Re: [Leica] Re: Canon LTM, Winogrand, etc.

[Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

The Canon 50/1.5 is a Sonnar clone from the early 50s.  It has 13 aperture
blades, 7 elements in 3 groups.  It is a nice brass piece with solid
click-stops from f/1.5 to f/16.  You are unlikely to find one with chrome
and/or glass perfect.  They cost about 50% more than a Jupiter-3.

That said, it is a great lens with tremendous highlight separation.  Like
any f/1.5 lens, whether Zeiss, Canon, Leica, etc., you will probably want
to use it at f/4.  Wide-open, you will get a respectable enlargement
(8x12) before you see softness, but as you stop down to f/4 the
enlargements get exponentially larger.  1.5 lenses, except the newest
ones, are something that you just don't shoot wide open unless you have
to.

At f/8 it has similar contrast and resolution to a 1950s Summicron.  While
you will always have better corners with a planar-type, not much comes
close to the Sonnar in separating brilliant highlights.

Cheers
- ------------
Dante Stella

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, SML wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>   I just learned that Canon made the 50/1.5 in LTM and wonder if it is
> comparable to the Leitz 50/1.5 Summarit.  I have heard that the Canon 50/1.4
> and 50/1.8 are excellent lenses that could be on par to the Leica lenses.
> Any information will be appreciated.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> David
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Canon LTM, Winogrand, etc.
> 
> 
> >
> > I've had both Canon LTMs - the 35/1.8 and the 35/2.  The 35/1.8 is soft
> > wide-open but it is a very smooth lens (probably underpriced at the usual
> > $300).  It is not a contenda with a pre-asph Summicron sharpness-wise, but
> > it makes nice pictures.  It has summicron-level contrast (medium).  I
> > found the focus lock to be annoying.
> >
> > The 35/2, which from all appearances is the 35/1.8 masked down in a newer
> > barrel is a high-contrast lens.  Very hot, 1/2 grade.  Whether this is
> > from a recomputation, shift in the focus point, or better glass, it is
> > competitive with many, if not all,  modern lenses.  The 35/2.8 Zeiss
> > Distagon of today was no match at the center.  The 35/2 is very hard to
> > find, but it is a fun lens.  Its lens twist is shorter than the 1.8's, and
> > it "snaps" into focus in 1/4 turn (vs about 1/3, if I remember).  The 35/2
> > also has a tighter DOF scale.  It feels like a miniature SLR lens.  Bokeh
> > is a harder, more wiry but not still pleasant.
> >
> > Cheers
> > ------------
> > Dante Stella
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Douglas Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Winogrand's main lens  was a Canon 28/2.8 LTM. (I had one of these and
> it's
> > > > a nice lens and, yes, wide open it glows). However he did shoot with
> other
> > > > lenses, and other cameras.
> > >
> > > So Sherry's info is off?  Or do you know if one of his other lenses was
> the 50/1.4?
> > >
> > > I'm considering the Canon 35s as well.  The 35/2 is the famous one, and
> the 35/1.8 is thought unsharp by Deschert (sp?), but I'm
> > > wondering if anyone has compared them in terms of signature.  If I could
> find a 35 with the same attributes as the 50/1.4 -- or the
> > > DR Summicron -- I'd be a happy guy.  (I'm sure the 35mm pre-Aspherical
> Summicron would do the trick, but can't afford one at the
> > > moment.)
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > >
> > > DC
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>