pdek
"Dekkam" as was
Now we've explored the cameras, let's think about the lenses for a bit. Some of us have already expressed opinions, but for the moment let's pose a few questions:
1. Among the Canon RF lenses that you've actually used, which one or ones gave you the most satisfaction so far as results were concerned?
2. Which was least satisfactory: that is, if any were?
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to display with them? Why?
4. If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
6. Finally, I'll ask you a question that you keep asking me, in one way or another: during the 1950-1960 period, what manufacturers made the "best" lenses for 35mm photography?
(My answer to that one is, in no order of ranking, Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon.)
So what do you all think?
Peter
1. Among the Canon RF lenses that you've actually used, which one or ones gave you the most satisfaction so far as results were concerned?
2. Which was least satisfactory: that is, if any were?
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to display with them? Why?
4. If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
6. Finally, I'll ask you a question that you keep asking me, in one way or another: during the 1950-1960 period, what manufacturers made the "best" lenses for 35mm photography?
(My answer to that one is, in no order of ranking, Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon.)
So what do you all think?
Peter
laptoprob
back to basics
I think Canon made fantastic lenses. I have the 50/1,2 and 1,5 and the 35/2,8, pleased with all of them. I have a Canon V which is kinda made for the 1,2. I don't know if I will keep the 1,2 because the 1,5 is so close in speed and so much smaller.
I am pretty much done with lenses, too many around that I use too little. Of various brands.
You don't think Leica made good optics then? Think again. Have a look at the bartender's site on various lenses, that should explain you a lot.
I am pretty much done with lenses, too many around that I use too little. Of various brands.
You don't think Leica made good optics then? Think again. Have a look at the bartender's site on various lenses, that should explain you a lot.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the best allrounder was the 50/1.8
a great lens, not too much is said about it because it is too common.
my least liked Canon lens was the 50/2.8.
I think the Industar 26m was better than this lens.
a great lens, not too much is said about it because it is too common.
my least liked Canon lens was the 50/2.8.
I think the Industar 26m was better than this lens.
bmattock
Mentor
Serenar 50mm f/1.8
Canon 50mm f/1.4 (I)
Serenar 85mm f/1.9
I have not found any to be unsatisfactory.
N/A
N/A
50mm f/1.2
N/A
Mostly about beer.
RichC
Well-known
I really like the later black Canon lenses - even if some ue the same optics as their earlier brethren, they're lighter and more ergonomic.
I have the 28/3.5, 50/1.2 and 135/3.5. The latter two are fantastic, and hold their own against much more modern lenses. The 28/3.5 lacks resolution even when closed up to f/5.6-f/8.
The 50/1.2 seems unfairly maligned. It's popular among R-D1 users - but a very common problem has been that the lens calibration is way off (luckily easy to address): perhaps this has led to the lens being wrongly tagged as "soft".
Can't answer the other questions as I don't know anything about the Canon RF cameras: I chose Canon lenses as I wanted high-resolution, low-contrast lenses for use with my Epson R-D1 - "sunny day" lenses as Sean Reid calls them.
I have the 28/3.5, 50/1.2 and 135/3.5. The latter two are fantastic, and hold their own against much more modern lenses. The 28/3.5 lacks resolution even when closed up to f/5.6-f/8.
The 50/1.2 seems unfairly maligned. It's popular among R-D1 users - but a very common problem has been that the lens calibration is way off (luckily easy to address): perhaps this has led to the lens being wrongly tagged as "soft".
Can't answer the other questions as I don't know anything about the Canon RF cameras: I chose Canon lenses as I wanted high-resolution, low-contrast lenses for use with my Epson R-D1 - "sunny day" lenses as Sean Reid calls them.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
1. Among the Canon RF lenses that you've actually used, which one or ones gave you the most satisfaction so far as results were concerned?
50 f1.2
50 f1.8 (chrome)
35 f3.2 (oddly.. but I really like the look)
2. Which was least satisfactory: that is, if any were?
100 f4 - but that was to be expected.
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to display with them? Why?
Not big on display only. But the 50 1.4 is nice and balanced, without overwhelming the later cameras.
For early cameras I like the chrome 50 1.8
4. If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
Not a collector.
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
NA
6. Finally, I'll ask you a question that you keep asking me, in one way or another: during the 1950-1960 period, what manufacturers made the "best" lenses for 35mm photography?
Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Nikon - in that order.
50 f1.2
50 f1.8 (chrome)
35 f3.2 (oddly.. but I really like the look)
2. Which was least satisfactory: that is, if any were?
100 f4 - but that was to be expected.
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to display with them? Why?
Not big on display only. But the 50 1.4 is nice and balanced, without overwhelming the later cameras.
For early cameras I like the chrome 50 1.8
4. If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
Not a collector.
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
NA
6. Finally, I'll ask you a question that you keep asking me, in one way or another: during the 1950-1960 period, what manufacturers made the "best" lenses for 35mm photography?
Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Nikon - in that order.
dexdog
Mentor
pdek said:
pdek, I like your list, but based on my experience, I would have Zeiss and Nikon tied for first place.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
1. Among the Canon RF lenses that you've actually used, which one or ones gave you the most satisfaction so far as results were concerned?
85mm/1.9
50 f1.2
28 f3.5
2. Which was least satisfactory: that is, if any were?
None. I like all of my Canon RF lenses.
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to use?
I like the small 28mm/3.5 and the 35mm/2.8 for classial look and performance.
If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
I am not a serious Canon collector.
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
maybe the 100mm/2.0.
6. Finally, I'll ask you a question that you keep asking me, in one way or another: during the 1950-1960 period, what manufacturers made the "best" lenses for 35mm photography?
(Zeiss, Leica) and (Canon, Nikon) - two groups in that order.
85mm/1.9
50 f1.2
28 f3.5
2. Which was least satisfactory: that is, if any were?
None. I like all of my Canon RF lenses.
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to use?
I like the small 28mm/3.5 and the 35mm/2.8 for classial look and performance.
If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
I am not a serious Canon collector.
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
maybe the 100mm/2.0.
6. Finally, I'll ask you a question that you keep asking me, in one way or another: during the 1950-1960 period, what manufacturers made the "best" lenses for 35mm photography?
(Zeiss, Leica) and (Canon, Nikon) - two groups in that order.
Last edited:
ferider
Mentor
Hi Peter,
I have tried 135/3.5 (chrome and black), 85/1.9, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.5, 35/1.8 and 35/2.
Least satisfactory was the 35/2. I find its OOF behavior real ugly and prefer the 35/1.8. Next the 85/1.9 OOF I don't like either.
I have (now) a P and like it best with the 50/1.4. From the 3 framelines, my eyes get attracted to the 50 lines.
And the 50/1.4 + P is a great, rugged, sharp combo. Feels just right with a GMP grip.
I'm not a serious collector I guess, and mostly proud that my lenses
are very well collimated/adjusted. I am particularly proud that I have good
copies of the 50/1.5, 1.4 and 1.2.
The 85/1.8 and/or 100/2. And maybe the 19mm.
Best,
Roland.
pdek said:
I have tried 135/3.5 (chrome and black), 85/1.9, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.5, 35/1.8 and 35/2.
pdek said:
Least satisfactory was the 35/2. I find its OOF behavior real ugly and prefer the 35/1.8. Next the 85/1.9 OOF I don't like either.
pdek said:
I have (now) a P and like it best with the 50/1.4. From the 3 framelines, my eyes get attracted to the 50 lines.
And the 50/1.4 + P is a great, rugged, sharp combo. Feels just right with a GMP grip.
pdek said:
I'm not a serious collector I guess, and mostly proud that my lenses
are very well collimated/adjusted. I am particularly proud that I have good
copies of the 50/1.5, 1.4 and 1.2.
pdek said:
The 85/1.8 and/or 100/2. And maybe the 19mm.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
That's a tough one, because I love the rendition, build and overall quality of the Canon 50mm f/1.5. But it flares horribly whenever a strong source of light comes through, literally ruining the shot; given that it's a "high-speed" lens, I guess sun flare wasn't a concern in low-light situations (heh), but there are very strong sources of light at night too that can ruin your low-light shot.pdek said:
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is a very nice lens, both wide open and stopped down. Stopped down it has a "sharpness" and very pleasing contrast, and wide open, the bokeh is good enough (not "wonderful", but good), and with the right filter, you can minimize the apparent effects of "softness" of details in the "focused" DOF.
Both are very heavy for their sizes, but that is actually a good thing when shooting and helping stabilize your shot with low shutter speeds.
If only the 50 f/1.2 rendered the same bokeh as the 50 f/1.5, it'd be one of the most coveted LTM lenses (for actual shooters, not collectors...well, maybe if the shooters loved it so much that the collectors would want it just because of its reputation)
These two lenses have their weaknesses, but they are heavily outweighed by their strengths.
Bingley
Mentor
This is a great thread, and the discussion is enlightening. I purchased my P and 7 bodies not so much to buy into the Canon rf "system," but as rugged, relatively inexpensive platforms for a range of ltm lenses. Nevertheless, I love my Canon 50/1.8 (I have a later black one), and have GAS for a 35/1.8 (only confirmed by some of the comments above).
I would also love to get the 100/3.5. I'm curious why no one's mentioned it so far.
I would also love to get the 100/3.5. I'm curious why no one's mentioned it so far.
Xmas
Mentor
The Canon rfdrs are cheap and perform real well.
You dont have to worry about hole in shutter.
Noel
You dont have to worry about hole in shutter.
Noel
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
I find the Canon lenses are probably the best "bang for the buck" in the classic RF arena. The 35/2, 50/1.2, 50/1.5, 50/1.8 (chrome or black) and 100/3.5 mid-black are particular favorites. I was surprised to see someone really down on the 35/2. I have the late version, which is only a small cosmetic change, and it's one of my most used lenses. I also like the early chrome 28/3.5 for its tiny size and lovely rendition, particularly in B&W.
The 100/4 is heavy and not especially sharp. It's probably of most interest to a collector, rather than a user. There are several (50/0.95, 1.2, 85/1.9 and 2 come to mind) that have poor reputations, but perform very well in the real world. That's fine, as it keeps the price within reason.
The Leica/Zeiss/Nikon lenses are all mostly high in price, with little or no increase in results in actual picture taking. This is, IMHO, partly mystique, collector demand and reputation among the beginners. My favorites are the 50/1.5 Sonnar, and the 50/2.0 Summitar... two very different lenses, both with similar Canon equivalents.
If I have the money, I'd love to add a black 85/100 to my arsenal. They seem to represent the finest examples of fast/long lenses Canon produced for the RF cameras. Unfortunately, they also seem to be in very short supply, and desired by many, both for use and collections.
Harry
The 100/4 is heavy and not especially sharp. It's probably of most interest to a collector, rather than a user. There are several (50/0.95, 1.2, 85/1.9 and 2 come to mind) that have poor reputations, but perform very well in the real world. That's fine, as it keeps the price within reason.
The Leica/Zeiss/Nikon lenses are all mostly high in price, with little or no increase in results in actual picture taking. This is, IMHO, partly mystique, collector demand and reputation among the beginners. My favorites are the 50/1.5 Sonnar, and the 50/2.0 Summitar... two very different lenses, both with similar Canon equivalents.
If I have the money, I'd love to add a black 85/100 to my arsenal. They seem to represent the finest examples of fast/long lenses Canon produced for the RF cameras. Unfortunately, they also seem to be in very short supply, and desired by many, both for use and collections.
Harry
T
tedwhite
Guest
I only have one Canon lens, the Canon LTM 50/1.8. As I don't own a Canon camera I use it on my Bessa R, and I consider it a very good lens.
Ted
Ted
W
wlewisiii
Guest
pdek said:
Peter,
This one is fun. Almost all of my RF glass is from Canon - I have a Serenar 28/3.5, a Canon 35/1.8, a Serenar 50/1.8, a Canon 135/3.5 (late, black) and non Canon I-65 L/D & a nice pre-war uncoated Elmar 90/4. So to answer your questions, in your order:
1) 35/1.8 & 50/1.8 - the 35/2 is supposed to be better and the 50/1.8 is consistantly underrated by many. OTOH, I have gotten more keepers with this pair (& have only owned the 35/1.8 only a few months!) than with any other 2 lenses I own. Exquisite sharpness when you want and glorious OOF areas.
2) 85/2 - major flare monster. I once used it indoors under flourescent lighting without it's hood and had many major flares. Outdoors even with the hood it was hit or miss to get a decent result. Excellent lens for a collector; not so good for a user as far as _I_ am concerned.
3) I actually have a couple of FL lenses I'd be more inclined to show off simply due to matters like f/1.2 & the wonderful aperture rings those lenses used.
4) N/A
5) Serenar marked 50/1.5 & a 50/1.9. I know the 50/1.5 is a cracker & I've heard that the 50/1.9 is nothing terribly special especially considering the major advance that the 50/1.8 was. Still, it would be fun to have a Canon collapsible for a IV body and that one was probably the most usable in the real world.
6) Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, & Leica. This has more to do with taste than anything else. Z&C have a similar look & N&L have a similar look. I happen to like the first one better.
Thanks!
William
Mael
Established
I own or I've owned the following Canon RF lenses. This what I think about it :
The 25mm f/3.5 is a good old wide angle lens, the Topogon design helps creating some really retro work.
The 28mm f/3.5 is one of my favorite, it always delivered me crisp images with very nice half tones. (don't expect sharp corners at full aperture, we're talking of nearly sixty years old lens...)
The 28mm f/2.8 is a great lens too, but with a much more modern feeling. It is a bit more sharper than the older 28mm, and it is a good general purpose wide angle.
The 35mm f/2.8 is one of the best wide angle I ever had for my taste. It is not really constrasty like modern lenses, but it is simply beautiful and delightful to use.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a really nice prime lens with really nice OOF effects on full aperture
The 50mm f/3.5 collapsible is just the one I prefer. It has something like it is a super-Tessar !
The 85mm f/2 is a nice lens for portraits. I will not use it for street shooting, because I find it lacking some sharpness and prone to flare, but for portraits I like it delivers just what I need.
The 135mm f/3.5 is tack sharp as all RF tele lens from this period are from full aperture to full stop down.
Of course, I'm speaking of these lenses correctly shaded and monted on good working cameras !
If I could afford one, I'd like to try a 19mm Canon RF lens, but it is very expensive.
If I had to keep two lense from my list, I would say the 28mm f/3.5 and the 50mm collapsible f/3.5. Just because they have a great and unique rendering, and because thay are small, which is what I like on Rf cameras.
I had some Nikkor lenses on Leica mount, but they are slightly different.
The 25mm f/3.5 is a good old wide angle lens, the Topogon design helps creating some really retro work.
The 28mm f/3.5 is one of my favorite, it always delivered me crisp images with very nice half tones. (don't expect sharp corners at full aperture, we're talking of nearly sixty years old lens...)
The 28mm f/2.8 is a great lens too, but with a much more modern feeling. It is a bit more sharper than the older 28mm, and it is a good general purpose wide angle.
The 35mm f/2.8 is one of the best wide angle I ever had for my taste. It is not really constrasty like modern lenses, but it is simply beautiful and delightful to use.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a really nice prime lens with really nice OOF effects on full aperture
The 50mm f/3.5 collapsible is just the one I prefer. It has something like it is a super-Tessar !
The 85mm f/2 is a nice lens for portraits. I will not use it for street shooting, because I find it lacking some sharpness and prone to flare, but for portraits I like it delivers just what I need.
The 135mm f/3.5 is tack sharp as all RF tele lens from this period are from full aperture to full stop down.
Of course, I'm speaking of these lenses correctly shaded and monted on good working cameras !
If I could afford one, I'd like to try a 19mm Canon RF lens, but it is very expensive.
If I had to keep two lense from my list, I would say the 28mm f/3.5 and the 50mm collapsible f/3.5. Just because they have a great and unique rendering, and because thay are small, which is what I like on Rf cameras.
I had some Nikkor lenses on Leica mount, but they are slightly different.
Last edited:
sleepyhead
Well-known
I've used the 50/1.4 (sold), 85/1.8 (kept), 35/1.8 (keeping, I think), and the 50/1.5 (keeping).
I didn't like the ergonomics of the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.5 is great and so small that it was the winner.
The 85/1.8 IS A GREAT LENS! It's big but the results from it are truly wonderful. I was lucky to get it cheap - I see it lately for almost $1000!
The 35/1.8 is also surprisingly good, but I've only had it for a few weeks - it was cheap and would give a 35/2 Summicron pre-ASPH a challenge!
There are no Canon lenses that i currently want, except a 50/0.95! IF ANYONE HAS ONE TO SELL, PLEASE SEND ME A PM. Thanks
I didn't like the ergonomics of the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.5 is great and so small that it was the winner.
The 85/1.8 IS A GREAT LENS! It's big but the results from it are truly wonderful. I was lucky to get it cheap - I see it lately for almost $1000!
The 35/1.8 is also surprisingly good, but I've only had it for a few weeks - it was cheap and would give a 35/2 Summicron pre-ASPH a challenge!
There are no Canon lenses that i currently want, except a 50/0.95! IF ANYONE HAS ONE TO SELL, PLEASE SEND ME A PM. Thanks
If I could have just 2, they would be the 35/2.8 and 50/1.5. Both produce more classic looking images then most of the other lenses I have, and I like that.
I actually have used the 50/1.4 the most. It just is an excellent all around lens. Fast, sharp, good contrast. Canon seems to have gotten everything right with this lens.
I was not that impressed with the 35/2. I did not like the images I got from it and it was tiny, ergonomically not a good fit for me.
I actually have used the 50/1.4 the most. It just is an excellent all around lens. Fast, sharp, good contrast. Canon seems to have gotten everything right with this lens.
I was not that impressed with the 35/2. I did not like the images I got from it and it was tiny, ergonomically not a good fit for me.
CanonRFinder
Well-known
Hi Peter,
The first two I am still working on but just don't seem to get time to use what I have. Have purchased a Bessa R mainly because of the TTL metering as I didn't want to cart around a valuable collectable. At the moment I have a black 100mm f/3.5 attached and also a 35mm f/1.5 lens in the bag.
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to display with them? Why?
Wont say how many cameras I have but I try and match the serial # of the lens with the era of the camera according to my database information.
4. If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
This one I had to think about but the one lens that stood out in my collection is my 35mm f/1.8 Prototype lens serial # 1803. If anyone has Jacob Deschins Canon book lens # 1806 is pictured there. The one reason why I include Deschins book as a must in a Canon RF Collection is there are so many Prototype lenses pictured in the book.
Top 10 in my collection,
Hope all is well.
Regards Peter K
The first two I am still working on but just don't seem to get time to use what I have. Have purchased a Bessa R mainly because of the TTL metering as I didn't want to cart around a valuable collectable. At the moment I have a black 100mm f/3.5 attached and also a 35mm f/1.5 lens in the bag.
3. If you have a camera collection that includes one or two Canons, which lens or lenses would you most like to display with them? Why?
Wont say how many cameras I have but I try and match the serial # of the lens with the era of the camera according to my database information.
4. If you are a serious Canon collector, what lenses are you proudest to own?
This one I had to think about but the one lens that stood out in my collection is my 35mm f/1.8 Prototype lens serial # 1803. If anyone has Jacob Deschins Canon book lens # 1806 is pictured there. The one reason why I include Deschins book as a must in a Canon RF Collection is there are so many Prototype lenses pictured in the book.
Top 10 in my collection,
[*]35mm f/1.8 #1803 Prototype
[*]85mm f/2 #59000....possibly the last 85mm f/2 lens produced.
[*]75mm f/4.5 S-K #616...from an Imperial Japanese Army Fingerprint camera.
[*]13.5cm f/4 S-K S #4073 & #4074....matching pair with differences.
[*]5cm f/3.5 #5114 S-K S Enlarging lens (copy of the Nikkor Hermes and Leica VAROB)...One of 4 known.
[*]50mm f/1.9 #42187 with "Japan" on the ID ring....only one known
[*]5cm f/1.5 #3053 S-K S R-Serenar and marked as so on the ID ring with apertures
[*]85mm f/1.5 #10618 solid chrome marked "CANON LENS" on ID ring...one of three known.
[*]Full set of five Nikkor screw mount N-K 5cm f/3.5 lenses by year #460199, #502235, #570857, #610230, #7051067.
[*]85mm f/2 #58080...one of three recorded with "Japan" on the front ID ring.
5. And, among the ones you don't own, which ones would you like to add?
[*]20cm f/4 S-K
[*]5cm f/2 S-K lens
[*]100mm f/2
[*]85mm f/1.8
[*]Any tele lens over 400mm
Hope all is well.
Regards Peter K
Last edited:
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I had extremely limited experience with these lenses prior to this weekend. I have a chrome 100/3.5 that's got focusing issues, even after John Van Stelten worked on it a few years ago. I need to get that fixed. But I purchased locally for dirt cheap the black 135/3.5 a couple of days ago and I am stunned at how good it is.