Canon LTM Can We End the Term "Japanese Summilux?"

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
das said:
In my opinion, Canon's lens coatings for color photography during the 50s and early 60s were just ok. Definitely not the best. I had a hard time correcting color scans shot with the 1.4. On the other hand, the contemporary 2.8 Summaron renders colors better than any Canon RF lens of the era I have shot with.
Click to expand...
Summaron cost more when new. And multiples the price today. Of course, Leica glass will be superior. It's Leitz optics after all! Try your Summaron compared to a LTM 50 1.4 Nikkor or any LTM Topcor 50, much fairer fight. Leica still worth it if your pocketbook can handle it. My 50 mm/f2.8 Canon's plenty fine.
 
I would say Nikon's coatings were maybe a bit better than Canon's during the 50s. But I think Konica (amber) had probably the best coatings for color in the 50s - on par with the Summaron if not better. The 85mm f/3.5 of the Konifex and 50mm f/1.9 Hex are simply great on color. Konica's coating expertise was also applied on its SLR lineup - and those AR lenses are also fantastic with color film, dare i say maybe better than Ai and FD lenses. It may be hard to appreciate it today with the ASPH lenses and 21st century tech how quality of coatings mattered a great deal back in the day. Never tried a Topcor, but I imagine those would be pretty great as well as that was a premier manufacturer

I have shot extensively over the years with the Canon 1.4 and the 35mm f/2. I ended up parting with them both because I had a very hard time getting realistic colors of out them in post on color film. Maybe it's not the coatings per se but how they interact with modern film stocks. Anyway, I would still recommend both for anyone who doesn't want to break the bank on LTM lenses.
 
Last edited:
Color balance is affected by more than just the coatings- the type of glass used and optical formula also have an effect. Nikon, Canon, Topcon, and other Japanese companies used hard coatings starting from after WW-II that are much more durable than the soft coating used by Leica. The inner coating of the early "T" Zeiss lenses was also soft. I've had Nikkor and Simlar lenses with inner surfaces that looked like wax paper that cleaned up perfectly. My earliest coated Sonnar (1936) also cleaned up perfectly. Later Sonnars, 267 block- the inner coating came off with the haze. You never know until opening a lens up.

The "cool" color balance of the Canon lenses of the period: my guess, it's the unique low-dispersion/high-index of refraction glass used.
I have clean examples of all Eleven of the Canon 50mm lenses, from the uncoated 5cm F3.5 Serenar through to the 50/0.95.
 
I have a Kodak Ektar 127/4.7 that, I believe, only was coated on the inside elements. If I understand the serials correctly it was made in 1942. It has a very distinct color shift but the exterior elements don't have any coatings. When I shoot with it, it acts much like a typical single coated lens from any other maker.

Does this fit with history that you are aware of?
 
The same is true of applying multiple coatings to the original Nikkor-S 55/1.2 and other lenses in the Nikon line-up, and is documented from the company. This was done on the interior elements to lower reflections and increase transmission.

It makes sense that Kodak would do this with the new process. Inner elements having lower area, fit more into the chamber, easier to coat.

What is also true: Zeiss started coating front elements in the 175xxxx block of the 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, I own one and have seen two others. The "T" stood for transmission, coated optics to increase light coming through the lens. I guess someone thought the best was the front element that collects more light.
 
Looking through evolution of the Double-Gauss: The Pentax 50mm F1.4 v2 Super-Takumar was the first to use 7 elements in 6 groups, 1-1-1-2-1-1. Most other fast designs used 7 elements in 5 groups, a group defined as a cemented group or air-spaced group. Leica used the 7/6 design for the 50/1.0 Noctilux and Zeiss used it for the 50/1.4 Planar for the Rolleiflex 35 several years after it was introduced by Pentax.

The 1950s Canon 50/1.4 is a classic 6/4 1-2-2-1 and the Simlar 5cm F1.5 (fornulated in 1937) is a 7/4 1-3-2-1.

to add-
The 6 element in 5 group 1-1-1-2-1 was first used in the Voigtlander Ultron 50/2 in 1952 and used by Konica in 1956 for the 50/1.9 and by Minolta for the 5cm F1.8 in 1958 (one source, 1957). Leica used this design for the v2 Rigid Summicron in 1968. Another Leica lens that I had and preferred the Japanese counterpart, the Minolta. Prices on the Minolta and Konica are coming down- just picked up the Konica. Will be interesting to compare the two. I do not have a Voigtlander Prominent Ultron- have the Nokton for it.

Of course Marvel has their Ultron. I wonder if they licensed the name.
 
Last edited:
das said:
Why do you think that the Canon 1.4, designed and brought to market before the Summilux, should be called a "Japanese version" of that later lens?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a Japanese Summilux. It was launched before Leitz did. Canon's is it's own formula. It's own look!
 
das said:
Why do you think that the Canon 1.4, designed and brought to market before the Summilux, should be called a "Japanese version" of that later lens?
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't have any feeling about it one way or the other. I don't own the lens and never wanted one. My answer was a grammatical joke. The original question was "can we?" And the answer, plainly, from the thread itself is that it is beyond our ability.
 
das said:
Why do you think that the Canon 1.4, designed and brought to market before the Summilux, should be called a "Japanese version" of that later lens?
Click to expand...
Because they are both based on the TTH Opic, but Summilux sounds better. The V1 Summilux is a slightly improved Xenon, the latter under a TTH patent. The Summilux is a hard-coated Summarit with slightly improved optics, the Summarit is based on the 5cm F1.5 Xenon with a slightly modified inner group.

SO- the Summilux is basically a German instantiation of a British Design. The Canon is a Japanese instantiation of a British Design.
The Elmar is a copy of a Zeiss Design. The Summaron is a copy of a British Design. The V2 Rigid Summicron is a copy of a Japanese design.
Seems Fair.

I think I'll call the Summilux that "German Opic".
 
Last edited:
leicasocietyinternational.org

The Japanese Summilux: The Canon 50/1.4 LTM Lens — LSI - Leica Society International

Everyone knows the motto of the Boy Scouts of America – Be Prepared. For a photographer, being prepared means having the tools on hand to do the job: what camera and lens combination will you need to get an anticipated job done. When travelling, you need to consider the camera and lenses you might n
leicasocietyinternational.org leicasocietyinternational.org

The LSI calls the Canon 50/1.4 the Japanese Summilux.
I doubt they will refer to the Summilux as the German Opic.
Or the Canon 50/1.4 as the Japanese Opic.
Once thing for sure- the Germans came up with great names for lenses.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
leicasocietyinternational.org

The Japanese Summilux: The Canon 50/1.4 LTM Lens — LSI - Leica Society International

Everyone knows the motto of the Boy Scouts of America – Be Prepared. For a photographer, being prepared means having the tools on hand to do the job: what camera and lens combination will you need to get an anticipated job done. When travelling, you need to consider the camera and lenses you might n
leicasocietyinternational.org leicasocietyinternational.org

The LSI calls the Canon 50/1.4 the Japanese Summilux.
I doubt they will refer to the Summilux as the German Opic.
Or the Canon 50/1.4 as the Japanese Opic.
Once thing for sure- the Germans came up with great names for lenses.
Click to expand...
The Germans always knew how to name lenses superbly. And usually the optics were equally superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top