chris_david Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Anyone out there who has actually used this lens? I understand it will not be that sharp wide open. How is the contrast? I had a 135mm Canon lens before that produced very dull looking pictures. I'm interested in specifically for the effect you get wide open so a slower lens, while optically superior for taking pictures of test charts, is not a good substitute. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 you must use a shade. great lens. look at the hoffman picture by al below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton1 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I've had one for about ten years. It's pretty good wide open--not perfect, but acceptable for the things I do, and has a nice creamy look to it wide open--very similar to the images I've seen with the Canon 50/1.2, which some people love and some hate. I will warn you, hoever, that it's EXTREMELY heavy, really over the edge, so I've not carried it around as much as I would have wanted. I'm redoing my house, so all my negs are buried somewhere, or I'd make a scan for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton1 Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 By the way, I had a Canon 85/1.8 that was a fabulous lens--much better wide open than the contemporary Summicron. It had an aluminum mount, and I bought it new. At the time I got it, I could have had the 1.5 for about $30 more (I think the spread was $165 vs $185) but didn't have the cash. At that time the Canon brochures were showing the 1.5 in a similar black/matte chrome aluminum mount, but I've never seen one in real life--every one I've seen has been black/shiny chrome on brass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I am using a Canon chrome 85mm/1.9 lens on my Leica bodies. The photos come out sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_jelliffe Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Loooong throw from close focus to infinity, heavy, and you really need an M3 or a .85 viewfinder/.72 VF and 1.125 magnifier to focus it accurately close and wide open. Not worth the effort IMHO. You will be much happier with a pre-ASPH Summicron for about the same $$ as a Mint Canon 1.5. Medium contrast, soft wide open. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_david Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 I should have mentioned I'm only considering screw mount lenses. The 90mm summicron appears to be quite rare in LTM. If I found one, I'm sure it would quite a bit more than a 85mm f1.4 Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_reidelbach Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I think not only weight but focussing, and lack of out-of-focus-control with a rangefinder camera is a serious problem, even with the widest RF baselength available in cameras... you have a 75% chance missing the focus point. And if you don't have your hand on the focussing ring and refocus every second, your chance become 99%... I have a 1.4/85 Zeiss Sonnar (for SLR, estimate it has 1/3 less weight than the Canon 1.5/85). You will not find a single person to disagree about the quality of that lens, but I swear its hard a job shooting with it! You will not make it with a RF camera except you make 1000's of pictures with it. If so, than GO for it. If I see a 1.8/85 Exc+++ this would be in doubt - but obviously their owner keep them with good reason... Maybe the 25% right-focussed pictures will be good. The Canon is kind of a Sonnar-construction. The reasons why one sees them on ebay are quite obvious. If collectors pay the price asked for that heap of glass - their problem. I'm happy with my small 3.5/100 on RF, and when I need speed or small area of focus, I take the Planar with the small black Contax 139 with me - period. Just my thoughts. You may have other.Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc4fox Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 I know that the apertures are quite obviously not comparable, but are the Elmars that bad that nobody recommends them, or even uses them in comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 The Elmars ranged from great to excellent! But it's apples and oranges. When Nikon and Canon were making LTM 85/1.5 lenses so was Leitz, the Summarex. It too was a big cumbersome and heavy optic. When these lenses were introduced news photographers liked them. Kodak's fastest film was Super Double-X at an equivalent of ISO 200, very grainy, and the speed enhancing developers UFG, Acufine and Diafine were still a few years in the future. Newspapers were printed on cheap pulp paper on letterpress with photos reproduced using a 65 DPI screen, hardly the kind of resolution that would show up any unsharpness of the lens in an average 4"x5" photo. They rarely ran photos much larger. 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