Canon P with Telephoto Lens

[aoresteen]

I am putting a Canon P kit together. It's going to be my Poor Man's M2 kit.

So far I have a Canon 35mm f/2 and a Canon 50mm f/1.8. I need to sort out the telephoto lens. I only want to use Canon RF glass. I do not have a P body yet.

I mostly will be using it in the day for street photograph & travel.

I have the Serenar 85mm f/2. How well would it work with the 100mm frame line of the Canon P? If it works ok then I'm done; otherwise I will source a 100mm lens.

I am considering getting a Canon 100mm f/2 or f/3.5. Which one handles best on the P? Can the P focus the 100mm f/2 accurately wide open?

I'd even consider getting a 100mm f/4 as I had on in the 80's and liked it. If it cuts off less in the viewfinder I would get one.


Thanks!

 

[xayraa33]

I have used my Nikkor f2 85mm lens on my Canon P and the 100mm frame line works OK for head and shoulder portrait shots....if you shoot further than that just imagine and compose a bit further out of the 100mm frame line an you will be very close.

You have to understand that RF cameras like the P are not always 100% accurate with framing even if you use a focal length lens that corresponds to the frameline.

 

[Mackinaw]

I can only comment on the Canon 100/3.5, which is a superb lens. Sharp and contrasty at all apertures. Compact and very light too. I have the black-and-chrome version.

Jim B.

 

[Bingley]

I can only comment on the Canon 100/3.5, which is a superb lens. Sharp and contrasty at all apertures. Compact and very light too. I have the black-and-chrome version.

Jim B.

This^^^^^. Your P has the framelines for a 100mm lens. The black and chrome 100/3.5 is tiny, lightweight, and a superb optic. I have both this lens and the Canon 85/1.9. The latter is also an excellent optic but is a brick by comparison to the 100/3.5. I think the 100/3.5 would balance very well on the P.

 

[aoresteen]

Thanks all! The 100 f/3.5 in black will be it. Now on to the hunt!.

I think all will like my Canon P kit when I have it complete.

Since I have a Voigtlander 21mm screw mount I'll use it with the P even though it isn't Canon glass 🙂 .

 

[aoresteen]

Black 100mm f/3.5 III lens found & bought! Once I get it I will send it to Don Goldberg for a CLA.

Can't wait!

 

[Forest_rain]

I'm looking for a 135mm 3.5-ish LTM lens, can anyone recommend one? Looks like there's several Canon models. How are the older Serenar models?

I'd like to spend $150 max, so no Leicas for me.

Looking on eBay, a lot of them seem to have "haze". How difficult are these lenses to clean? I imagine they might be hard because of the number of elements on telephoto lenses, so perhaps it's best to search for one without haze at all?

 

[Mackinaw]

Check out the Canon Museum for basic info on Canon rangefinder lenses:

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/series_search.html?t=lens&s=s&sort=old

All Canon 135/3.5 lenses have the same optics. The Serenar version is all brass. Nicely made, but heavy. The all-black versions have aluminum barrels (much lighter).

Jim B.

 

[raid]

The Canon 135/3.5 is excellent, and a bargain. Slightly more costly (not much more) is the Nikkor 135/3.5. Both are superb lenses. If you really want to spend some good money, get a Canon 85/1.8 or for less money, get the Canon 85/1.9. Both are great lenses.

 

[raid]

Canon 85/1.8 at 8.0

Canon 85/1.9 at 8.0

The very cheap Steinheil 85/2.8 at 8.0

Elmarit 90/2.8 at 8.0

 

[Musashi1205]

I can recommend the 135mm 3.5...
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167555

 

[raid]

A true master lens is the Nikkor 105/2.5 LTM. It is heavy though.

Take a look at the qualities in this image:

or this one:

 

[charjohncarter]

The Serenar 100 f4.0 it is a little long for my IIIf, and 100mm isn't on my VIOOH. But it is a solidly built performer: very sharp. You may want to think about the length before consideration.

I'm not big on tele lenses, so I have used this lens very little, but when I did no flare, no haze, very sharp, solidly built, easy to focus and use, and Canon chrome lasted from back it the 50s

EDIT: I did put an Oxford comma in front of the 'and.'

 

[Forest_rain]

I'm thinking that a 135mm might be a little long for a rangefinder lens... I bought a Canon 7, so it has the frame lines, but I realized that it's not like an SLR and viewfinder magnification might be an issue. Canon 7, so no accessory shoe.

That being said, 135mm is my favorite focal length for SLRs. Totally new to rangefinders.

Are you saying that earlier chrome versions and later black/chrome and black versions are just as good? Same optics? Surely there must have been some improvements in the later iterations, but the older ones are cheaper....

 

[raid]

Newer lenses often are lighter. They also cost more money.

 

[xayraa33]

I'm thinking that a 135mm might be a little long for a rangefinder lens... I bought a Canon 7, so it has the frame lines, but I realized that it's not like an SLR and viewfinder magnification might be an issue. Canon 7, so no accessory shoe.

That being said, 135mm is my favorite focal length for SLRs. Totally new to rangefinders.

Are you saying that earlier chrome versions and later black/chrome and black versions are just as good? Same optics? Surely there must have been some improvements in the later iterations, but the older ones are cheaper....

I agree on the 135mm lens might be too long for great RF camera use.

I got a nice late made black finish Canon 135mm lens and I can count on one hand the number of times I used it on my Canon 7 and Leica M3 these last two decades.

If I want to use the 135mm focal length I usually grab the Zuiko 135mm f2.8 on an OM 1 SLR camera.

 

[peterm1]

If you want something light that handles well in the 100mm range go for the Canon 100mm f3.5 in LTM. It truly is tiny! In fact for my taste (just in terms of appearance it looks a little too small - but I have a fondness for honking great lenses). Having said that it handles well and is sharp. Oh and it is comparatively cheap to buy. The one problem everyone finds is that this lens has a tendency for some inner elements to haze. A problem of how the original helical lube interacts with the lens glass used. To make it worse that haze is sometimes (in truth probably often) irredeemable. It etches the glass. So do not do as I did buy one cheap knowing it was hazy and just assume it will clean up (the lens is dead easy to open up and clean BTW). Mine did not and many do not. I still use mine though but avoid backlit situations. If you get a clean one I can pretty much guarantee you will be pleased as it really is sharp and contrasty based on what I have seen. This lens is in 2(?) versions - chrome and black and a later all black livery. Optically I think they are the same. Of course its larger brother the 100mm f2 is a lovely lens and I would give my right arm to have one (almost). But it is pricey.

If you keep the Serenar 85mm (which I know to be really very heavy) I do not think the 100m framelines will be a huge disadvantage - your lens will capture a little more than the framelines indicate and that is seldom a problem - the other way round could be of course. As for me I used a Canon 85mm top mounted accessory finder which worked fine as I did not mind doing it this way. Others might. The only real gripe I had with my 85mm in LTM when I had it was that it has a huge focus throw - makes focus accurate but potentially slow when shooting in the field at anything other than a static target. One other thing. I found the focus on the one I had was off (front or back focusing I cannot now recall). I later recall some other people complaining of this problem on this lens in some forum or other. I do not know if it truly is endemic to this lens but I would advise checking that.

PS I once had the Serenar 100mm f4 too. it is quite small but being brass and chrome is quite heavy. I understand the later f3.5 to be optically better but if you like the classic look it may be fine. I do not recall much about mine when I had it (over 20 years past) and I do not think I ever really got around to using it much. I think it was more a pretty little lens I kept to look at and fondle.

 

[charjohncarter]

PS I once had the Serenar 100mm f4 too. it is quite small but being brass and chrome is quite heavy. I understand the later f3.5 to be optically better but if you like the classic look it may be fine. I do not recall much about mine when I had it (over 20 years past) and I do not think I ever really got around to using it much. I think it was more a pretty little lens I kept to look at and fondle.

I pretty much agree with you. But the 90mm f4.0 Elmar is smaller and that is the one I reach for: once a year.



Tmax400 HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Forest_rain]

If you want something light that handles well in the 100mm range go for the Canon 100mm f3.5 in LTM. It truly is tiny! In fact for my taste (just in terms of appearance it looks a little too small - but I have a fondness for honking great lenses). Having said that it handles well and is sharp. Oh and it is comparatively cheap to buy. The one problem everyone finds is that this lens has a tendency for some inner elements to haze. A problem of how the original helical lube interacts with the lens glass used. To make it worse that haze is sometimes (in truth probably often) irredeemable. It etches the glass.

You're right...the 100mm looks really tiny. It might be the winner here. I know 85mm is a popular focal length and good and faster usually, but it's way too expensive for me. That's why I go for 135mm and I don't mind the slower lens.


I'll have to look out for haze and maybe a seller that accepts returns when buying a 100mm, I've never had a lens with haze and not sure how to identify it. Sometimes lenses look "blurry" when looking through them in pictures, but I'm not sure if this is haze or just the way they lens focus is aligned. Anyway, hopefully I'll have luck.

 

[raid]

The 100/3.5 may have haze. Check it out.