john_robison3 Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 <p>I am searching for a 90~100mm lens for my M4-2 and see that the 100mm f3.5 Canon screwmount lens is available quite inexpensively, about $100 or less. several queations come to mind as to the price, ie, are these low priced because they are:</p> <p>*Plentiful, low demand<br> *Not very good<br> *Won't focus correctly with an M adapter on the camera (mismatch between lens cam and body RF roller)<br> *No frame lines in M4-2 for 100mm (I figure the 90mm lines would be close enough, just think inside the box)</p> <p>It seems a 90mm f4 Leica lens would set me back at least $200+ for one in good condition. The 100 dollars I'd save on the Canon lens would get me almost 200 ft. of tri-X. Got to think ahead ya know.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_wheatland Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 <p>I have the following Canon LTM lenses and have no quarrel with any of them other than some are very heavy (85 f1.9 and 135 f3.5) others are not so heavy, 50mm f2.8, 35 f2 black body(superb), 100 f4 (OK). They can be bought IMHO at very fair prices(lower than Leitz glass). Also the Voigtlander/ Cosina glass is great.....and light weight!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_elwing Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 <p>They are perfectly good lenses, and I think less likely to have coating damage than an Elmar 90, SM or M series. Serious issue, however with the small filter size (= E36 ? for SM Elmars ?) for filters and lens caps and lens hoods.<br> Think you would be better off with a less than perfect M series 90, as it would fit the more common 39mm filters & lens hoods and you would have to buy a 90 SM/BM adaptor for the Canon.<br> You should be able to pick one up well under $200. Old Leitz M series 90's and 135's in reasonably good nick are a dross on the market. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 <p>There's nothing to complain about with the Canon 100/3.5, especially the early chrome/black version that uses the same 35mm filter threads as the Hektor 135/4.5, Elmar 90/4, and Summar 50/2. The later all black one is equally good technically, but uses the vexing 40mm filter thread.<br> Some slight risk of haze damage inside the lens, but quite uncommon.<br> It is technically quite superior to the Elmar 90/4. Sharper, more contrast, hard coatings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_blomqvist Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 <p>Here's another happy user of the Canon 100mm/3.5. I have the early version.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>It is a very nice, light lens. I have one and use it on a Canon Model 7, that has 100mm frame-lines. I have not found "thinking inside the box" very practical when using it on a Leica with 90mm frame-lines. No problem using the 90mm frames with 85mm lenses, but for some reason going longer doesn't work well for me. You should borrow the lens and shoot a test roll, framing things at different distances to see if the combination suits your eye.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mukul_dube Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>As others have said, a fine lens and one which is likely to be in better shape than an Elmar 90 of the same age. You should do all right with the 90mm lines unless you're in the habit of tight framing -- which is not something to be done with RFDR cameras anyway.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>Thanks for all the response. The lens I'm looking at has a 48mm filter thread size, not common but available from B&H for $25 with an order upon purchase with a 6~10 week delivery.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_clark4 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>John: If the lens has 48mm filter threads, it is for a Canon SLR camera... could be used with an adapter<br> but you would have to guess focus.<br> DAVE</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>What Dave C said. The lens you are considering probably says 'FL' on its front face.</p> <p>FWIW, I have both the rangefinder 100/3.5, and the SLR 100/3.5 FL. They are optically identical. They even have the same diameter elements, but the difference in filter thread is because the SLR barrel is wider. Of course the SLR lens is shorter, too, so the rangefinder version has empty space at the back.</p> <p>You can probably find the rangefinder version without too much trouble. It has a good reputation and seems to be a popular lens. It is described as 'a tiny superb lens' on the Colucci site, so it has fans. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>It is true that many FL mount lenses had the 48mm filter size however some of the RF lenses did too. Go to the Canon Camera Museum and check the LTM lenses. You will find a 135mm f3.5 model III with a 48mm filter size. Large and heavy beast, almost 4 in. long and about a pound.</p> <p>Wait, no, I'm wrong. Thats a 135mm lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mukul_dube Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>John, I have a Serenar 85/2, also a whale of a lens, which takes 48mm filters. My guess is that the 100/3.5 will have a rather smaller diameter front.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>I must be getting wacky eyed in my old age. I've been looking at 135mm Canon LTM lenses on the KEH website and thinking they were 100mm lenses. Better go get my reading glasses. No wonder they were so cheap.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mukul_dube Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>Your reading glasses may lead to trouble. I have a special pair for computer use, 0.5 dioptres negative compared with my reading prescription. And I'm only 60 and have had cataract surgery.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 <p>I have two 100/3.5 FL lenses. If you don't need the extra speed they are fine performers. If the light gets low I switch to the 85/1.8 FL.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 <p>The Canon 100 f3.5 LTM made for screw mount cameras is tiny, and a superb lens. Its filter diameter is either 36mm or 34mm, I forget. I had one for a few years and preffered it to my Leica 90mm Tele-elmarit. I ended up selling mine because the only time I use a longer focal length is when I am shooting bands in interior lighting and ended up getting a Nikkor 85mm f2 LTM.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 <blockquote> <p>I've been looking at 135mm Canon LTM lenses on the KEH website and thinking they were 100mm lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>No worries, John. Actually I appreciate the heads up about the 135mm's. I just snagged one of the late version ones for myself to add to my Canon 7 kit. Bargain grade, with hood and caps for $75+ship! If it's as clean as the other bargain gear I've purchased from them, I'd say that is a pretty good buy from such a reliable seller.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lazzari Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 <p>It's a great little gem of a lens.<br> If it's clear, (no fog or haze) very sharp plus pleasant bokeh.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lazzari Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 <p>Good close focus performance.<br> (Scary Kitty)</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 <p>Speaking of bokeh, check out its diaphragm ... almost a perfect circle, and it shows in the photos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_robison3 Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 <p>Great shot Gus! Your Canon P is one of the few LTM rangefinders I considered before I sprung for the M4-2. Surprisingly, a Russian camera also interested me, a FED 2. It was very clean and seemed to be in order except that the RF was showing infinity at about 30 ft. What really surprised me was how quiet it was. At 1/30 it didn't seem hardly any louder than the Leica. If I thought I could adjust the RF myself I would have gone ahead and bought it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou_Meluso Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 <p>Neat shot, Gus!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aoresteen Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 <p>I the 80's I had the Canon 85mm f/1.9, the Canon 100mm f/3.5, and the Canon 135mm f/4., all RF lenses that I used on my M3. I used the 85mm the most. I ended up selling the 100mm as it was hardly ever used. When I need more reach I would use the 135mm.<br> Still, it was a sharp contrasty lens that was well made. It should serve you well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted September 6, 2010 Share Posted September 6, 2010 <p>The 100/3.5 RF lens is tiny and super sharp. It is a bargain lens. I have one for travel use. Locally I use a Nikkor 105 2.5 or 75 1.4, but these are very heavy lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now