Canon LTM LTM Canon Serenar f:3.5 135mm Lens

[colyn]

Is this lens the redheaded stepchild of the Canon LTM lens?

I can find plenty of info on the Canon f:3.5 135mm Lens but hardly any on the version marked Serenar..

Is this lens any good??

 

[dbm]

The Serenar is the first version of the lens. Serenar was the brand name used for the lenses, while Canon was used for the cameras.

 

[colyn]

So far I have found very little about the Serenar branded lens and a lot about the Canon branded f/4 version.

I did however find a site that states the Serenar lens is much better than the f/4 version. I'll have to run it through some tests once it arrives..

 

[kbg32]

I have the 135 3.5 Serenar. An excellent lens. It is a lot smaller and lighter to carry then my 135 Elmarit!

 

[colyn]

I have the 135 3.5 Serenar. An excellent lens. It is a lot smaller and lighter to carry then my 135 Elmarit!

Thanks for the info..it should be here Wednesday so I'll be checking it out..I also want to compare it to my Hektor 135mm f/4.5 lens..

 

[venchka]

Canon made a 135/4.0? My late black version is 3.5. Who knew?

Wayne

 

[sparrow6224]

reputedly, the f/4 is not very good. I have the 3.5, in chrome. I was shocked by the image quality. I tested a slew of LTM lenses one day and it stood out as the best. As they say, the images taken with it "popped."

 

[sparrow6224]

I don't find it at all light and easy to carry, however.

 

[colyn]

Sounds like my $40 investment will pay off. I knew the f/4 version had a bad rep but had no idea of the quality of the f/3.5 version..

It does look heavy since it is all chrome...

 

[venchka]

One man's heavy is another man's solid and bulletproof. Enjoy!

Wayne

 

[colyn]

One man's heavy is another man's solid and bulletproof. Enjoy!

Wayne

I wonder how it will compare to my Hektor 135mm f/4.5...

Either way I hope to enjoy..

 

[venchka]

Hmmmm...faster for sure.

Wayne

 

[Brian Legge]

I loved the results from the 135/3.5 but found that I didn't. Addy it around due to the size and weight. I sold it and picked up the 100/3.5. It gets more use but I think I prefered the results from the 135. It's a great lens.

 

[Mackinaw]

The Canon Museum is always a good place to get info on old Canon lenses:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/19-35.html

For even more info, pick up a copy of Peter Kitchingman's "Canon Rangefinder Lenses" book.

Jim B.

 

[Red Robin]

I too have the 135/4. Chrome, and it is bullet proof, not a good performer except with a stout leather strap it is a great piece of protection in case the need arises.

 

[colyn]

The lens arrived yesterday and it is in far better shape than the seller described.

Built like a tank and almost as heavy..

The glass is damage free with no signs of even cleaning marks..

Did not have the front cap so I'm going to start a search for the cap.. Some people on eBay are somewhat proud of their caps..

 

[colyn]

I have the Fotodiox MFT adapter so I can use this lens on my Panasonic MFT camera.

Below are a couple done with this combo..

I also have a couple of rolls hanging in the darkroom with this lens on the Canon 7 which I plan to scan in the near future..

Overall I'd have to say it is a very good lens...


clock by Colyn's fotografs, on Flickr


starbucks_sepia by Colyn's fotografs, on Flickr

 

[kbg32]

With the Serenar.

Columbus Circle by keithbgoldstein, on Flickr

 

[Greg_E]

I didn't know the f4 was supposed to be lesser, I now have both so I'll need to shoot back to back comparisons.