Canon LTM frank, howse the new coll. 50?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
10:24 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
hey frank,

have you seen any results from the collapsible canon 50/1.9 yet?

i'm thinking about bidding on one or putting out an apb on one.
i like the idea of a smaller 50 but am hoping it's sharp enough.

how does it compare to the canon 50/1.8?

joe
 
I'll have some results in a few days, probably before the end of this Easter weekend. Here's my guess though: you know how the Canon 50mm f1.8 has been very favourably compared to the Summicron of that vintage, and how the earlier Serenar was not quite up to that standard? Well, the collapsible, which is an even earlier lens, would be, at best, an equal to the Serenar rigid. I'm actually hoping it gives a less sharp, vintage look. I've got sharp covered with my other 50mm lenses. I'll post a result as soon as I can.

I also have a collapsible FED lens (I22) that is a copy of the Elmar, and it is reputed to be a very good/sharp lens, only a bit slow at f3.5. If you are using this lens for daytime outside shots then that would not be a concern. It is even more compact than the collapsible Serenar. (I know what you're saying now, Joe: But it's not a Canon lens for my Canon body, Currently on my M3 there is that Canon lens with a Nikon enlarging-lens cap on it. Talk about eclectic!)

I was hoping to do this a while ago, but some GAS got in the way. Now that I'm fairly settled with the gear I've got, I will eventually get around to doing a comparison of all the 50mm lenses I've aquired. (I just need to find a very patient, scantily-clad pretty woman to be the test subject. Nude would be best, but I would stick sections of newspaper over certain parts of her body so that I can enlarge them to see how clear the print is.)
 
Last edited:
thanks frank.

from the reading i've done, i tend to agree that the collapsible lens will not be as sharp as the 1.8.
my 'standards' are more relaxed than most so a touch of sharpness loss might be quite acceptable to me.
i'm thinking more compact and no real loss of lens speed.

ok, great, i'm looking forward to your immediate results and hope you find a model, real soon too!

joe
 
FrankS said:
I'll have some results in a few days, probably before the end of this Easter weekend. Here's my guess though: you know how the Canon 50mm f1.8 has been very favourably compared to the Summicron of that vintage, and how the earlier Serenar was not quite up to that standard? Well, the collapsible, which is an even earlier lens, would be, at best, an equal to the Serenar rigid. I'm actually hoping it gives a less sharp, vintage look. I've got sharp covered with my other 50mm lenses. I'll post a result as soon as I can.
Click to expand...

Frank,

I'm interested to know where you heard that the early Serenar rigid 50/f1.8 is of lower image quality than the Canon 50/f1.8. Everything I have read seems to indicate that they are the exact same optical formula, even down to the coating.
I have never noticed any difference in the results from my own Serenar and Canon versions, but have never done a real photo test of them.

Regards, Paul C.
 
Paul, this impression has been created through my reading of others' reviews and stated opinions of these lenses. I could (unknowingly) be spreading false information. Once I get to this 50mm lens comparison test, I will have some firsthand results (which will only apply to the specific samples of the lenses I'll be testing.)
 
Okay, since Joe is eager for the results from this lens, I finished off a roll of film using the Canon Serenar collapsible 50mm f1.9 lens this afternoon. I just finished developing the roll and the negs look good. Once the film is dry I'll make a few prints tonight and once those are dry I'll scan them and post them here. Stay tuned!
 
Frank:

What size prints will you make for scanning purposes?

Ted
 
The prints are still wet but I can say 2 things: they are pretty sharp, and the lens is flare-prone. Once dry I'll scan and post one.

Ted, I usually make full frame prints on an 8by10 piece of paper.
 
Here's a scan of a print i made earlier tonight. Not bad for a lens made in the late forties.
 
I'd say that the results are consistent with what I've read about the various Canon 50mm lenses. It is a notch below the f1.8, which is simply brilliant. It is more like the softer redition that I get with the Jupiter 8.
 
I would say that this is definitley a lens worth getting if you are interested in a vintage image from a lens in a compact package (due to it's being collapsible) and if ultimate sharpness is not the be all and end all. It would beat out the Elmar/I-22 if speed is important.
 
Joe, that 3.5 is really old. And slow.

Would you be interested in trying out my lens in person? I'll ship it to you, you try it, and if you like it, we could work something out. Like maybe a swap for your CV35mm lens. I'm flush with 50's but only have a J-12 (35) which won't fit on my Bessa R.
 
That old and slow 50/3.5 Serenar is better than any Elmar I've owned. It's always on my IIIf L...a (Canon forum ya know). It's the lens that made me realize Canon lenses were better than similar OEM lenses for the IIIf. Plus it has a conventionally located and click-stopped aperture control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom