Elmar 50/3.5 on Canon P ???? Help me!

[PCB_RF]

Choosing that first lens can make you crazy! Every lens mentioned so far is good; you have to decide which focal length works best for you, whether size is more important than speed, and what kind of "look" you want.

My choices would be:
35mm/Modern/Compact: C/V 35/2.5 Skopar
35mm/Vintage/Compact: Canon 35/3.5 or 3.2 Serenar; Leica 35/3.5 Elmar
50mm/Modern/Compact: C/V 50/2.5 Skopar
50mm/Vintage/Compact: Leica 50/3.5 or 50/2.8 Elmar (care needed w/baffle)

Focal Length/Convenience: 35mm or 50mm? You've mentioned both; your XA is 35mm and your RC is 42mm. If you are happy with 35mm, you can find some very compact 35mm lenses for the P: Canon/Serenar 35/3.2 or 35/3.5 and Leica 35/3.5 Elmar for vintage, C/V 35/2.5 for modern.

No need to collapse the lens, so the camera is always ready to use, and hardly thicker than a collapsed 50mm. P 35mm framelines are not easy for eyeglass wearers, but I'd rather move my eye around the finder than spend time extending and collapsing the lens.

That said, the C/V 50/2.5 is quite compact.

I measured a few lenses, without filters or hoods:

Leica 50/2.8 Elmar collapsed: 21mm (M-mount, but LTM should be the same)
Canon 35/3.2 Serenar: 23mm
C/V 35/2.5 Pancake I: 25mm
Canon 35/2.8 Serenar: 27mm
C/V 50/2.5 Skopar: 27mm

I suspect a pre-'50 50/3.5 Elmar might collapse thinner, and a vintage 35/3.5 Elmar might be more compact than the Canon 35/3.2 Serenar. I'm not sure if the older 50/3.5 Elmar has the same P light baffle issue as the later version. Does the C/V 35/2.5 non-pancake extend further than the Pancake I?

Lens Speed: It sounds like you are happy with 2.8 or 3.5, which gives you many choices for compact lenses. If you want 2.0 or faster, the camera will not easily fit in your jacket pocket.

Rendition/"Look": Vintage lenses generally have less contrast and sharpness than modern lenses, especially at wider apertures. The "look" of a 1940s 50/3.5 Elmar is different than a 2004 50/2.5 C/V Skopar. This can be very subjective, and matters less if you mostly shoot outdoors at smaller apertures.

We are all happy to give you our opinions, but you have to decide which factor is the most important. All the choices are good, though---good luck!

 

[Bingley]

That's a really good summary, PCB_RF! One additional thought, which has probably already occurred to Wallace, but which I'll mention anyway: if you've already got an XA, then I suggest making your first RF lens for the P a 50. The 35 lens on the XA is very sharp (as you know already). A collapsable 50 on your P, and an XA in your pocket, gives you a very compact kit covering two focal lengths, and the 50 uses the P's framelines to best advantage. You can get a 35 for the P later on. My two cents.

 

[raid]

I would substitute the Canon 35mm/2.8 for the Canon 35mm/3.5 or 3.2. The 35/2.8 is a really fine performer.

 

[Spider67]

I use the Canon 50/1,8 Seerenar on my Bessa R (sometimes on my Leica IIIc.but somehow collapsibles look better on that one) It's a great lens! But also a heavy one!

 

[Bingley]

I use the Canon 50/1,8 Seerenar on my Bessa R (sometimes on my Leica IIIc.but somehow collapsibles look better on that one) It's a great lens! But also a heavy one!

The later versions of this lens (chrome and black) are not as heavy, and make very fine travel lenses.