Leica M10 with Canon FD 17mm/4

[raid]

I have used this lens many times with film, and the images were very sharp and beautiful. I am aware of the optical challenges when using a vintage "very wide lens" that was designed for a film camera, and we use it with a full frame digital camera. The contrast is low, and the sharpness suffers. There seem to exist also other issues in the images. I tried this lens with the M8 and M9 before, and I was hoping that the M10 somehow gives me nice results.

link: https://raid.smugmug.com/Leica-M10-Canon-17mmFD/

 

[raid]

I drove to Pensacola Beach today to check out if Hurricane Ida's arrival to New Orleans has any effects on us here in Pensacola. The landing is forecast for tomorrow.

 

[raid]

Unlike the Hologon 16/8, the Canon 17/4 has hardly any purple smears or vignetting with the M10.

 

[raid]

The Canom lens was "there" for free, and the images don't look too bad to me.

 

[raid]

I tried out one of the images in B&W.

 

[raid]

duplicate post---oops---

 

[Monz]

Hi Raid. Those look pretty good to me. A few questions:
1. How did you adapt the FD lens to work on the M10?
2. Did you have any magenta banding on the edges of the frame which needed correction in post-processing?
3. Have you tried version 3 of the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Wide Heliar? That version of the lens works brilliantly on digital Leicas without magenta banding.

 

[raid]

Hi Raid. Those look pretty good to me. A few questions:
1. How did you adapt the FD lens to work on the M10?
2. Did you have any magenta banding on the edges of the frame which needed correction in post-processing?
3. Have you tried version 3 of the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 Super Wide Heliar? That version of the lens works brilliantly on digital Leicas without magenta banding.

Hello Monz. Thanks for your feedback.

1. I used Canon Adapter B for Canon FD lens to LTM, then used Leica LTM to M adaper.
2. No magenta banding with the M10, which is interesting to me. No corrections done in PS except adding some contrast.
3. No, I have not. I have so many lenses that it may be best for me to use what I already own.

 

[Mackinaw]

Nice set of pics. All look okay to me. The B&W shot is quite dramatic. I like the biting contrast.

Jim B.

 

[raid]

Thank you Jim.
I also like it how the B&W image came out.

 

[David Murphy]

Awesome shots. Not to spoil the party, but you might want to know however that the Canon 17/4 is radioactive.

 

[raid]

I recently read about this issue, David, but I doubt it that it is high radiation level lens. Have you seen any reports that are trustworthy on this issue?

 

[raid]

I use this lens very rarely, and I already have placed it back in the closet.

 

[David Murphy]

I recently read about this issue, David, but I doubt it that it is high radiation level lens. Have you seen any reports that are trustworthy on this issue?

Well the subject is a little controversial Raid, and no I have not seen reports by actual radiation health experts. I do own a reliable Geiger counter however, and I check all my lenses. On some lenses the counts obviously go screaming way above the background level. Why take any chances?

When I find a radioactive lens I see that it ends up in a landfill. That has been a little costly, but I don't want any unsuspecting persons to own one in the future. Unfortunately there were some really fine vintage lenses that were radioactive, your 17/4 was among them.

 

[raid]

How high was the radioactivity level in the Canon 17/4, and are there known guidelines when it is best to get rid off such lenses? The list of radioactive lenses is quite long, David. I once used a Geiger counter to measure the radioactivity of a WWII camera. I donated it to the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola. The US Navy tested the camera for a while, and after two years, it was housed in a special glass housing in the Museum.

 

[David Murphy]

How high was the radioactivity level in the Canon 17/4, and are there known guidelines when it is best to get rid off such lenses? The list of radioactive lenses is quite long, David. I once used a Geiger counter to measure the radioactivity of a WWII camera. I donated it to the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola. The US Navy tested the camera for a while, and after two years, it was housed in a special glass housing in the Museum.

Raid I only found a note about it in this link - not much info, but you can research it online some more I suspect:

https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses

A few times in the past I have made some estimates of the risks of common legacy radioactive substances and my assessment was, that for many lenses used casually, most would not likely present a problem. However radiation safety is a complex subject and exposure depends on many factors. This is one reason it is a scientific specialty and a profession.

I am sure I can become a self taught quasi-expert on the subject, but I have enough to do already and I don't want my hobby to overtake my energy too much in this regard. There are enough fine lenses out there that are perfectly clean, so I'm sticking to them.

 

[raid]

I switched the Canon FD 17/4 with the Rokkor 28/2.8 M. I use many lenses so each lens is used a little, except my favorites.

 

[raid]

I checked out the issue of having Thorium in a lens with an expert in the field, and it should be fine to use such lenses, in my opinion.
I appreciate David's cautioning!

I may switch back to the Canon FD 17/4 very soon. The weather is not good---blame Ida!

 

[rfaspen]

I have found that the amount of radiation emitted by lenses varies, but most are safe if you use them properly. My lenses seem to be mostly beta emitters, but detectable amounts of alpha and gamma too. Levels are in a range (sorry, don't remember values) quite safe with limited exposure. Of course I would never keep one these lenses on my nightstand or sleep with one under my pillow. I have found that the radioactive summicron (I don't own) had reduced emission to the rear of the lens. However, the takumar 50/1.4 emits all around. Again, variation.
Now, after attempting to quell fears over these lenses, I would note that with the values from the aerial Ektars I would not want to spend any amount of time with that lens closer than 1 meter from my body. Sufficiently high emission to cause real concern. Maybe those are anomalous because of their intended use?

 

[rfaspen]

And I should say that, like David, I am not an expert in radiation safety. Just a curious enthusiast with a selection of Geiger counters......and the ability to access primary literature as well as common sources.
Use radioactive lenses at your own level of comfort.