme condition, and the results were that the P produced better results than the T.....much better. I was expecting the opposite.

 

[raid]

I do not see how it is humanly possible to shoot at 1/15 with a 100mm lens at close range.

I have taken photos at 1/15 with a Canon T90 and a Canon 80-200/4 zoom.
Using a motordrive, I managed to get a few sharp shots. The Canon P is a rangefinder canera without a mirror plus the Canon 100/2is smaller than the Canon 80-200/4.
It is possible ...

Raid

 

[caila77]

[41 mm is the rught value of baselenght, I have a 100 3.5 lens and I didn't have any problem focusing with it at full aperture (ok f2 is not f3,5) and also I uused a 135 hektor with external viewfinder without problem