02Pilot
Malcontent
Well, I couldn't help myself and bought a Canon 50/3.5. Canonrangefinder.com seems to be still down, and even the Internet Archive version isn't working, so I can't identify which version it is (beauty ring is marked "Canon Lens f:3.5 50mm Canon Camera Co. Japan No.18504). It's a really nice shape and I hope to have some test samples soon. Thanks again for the feedback received here earlier.
02Pilot
Malcontent
OK, here are a few shots from the test roll (HP5+ in Caffenol C-H(RS)):
It's quite sharp across the frame when stopped down a bit (and really not too bad at f/3.5), but what surprised me more than anything else was that the contrast is higher than I expected, given my experience with Canon LTM lenses of similar vintage. Out-of-focus areas seem pleasant to my eye, though these were not particularly busy backgrounds.
The ergonomics aren't perfect, as noted above - the head rotating with focus is inconvenient. I wish they'd replicated the aperture scale on both sides of the head (like my W.Acall 35/3.5, for example) so that you'd have a better chance of finding it easily. Otherwise, however, I'm quite pleased - it will serve my requirement of a small general-purpose lens for my IIIg well.
It's quite sharp across the frame when stopped down a bit (and really not too bad at f/3.5), but what surprised me more than anything else was that the contrast is higher than I expected, given my experience with Canon LTM lenses of similar vintage. Out-of-focus areas seem pleasant to my eye, though these were not particularly busy backgrounds.
The ergonomics aren't perfect, as noted above - the head rotating with focus is inconvenient. I wish they'd replicated the aperture scale on both sides of the head (like my W.Acall 35/3.5, for example) so that you'd have a better chance of finding it easily. Otherwise, however, I'm quite pleased - it will serve my requirement of a small general-purpose lens for my IIIg well.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Thanks for that. I tried to get to the site through the Internet Archive myself, but for whatever reason I was unsuccessful; your link worked perfectly.
My lens is apparently a relatively rare Type 7. I am curious as to what the "changes in many other features" entail - does anyone have the book handy to see what was changed in this variant? Thanks again.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Since there's a dearth of samples from this lens, I figured I'd post a few color shots.
Generally, the lens performed about as I expected, based on comments here and some shots I've seen (film was slightly old Kodak Gold 200, which explains the grain). Overall I'm quite pleased with it as a compact general-purpose 50.
Generally, the lens performed about as I expected, based on comments here and some shots I've seen (film was slightly old Kodak Gold 200, which explains the grain). Overall I'm quite pleased with it as a compact general-purpose 50.
kermaier
Well-known
02Pilot, I have to say -- the characteristics of this lens aside -- you've posted some really fine pictures here!
::Ari
::Ari
02Pilot
Malcontent
I really appreciate that - thanks. Even when I'm just testing I try to find interesting shots; sometimes I get lucky.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
While I never have used the Canon f3.5 50mm collapsible lens, I have used the Elmar and its Zeiss Tessar equivalent and even tried out a Topcon Simlar f3.5 50mm collapsible at one point.
The thing is that a good FSU I-22 or collapsible I-50 lens will give you pretty much the same look as all the above mentioned lenses and for a much cheaper price once you luck out on a good one... and that is the clincher or caveat with FSU gear unfortunately.
The thing is that a good FSU I-22 or collapsible I-50 lens will give you pretty much the same look as all the above mentioned lenses and for a much cheaper price once you luck out on a good one... and that is the clincher or caveat with FSU gear unfortunately.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I certainly considered the FSU option. I have a FED 50 (I-10) which, while capable, does not produce quite the quality I would like. There have been tests of this lens here that have shown it compares unfavorably to the Elmar, though to be fair only marginally so. As an aside, I'm tinkering with this lens to see if I can get better results out of it, but it's a slow testing process - stay tuned.
I have no experience with the I-22 and I-50, though I've seen results that suggest at least the latter is sharper and more contrasty than the FED. What they lack are the convenience of click-stops for the aperture and compatibility with a filter size I already have and use (34mm). That, plus the uncertainty of sample-to-sample variation, led me to opt for the Canon.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I have two Fed I-10 lenses (both coated post war ones) and both preform much poorer than the I-22 and even the I-50. One of the I-10 lenses is so wonky that will not mount on a Barnack Leica but will mount on a Nicca and some Barnack Canons and can be forced on a Zorki 1 but only did that once.
The main problem is a wide variation in quality with these FSU lenses, like all FSU gear.
02Pilot
Malcontent
Just discovered an interesting fact about this lens. Unlike every other collapsible I've tried, this one will in fact collapse fully on a Canon P (and presumably any other VI-series body). It will also collapse on an L1 (and other V-series bodies, one assumes), though the clearance at the top light baffle is extremely tight.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I have to say I'm really enjoying this lens. Took in on a very brief trip to Maine last weekend and couldn't be more pleased with the results. These are all on Ektar.
