Canon LTM Collapsible lenses compatibility with the Canon P?

[lvakq]

Hi, this may be a silly question, but I am confused by the Leica-type mounts and which are compatible with my Canon P and would love some help. I read in places that certain collapsible lenses protrude too far into the camera despite the screw portion of the mount fitting. I've also seen M39, L39, sometimes with 'LTM' as well -- a bit confusing.

I have several lenses I had in mind:

- Canon Serenar 50mm f/1.9 (collapsible? and non-collapsible form is 1.8? Also cheaper than the next two)

- Leica Summitar 50mm f/2.0 (the old collapsible)

- Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 (again the old collapsible)

I have seen mixed reviews on the first two, but I quite like the look. I guess a question that may come up is why collapsible. My reasons are perhaps a bit shallow: easier to transport because compact, and I like the look too.

Would any of these fit on the Canon P? I would have expected the Canon to but the 'L39' label confuses me a bit.

Would love any input, I realise this information might be obvious to some but I am still in doubt after my research so thought asking directly would help.

 

[Beemermark]

Leica cameras like the M5 and CL had a drop down swing arm that was used to meter the scene. Your Canon P shouldn't have an issue with any lens.


The Summitar was a very good lens in it's day but you need to be aware of all the issues with old lenses. The Summicron was a better lens superseding the Summitar. Both were (IMHO) better than the Serenar. All Summicrons are excellent lenses and it's simply splitting hairs on which one is better. People use different terms to denote screwmount lens (as opposed to M mount) L39, LTM, screwmount are the most common terms.

 

[rbiemer]

LTM means Leica Thread Mount.

L39 is another way of referring to those types of lenses.

M39 is not really terminology for rangefinder lenses--like your Canon P--it properly refers to the few lenses that were made for SLR cameras that have the same thread as LTM lenses but are other wise not designed for nor correct for use on rangefinder cameras.
However, some people do use M39 when they mean LTM.

As to collapsible lenses, that becomes a bit more complicated.
A collapsible LTM lens can certainly be used on just about any LTM body. There are a few combinations that you may not want to actually collapse the lens but there are several easy ways to mitigate this. I liked to wrap a fairly thick rubber band around the lens, just behind the front collar. That wouldn't impede the function and wouldn't damage the lens but it would prevent me from thoughtlessly trying to collapse it.

And, I can suggest reading this page for a pretty good over view of these lenses:
https://www.cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm

Good luck!
And come back with more questions!

Rob

 

[Mackinaw]

There's the possibility that the light baffles of the P may interfere with the lens as it's being collapsed. Hopefully someone who has the lenses in question can give you an answer.

Jim B.

 

[lvakq]

Thank you everyone for the replies so far! It looks like mount-wise, I should be relatively safe then. The protruding elements problem is something I had encountered when reading about some of the Soviet lenses.

Having taken into account the advice and read further, I am getting the impression the Canon 1.9 has its charm but is perhaps pricier than it 'should' be by virtue of being harder to find -- indeed the arguably better performing 1.8 is noticeably less expensive. I think, with more thought, both Leicas a little outside my price range.

This led me to find the Leica Summar 50mm f/2, which appears to be an uncoated precursor to the Summitar. It looks like whilst being older it is also less pricey than the Canon lens I was considering, and presumably potential problems with the uncoated feature can partially be avoided with a lens hood.

 

[02Pilot]

I've got all of the lenses the OP mentioned except the Summicron. The Canon 1.9 and the Summar render somewhat similarly, while the Summitar is somewhat more refined (not a precise description, obviously, but that's how it feels). Rendering is highly subjective, so here's a few samples.


Canon 50/1.9:

Summar:

Summitar:

All of them should collapse into a Canon P if you are willing to tweak the baffle a little bit. It's thin metal and bends easily; you'll probably have to look at the bottom edge.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Last time I checked Canon was not good with RF lenses.

 

[davhill]

Last time I checked Canon was not good with RF lenses.

Would you care to clarify that? Being as we're sitting here in the Canon RF (rangefinder) camera forum, and talking about Canon RF cameras and RF lenses, how can you possibly say Canon was not good with RF lenses? You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I (and possibly most people reading this) are really quite fond of their Canon RF lenses, and most of us seem to think Canon was really quite good with RF lenses. Superb, even.

Now if you intended to say "not good with /collapsible/ RF lenses", you [may] have a point there. The 50/1.9 Serenar (rigid or collapsible) were early designs and despite their charm [rendering aptly demonstrated by O2Pilot's example below] were significantly superseded by later Canon optics. Among collapsibles, the Nikon 50/2 collapsible and the collapsible Leica versions cited earlier are arguably better.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I made big confusion. It was about RP, not P 🙂.

 

[xayraa33]

I made big confusion. It was about RP, not P 🙂.

Hmmm, that is like confusing a Lada Niva with a Toyota Landcruiser 70 series.

 

[lvakq]

I've got all of the lenses the OP mentioned except the Summicron. [...]

Thank you for this, really helpful! I like the Summar look, though given its age I'm finding it (unsurprisingly) hard to find one that doesn't say "has haze/fungus & needs cleaning", so a bit of a gamble. May I ask whether you had a similar issue when you came to acquire it?