How do we feel about the Canon 50/3.5 collapsible?

[02Pilot]

I'm semi-seriously looking for a small collapsible 50 to keep on one of my IIIcs. I had been thinking the Elmar 50/3.5 was the obvious choice, and it probably is, but I came across something about the Canon 50/3.5 that got me thinking. It's hard to find much information on it, but if nothing else the ergonomics look a bit easier to deal with than the Elmar.

Anybody shot with one of these? How does it compare to the Elmar 50/3.5?

 

[Mackinaw]

It’s a tessar lens, just like the Elmar. I’ve never used one, but I imagine it’s performance, optically, would be quite similar to the Elmar.

Check out the “Canon 85mm Price” thread on the Canon sub-forum. There’s an optical diagram of the lens, and other info, in post #20.

Jim B.

 

[02Pilot]

Yes, I know it shares the same basic formula as the Elmar (and several other copies of varying authenticity), but I'm wondering about any information specific to this lens - resolution, contrast, color rendition, etc. - that might distinguish it.

 

[Mark Schretlen]

I shoot with the Elmar (red scale) and the Canon 3.5. The ergonomics of the Canon are better due to a more modern aperture ring. Filters are easier to shoot with on the Canon. Just be aware that the Canon's aperture ring means that the physical length of the lens is about 9mm longer than the Elmar in the collapsed position on-camera.

As for as optical differences, the lenses are now about 60 years old and my observations are just as likely due to age characteristics and the last time they were CLA'd plus my own lens preferences. In a blind test I am not sure I would be able to distinguish which lens was which. Anyway, I slightly prefer the Elmar purely because its has a "vintage" rendering. The Canon is crispy and modern particularly when stopped down. As I recall, I paid at least twice as much for the Elmar - maybe that explains my bias. I've kept both.

 

[02Pilot]

Mark, that's very helpful information. Thanks.

 

[aoresteen]

Also consider the Canon 50mm f/1.9 or f/2 collapsible. They are small when collapsed as well and should be easier to find. I just bought one (f/1.9) that's is bad shape and sent it out for CLA so I can't say how it performs.

 

[02Pilot]

I've already got a 50/1.9 (a rare 6-digit serial number example in near mint condition). It's a lens with two very different personalities that become more apparent as you get out to the extremes of the aperture scale. While I love the 50/1.9 for certain things (shooting wide open at night, for example), I'm looking for something a little smaller and a bit more suited to general purpose use.

 

[Dralowid]

You'd find the ergonomics of the 2.8 Elmar easier than the 3.5...dunno about the price though.

 

[02Pilot]

Oh, yes, pretty much anything beats the ergonomics of the 50/3.5 Elmar and clones. I am accustomed to using them, however, as I do have a FED 50/3.5. It's good optically, but not great (in my purely subjective view), and I'm spoiled by having seen what a Summitar can do, hence my taste for a proper Elmar....

 

[Monochrom]

The elmar 3.5 is really hard to beat, even by modern standards it is remarkable.
Canon lenses never let you down either, should be very interesting if you show some pics with it

🙂

 

[kermaier]

I had the Canon 50/3.5 collapsible as well, but I didn't get along well with it. Despite having a much better aperture control than the Leitz Elmar, it still rotates with the focusing barrel, so isn't fun to use in practice.

The Canon 50/2 collapsible is an excellent lens, but hard to find -- I regret having sold mine.

Of course, you could always go with a 50/2 Summar, which is a good lens if you find a clean one. Or a collapsible Summicron, for a less compact alternative.

And, if you want to spend considerably bigger coin, you might be able to find a Nikkor 50/3.5 collapsible in LTM (another Tessar copy, I think).

 

[02Pilot]

If I had to give my priorities in this particular case, I suppose they would be 1) small and 2) cheap. I certainly don't need to add another 50, but I'm not averse to it if I can find something that makes for a nice portable package combined with an improvement in image quality over the similarly compact FED 50.

Kermaier, what did you think of the images from the Canon 50/3.5?

 

[Doug]

Discussion of 3.5/50mm reminds me of another option, the Voigtlander Heliar collapsible. More modern, less cheap, thread mount, nickel version still available new from our RFF host: https://cameraquest.com/voigt_5035N.htm

As a true Heliar, the 5-element symmetrical 2/1/2 arrangement is effectively an improvement on the Tessar. I've used mine on an M240... search RFF Gallery for samples with this lens.

 

[02Pilot]

Don't get me wrong, the modern Heliar is tempting, but it's not cheap, which I think takes it out of the running for me at this point. I'm also not entirely certain I want something that modern in any case; I tend to prefer a lower contrast look.

 

[jcb4718]

I have the Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible but I don't have an Elmar f3.5. As others have said, the Canon does not collapse as much as the Elmar but because of its aperture ring (it has click stops) the ergonomics are good. It's sharp at all apertures. Fully open and at f4 the bokeh is a little busy and a little swirly. Canon seem to have emphasised sharpness over everything else. The Canon is an exquisite lens. My absolute favourite tessar is my Nikkor 50mm f3.5 non-collapsible. It's just a little bigger and handles well even though the aperture does not have click stops. It focusses to 1.5 feet but of course between 1.5 and 3 feet there is no rangefinder coupling. I don't find this feature useful. There is just something about the images produced by the Nikkor. It's maybe not as sharp as the Canon but the bokeh is smoother (not swirly), less busy. The colour rendering is warm and attractive. I can tell, even in a 6" x 4" print, that the picture was taken with my Nikkor. Both lenses do not intrude at all into the viewfinder of my Leica IIIF.

 

[02Pilot]

Interesting as the Nikon sounds, for this particular application I think I'm going to stick with collapsible lenses. Your comments on the Canon are helpful; I may need to see what's out there and how prices compare to similar Elmars.

 

[David Murphy]

It's a very good lense (I owned and used it in the past) - easily as good as an Elmar. Somewhere on the forum there is a thread with some sample shots I took with it.

 

[Mark Schretlen]

It's a very good lense (I owned and used it in the past) - easily as good as an Elmar. Somewhere on the forum there is a thread with some sample shots I took with it.

Here is the link to David's thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95345

 

[jcb4718]

I have a fairly standard set up to assess lenses. A side-by-side comparison of the same scene taken at the same time is the only way to really compare lenses (although to see if I like a lens I simply use it!). I sometimes use up the last couple of shots on a film this way. I attach a comparison of the Canon f3.5 collapsible and the Nikkor f3.5 rigid, both at f3.5 and both taken at about the same time. Both lenses are sharp (the lettering on the wooden blocks is clear). I draw your attention to the foliage in the background. It's slightly 'swirly' in the case of the Canon. The Canon is fitted with a UV filter and the Nikkor is fitted with a B+W KR1.5 Skylight filter so the Nikkor has a warmer rendering...but the Nikkor produces warm images anyway, with no filter.

 

[kermaier]

It's possible that David Murphy has the one I used to own (can't remember who on the forum I sold it to). I never got as nice results as David has, possible because I didn't get along with the ergonomics, and possible the focus adjustment wasn't right for my Epson R-D1.

I, too, have the Nikkor 50/3.5 rigid right now, and I'm much happier with that lens than I was with the Canon -- both in terms of handling and results.

::Ari