M9 plus Canon 50mm LTM f/1.8

[boojum]

While sussing out whether life is possible without the THC 2 inch f/2.0 Amotal, wiser folks than I suggested I might want to look at the Canon 50mm LTM F/1.8. Not only is it considerably less expensive than the Amotal it looked quite good in examples of it posted here. So I did what so many of us do, I hung out on eBay for a few days and tracked one down for less than US$200 including postage from Japan. The seller has a 100% satisfaction rating and he rated the lens as EXC+5. It arrived today and while my area of the world is not noted for sunshine this time of year I did get out and shoot about 100 shots to see how the lens works. There is always a chance I am deluding myself but I think it worked pretty well in our so-so light. And as I never have known when enough is enough I have uploaded nine images for you to see how this lens works in less than optimal light.

I am wearing my Lacrosse gear to fend off the onslaught of criticism so have at it, brickbats, bricks and Lacrosse balls.

​

 

[Bingley]

Very nice pics and congrats on your Canon 50/1.8. That lens continues to be something of a sleeper, for reasons I’ve never understood. If you have a clean copy, it’s really sharp and the bokeh is very smooth. Dante Stella, in his article on Canon lenses for rangefinders, says that he could not tell the difference between the Canon and the contemporaneous Leitz Summicron. I can see that. Matt Osborne (MrLeica.com) has an enthusiastic review on his YouTube channel. His photos taken with the lens are beautiful. The lens does have the tendency to develop haze from the gassing of lubricants, but it can be cleaned readily if you keep an eye on it. It’s very compact for a fast-ish 50 and may well be sharper than the 50/1.4, which seems to get more attention. Maybe the fact that the Canon 1.8 does not get the attention it deserves owes something to the fact that Canon made lots of them in the 1950s. I predict you will be happy with your selection. If you shoot black and white, you may fall in love with this lens.

Here are a few pics with the Canon 50/1.8:

EC & KC by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Map break by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Tomatoes by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[boojum]

Very nice pics and congrats on your Canon 50/1.8. That lens continues to be something of a sleeper, for reasons I’ve never understood. If you have a clean copy, it’s really sharp and the bokeh is very smooth. Dante Stella, in his article on Canon lenses for rangefinders, says that he could not tell the difference between the Canon and the contemporaneous Leitz Summicron. I can see that. Matt Osborne (MrLeica.com) has an enthusiastic review on his YouTube channel. His photos taken with the lens are beautiful. The lens does have the tendency to develop haze from the gassing of lubricants, but it can be cleaned readily if you keep an eye on it. It’s very compact for a fast-ish 50 and may well be sharper than the 50/1.4, which seems to get more attention. Maybe the fact that the Canon 1.8 does not get the attention it deserves owes something to the fact that Canon made lots of them in the 1950s. I predict you will be happy with your selection. If you shoot black and white, you may fall in love with this lens.

Here are a few pics with the Canon 50/1.8:

EC & KC by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Map break by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Tomatoes by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

I like the little guy in pic one. I'll give you fifty cents for him. Oh, OK, a dollar. LOL Cute little rascal.

I bought the lens on sound advice from this board, from folks who now know more about this stuff than I ever will, even if I were twenty years younger. Judging from its smoothness and ability with color while still giving the color a subtle glow it is a winner. And the B&W is nice, too. I am going to be out shooting a bunch with it. It's gonna be worse than the gunfight at OK Corral, a lot of shooting going on. The trick is what is about 98% of the image: the light. We may have grey days for weeks. I'll just have to work with it. I will try it on the Sony A7M III, too.

I follow Osborne closely and have watched that review more than once.

 

[Bingley]

I like the little guy in pic one. I'll give you fifty cents for him. Oh, OK, a dollar. LOL Cute little rascal.

I bought the lens on sound advice from this board, from folks who now know more about this stuff than I ever will, even if I were twenty years younger. Judging from its smoothness and ability with color while still giving the color a subtle glow it is a winner. And the B&W is nice, too. I am going to be out shooting a bunch with it. It's gonna be worse than the gunfight at OK Corral, a lot of shooting going on. The trick is what is about 98% of the image: the light. We may have grey days for weeks. I'll just have to work with it. I will try it on the Sony A7M III, too.

I follow Osborne closely and have watched that review more than once.

Ha! Happy shooting! And, btw, the little girl in pic one is not for sale…

 

[boojum]

Ha! Happy shooting! And, btw, the little girl in pic one is not for sale…

Not for sale??!! If I am around I'll ask in fifteen years when you may want to give away that teenager. LOL

I never had kids, unfortunately, but I have had dogs for years, still do. Two nice things about dogs is that, one, they never want to go to college and, two, they never marry someone you can't stand. ;o) In reality I am sure your little princess will turn out fine.

 

[Out to Lunch]

[QUOTEThat lens continues to be something of a sleeper][/QUOTE] Not anymore. Between 1 and 31 January, one was sold every single day. Cheers, OtL

 

[boojum]

[QUOTEThat lens continues to be something of a sleeper]

Not anymore. Between 1 and 31 January, one was sold every single day. Cheers, OtL[/QUOTE]

Who squealed?

 

[TenEleven]

Not anymore. Between 1 and 31 January, one was sold every single day. Cheers, OtL

Who squealed?[/QUOTE]

I don't know how this avalanche started but as was said upthread, Dante Stella and other influential bloggers praised this lens way back when. Compared to the faster brethren in the Canon stable it has also virtually no distortion and come to think of it no real vices - the odd flare due to its mono-coating aside.

Is yours the chrome or the later version?
I've always been a sucker for the early Canon chrome finish myself. Having repaired several of these I can also tell you that the internal mechanics are first-rate and do not need to hide behind any Japanese or German maker.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

What is not as well known with the Black Canon 50/1.8: The early ones have more aperture blades, can be found with 11 blades- not the usual 8. I also believe early ones might have better condition glass. I am guessing that Canon switched to a different lubricant somewhere around 1958. Maybe luck of the draw, but my Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.8 are both early, both have perfect glass. I've had several later ones- damaged/etched glass.

The Black lens uses newer glass than the chrome lens: a glass with low dispersion and high index of refraction. I also have a perfect-glass chrome 50/1.8. The black one is sharper, higher contrast. The Chrome 50/1.8 is improved over the 50/1.9, and all are better than the Canon 5cm F2.

And this is how you get Eleven Canon 50mm lenses, all different.

For this thread- The lens is in good hands, and goes very well on that Leica M9.

 

[boojum]

This is the eBay photo of mine. Low serial number. The cosmetic dings and scratches are like the decorations in a restaurant, not the important part. The glass seems pretty good. I hope for sunshine today so I can go and have another new lens massacre. I'll be shooting everything. Do not make any quick moves near me as I might be a tad jumpy. LOL

I really like this lens. The best example of its rendering is the seagulls. Note how well they are rendered and with great subtlety. I do regret that images are rendered poorly here. They are better on my machine and on Flickr. But there does not seem to be much I can do about that.

​

 

[dexdog]

Boojum, I think that you will like your lens. I think one of the reasons it is a "sleeper" lens is because it is relatively cheap as compared to similar Nikons, Leicas and other lenses from that era, because there are so many of them around. Canon sold a lot of these lenses, probably several times more than some of the other lens makers. Peter Kitchingman's book on Canon RF lenses says output throughout production run was over 250,000 lenses. I have a couple of these, one chrome and one black.

 

[dexdog]

Riffing on the relatively inexpensive theme, I formerly had a low opinion of the Jupiter 3 given that the USSR was infamous for the poor quality of their consumer goods and that I had never actually used one. I changed my mind after J-3 evangelists like Sonnar Brian spread the word that those cheap-as-borscht lenses were actually capable of impressive performance. I now own 4 of the things. The J-3 is no longer a cheap lens.

 

[furcafe]

While sussing out whether life is possible without the THC 2 inch f/2.0 Amotal, wiser folks than I suggested I might want to look at the Canon 50mm LTM F/1.8. Not only is it considerably less expensive than the Amotal it looked quite good in examples of it posted here. So I did what so many of us do, I hung out on eBay for a few days and tracked one down for less than US$200 including postage from Japan. The seller has a 100% satisfaction rating and he rated the lens as EXC+5. It arrived today and while my area of the world is not noted for sunshine this time of year I did get out and shoot about 100 shots to see how the lens works. There is always a chance I am deluding myself but I think it worked pretty well in our so-so light. And as I never have known when enough is enough I have uploaded nine images for you to see how this lens works in less than optimal light.

I am wearing my Lacrosse gear to fend off the onslaught of criticism so have at it, brickbats, bricks and Lacrosse balls.

. . .

​

Congrats on the new (to you) lens & good to see that you're putting it to good use! Most of the Canon RF lenses are a good value & you can do well using them for your whole lineup if you like the '60s-70s look. I have 2 copies of the 50/1.8 in black (1 of which was modified to focus closer than 1m) & briefly had 1 in chrome (sold to a friend along w/a P body).​

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Helen gave me clean one. I was skunked with first one, non removable fog.
I have to re-shim it and added watch lube. The lens is not getting stiff to focus even at -15C.
It is OK lens optically.

P.S. I still can't get used to odd, but common blueish WB like in OP. Not related to particular lens, it seems.

 

[punkzter]

A few years back I sold a haze free copy...the only lens I regret selling. I decided I wanted to get another copy, and I'm still chasing a haze free & good condition lens. I currently have one copy that has haze and another copy that doesn't, but has a scratch on the front element and a dented filter ring. I think both are the 8-blade version. I'm actually thinking about swapping rear elements. Does anyone have any thoughts on getting a tech to perform that? Pros/Cons?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A few years back I sold a haze free copy...the only lens I regret selling. I decided I wanted to get another copy, and I'm still chasing a haze free & good condition lens. I currently have one copy that has haze and another copy that doesn't, but has a scratch on the front element and a dented filter ring. I think both are the 8-blade version. I'm actually thinking about swapping rear elements. Does anyone have any thoughts on getting a tech to perform that? Pros/Cons?

The really rear element is screw in. Comparing to Leitz f2 50ies I dealt with, this lens is easy to disassemble to separate focus and optical blocks.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A few years back I sold a haze free copy...the only lens I regret selling. I decided I wanted to get another copy, and I'm still chasing a haze free & good condition lens. I currently have one copy that has haze and another copy that doesn't, but has a scratch on the front element and a dented filter ring. I think both are the 8-blade version. I'm actually thinking about swapping rear elements. Does anyone have any thoughts on getting a tech to perform that? Pros/Cons?

It should work fine. The rear group unscrews.

My "lens-exchange extreme"- I used the rear triplet (bought for $10) of a Nikkor 5cm F1.4 in a Canon 50 F1.5 and made it work.

 

[punkzter]

It's the rear lens group that is prone to haze, right? Which would be removed after removing the rear element?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The haze tends to form on the surface behind the aperture. Sometimes it cleans off, but too often the coating is damaged and the glass can become etched. This looks like a chemical interaction between the type of glass used and the lubricants of the lens.

 

[boojum]

Yes, I am pleased with the lens. Price is a small part. But it is nice to get that kind of bang for small bucks. What I really like is how it does living beings like those gulls. To me, they have a special and distinct look, not like any lens I have. It does not seem quite as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4 and I will have to do a controlled shoot of a few frames to see.

Years ago I heard a speaker say that humility was not making yourself small. Humility was becoming teachable. That simple revelation has made it easier for me get good lenses, among other things. Or as they say, there is a reason I have two ears and one mouth. ;o)

This is a better image of the fishing boat and gulls. https://flickr.com/photos/sandynoyes/51855959795/in/album-72177720296363999/lightbox/

The weather here today is rain, rain, rain. Even the dog who has a double coat did not tarry outside. He came back in at a gallop. So no pics today. A relief for us all. ;o)