Which Canon 1.8 LTM lens to buy?

Bill wrs1145

Bill wrs1145

A native Texan
Local time
5:32 AM
Joined
Nov 12, 2022
Messages
212
I want to buy a 1.8 Canon LTM lens, but am undecided whether to purchase an early one (1951-1957) or a later one (post 1958). I know you guys have some experience with both, so I'm asking for advice. They're both around the same price on Ebay. I want one with a slightly vintage look if possible. I'm shooting with a Canon Model P and an L1.
 
Last edited:
I assume you mean the 50mm 1.8? I think the optical formula is the same. Coatings might vary. The later (black) one is a little lighter and is the period-correct lens for your cameras. The shape of its aperture blades is different if I'm not mistaken, which will impact the bokeh stopped down (crown cork shaped). The earlier lens is, in my opinion, prettier. Aperture is always round. Also, I think the later lenses are more prone to haze and etching of the coatings. The state of the glass will have more impact on the photos than differences in the coating. Buy whichever lens has the cleanest glass.
 
Last edited:
I am presuming you mean the 50mm lens and that you are looking at the black ones? Sonnar Brian gave this advice on them recently in this post: Anyone use a chiyoda kogaku super rokkor 5cm F1.8 lens?

Basically it boils down to you want one from the early batch -so an early SN, also the greater # of aperture blade & no haze. The last bit is the most important given the problems with Canon lenses and haze.
 
Kinda personal preference. I have what Peter Kitchingman calls a Type 4 in chrome, and a later Type 7 with black barrel. I think that the chrome version produces a slightly more "vintage" look than the newer lens (subjective of course), but both are very sharp and contrasty lenses if you have a clean example. As Sonnar Brian has pointed out, some of the the early black version produced in late 1950s until probably 1960 or 1961 are prone to haze behind the lens iris. Took these yesterday on the Type 7, minimum focus distance, wide open, jpeg from Sony a7iii

 
The Optical Configuration for the two lenses is the classic Double-Gauss 1-2-2-1 six elements in four groups. The Black version is a new formula, using new for the time low-dispersion, high index of refraction glass. Finding one without damage to the glass is not easy, probably 3 of 4 of those left on Ebay show some damage.

Get either the chrome version- also inspecting for internal haze- for a more vintage look. For a real vintage look, consider the 50mm F1.9. Often cheaper, and lower contrast.
 
Very easy choice. One which has no fog. It the one which occurs infernally, not something to fix just regular cleaning.
 
I have both and I really have no preference. Overall, they are pretty close in terms of output though the later one no doubt has better coatings. To be honest I probably use the earlier silver chrome lens more than the later silver black one but I have to confess that is probably just me - I like old school lenses. As others advise early Canons (as with many Japanese lenses) tend to suffer from fungus and or haze due to the very humid and long summers. In my view haze is a worse problem than fungus as it quite often etches the glass whereas fungus does so only after a longish period. So just make sure whatever you buy its clean if possible and if you have to compromise its safer to take a risk on being able to clean fungus than it tis to clean haze in my view.
 
Here is a rough and ready test to show the effects or maybe the non-effects of haze in my Canon 50mm f1.8 LTM. I think this is the chrome version with the thick black focussing ring. Lens haze test 1.jpgLens haze test 2.jpgThe ferris wheel shot and the rough and ready haze shot were both taken today after reading this post as I wanted to show the original poster that haze was not always a problem and does not seem to be in the case of this lens (no post production). Of course, the resale value would be negligible but I didn't buy mine to resell it. I should state clearly that I am not a lens expert and always read the posts here by Sonnar Brian and others to learn as much as possible.
 
This is my Serenar 50/1.9 lens being trans-illuminated, Tim, which is quite clear I think. And a sample pic with a cameo Viv Maier appearance of me and my Sony A7C with the aforementioned Serenar 50 at f1.9. I believe that you would see more flare in this type of backlit shot if there was more haze, fungus or small dusts in the lens.
John Mc
med_U51008.1689925243.0.webp

med_U51008.1689925270.0.webp
 
I have a chrome Canon 50/1.8 ltm that looks fine to my eyes. I rarely use it as I also have a Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.5, and I use them more often than the 50/1.8. The Canon 50/1.2 is a bargain lens for what it can do.
 
Every opinion that has been expressed is, in my view, 100% valid. I too have the 1.8 ltm (black), and love it. See below. My guiding principle is that age catches up with vintage camera gear sooner or later, and skilled repair people are retiring (or worse), so buy newer when you can. 000082160005 (2).jpg
 
Canon_Etch.jpg

Canon used some Lubricant that reacted badly with the element behind the aperture. I had to replace this element- unusable.

Which I did- replace it with one from an FL series 100/3.5. I've seen 50/1.8 Black and 50/2.8 Black even worse.
G1018777.jpg
 
The Canon 50/1.8 v2 is sharper edge-to-edge compared with the 50/1.8 V1. The latter- center sharp. At least- my results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom