Lenses for a Canon P

[Turves]

I have purchased a Canon P but with no lenses.

I will be looking at geting some Canon lenses but they may be expensive.

I know I can afford some FSU lenses.
But will they cause any damage to the Canon.

I was thinking of a 35mm, a 50mm and a 135mm.

Thanks

 

[xayraa33]

I have used FSU lenses on my Canon P and Canon 7 with no damage to the camera or the lenses, even with the J-12 lens.

 

[xayraa33]

This J-12 lens fitted my Canon 7 with no problem.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

What is your budget? The lower cost Canon lenses include the Canon 35/2.8, 50/1.8, and 135/3.5. The latter will probably run $50 or so, not much more than a J-11.

The FSU Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3 might require shimming for the Canon P, not hard to do.

There are different versions of the Jupiter-12 35/2.8, some with guards over the rear element- some not. You probably need the one without the gaurd, the later version. (Added, Like the BLACK one shown above)

 

[Ranchu]

Keep a look out for Chiyoko Super Rokkors in ltm. They also made them in a mount for the Minolta A (?). The 50mm's are about the only ones I could find between the price of the russians and the Canon's. They're pretty uncommon in the US, but there seem to be more over your side of the world.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

The 50mm f1.4 serenar is a very nice lens and is under $300. Whether with this camera or others get the best possible lens to utilize the camera because it is the lens that makes the image. If you are not satisfied with the lens you will sell it and be disappointed with the camera.

 

[alexnotalex]

loving my leitz summar and nippon kogaku HC, both bought for less than 100 british pounds on ebay. Much happier with these than the Industar I bought for 22 gbp.
my live-on lens is currently the nikkor.

summar (remember to uncollapse)

nikkor

industar (needs shimming so the rangefinder is accurate, Mr Sweeney has posted instructions 🙂 )

more like this on my flickr. Welcome to the world of lovely Canon P! hope you enjoy it.
best,
Alex

 

[sanmich]

The 50mm f1.4 serenar is a very nice lens and is under $300. Whether with this camera or others get the best possible lens to utilize the camera because it is the lens that makes the image. If you are not satisfied with the lens you will sell it and be disappointed with the camera.

I didn't know there was a serenar 1.4,but the canon 1.4 IS great.

 

[sanmich]

BTW, if you do want a good, cheap lens that has most chances to be calibrated straigth from the seller, I would recomend the I61.
They are dirt cheap too which only adds to the fun 🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

There was a Canon Serenar 50/1.5, a Sonnar formula lens and a Canon Serenar 50/1.8 lens. The Canon 50/1.4 was introduced later.

 

[Turves]

Thanks guys and girls.

You are right - The most important thing that I forgot was to get a lens that is the best quality that I can afford. So maybe get one lens first that will give good results so I won't get frustrated.

After all I have waited a year to get the Camera so a little more patience.

Thanks again for the help.

MT

 

[ferider]

If you want the "correct" lens, the Canon P came in a kit with either 50/1.4 or 50/2.8, if I remember right. The 50/2.8 is a Tessar-based design, the 50/1.4 an outstanding fast 50.

Also, 35mm framelines on the P are somehow hard to see and quite small, fit a 40mm lens better. And, the P has only 35/50/100mm framelines. Maybe better to get a Canon 100/3.5 as tele ? Cheap and real good quality.

I were you, I would start with Canon 50/1.4, or if too expensive, the 50/1.8. The latter can be had for US 150 or so.

Roland.

 

[thomasw_]

........ the 50/1.4 an outstanding fast 50......

+1 on this lens. It was one of the first lenses I used...a very fine lens that has character but is also a very stable performer.
I regret selling mine.

 

[raid]

I concur. I sold my 50/1.4, and it changed my life ... not really!

 

[bennyng]

Maybe better to get a Canon 100/3.5 as tele ? Cheap and real good quality.

That's a good recommendation from roland. The 100mm f/3.5 is a real pocket rocket if it's optically clear.

Cheers,

 

[gilpen123]

The 50 1.4 is a nice medium contrast lens that can produce good portraits

[/url][/IMG]

And a 35 1.8 I also love. Contrast of Canon IMHO is excellent for B&W

[/url][/IMG]

[/url][/IMG]

 

[newspaperguy]

I think both the 1.8 and the 2.8/50mm Canon lenses are very under rated.

Yes, I'm still using both of them.

 

[Mablo]

I like the Canon 50mm/1.8 more than the 50mm/1.4. It's so much easier to use in a real life situation (smaller, lighter) and produces great images. You can find a nice black-chrome version for $150.

Canon 35mm/2 or 35mm/1.8 are both real gems, unfortunately they cost like real gems too (around $400). The Canon 35mm/2.8 (around $200) is a very good one too but you can get a great Voigtlander 35mm/2.5 for the same money. In my case the J-12 couldn't be used with my Canon P because it slightly touched the upper light baffles.