Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,873   Posts: 1,520,160   Online: 987
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,370
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnLikesPhotos View Post
    holy cow. this is exactly what i was looking for. Thank you so much.
    ugh, now I want the 1.5 and 1.8 too..
    All the Canon LTM lenses are very usable today, e.g. the 35mm /2 is a '62 (or'63 for type II) design, comparable with the type I summicron but higher contrast. the 5cm /1.8 again is comparable with the type I summicron, but higher contrast. Canon designed both of them after the Leitz statement lenses, and glass catalog improvements...

    Some people have a set of Cosina Voightlander lenses in LTM for multcoatng contrast (dull day use) and a set of Canon for compression (on sunny days).

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    79
    To the questioners above on do I have more data, I'm a lens user, not scientific tester. I don't care about lpm, dpi, or RPM. I shoot lenses, lots of them, on film and digital. I see the results, on monitors, negatives, and prints (wet darkroom and bubblejet). You can take a great picture with ANY lens. Pixel peeping, talking about micro contrast and dpi is just noise. Go out and shoot. If you want a really sharp, nice Canon RF lens, I (and hundreds of thousands of other photographers over generations) like the 50/1.8 and 1.5. If you want a soft focus, dreamy look, I like the Canon 50/1.2 or early Nikkor 50/1.4. But the point is I don't think anyone sees a great photograph, and then says, "yeah, but the microcontrast is not as good as a Ver 2 Summicron..." or "I can tell he wasn't using a Canon 2.0, too bad..."

  3. #23
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,664
    Quote Originally Posted by goamules View Post
    To the questioners above on do I have more data, I'm a lens user, not scientific tester. I don't care about lpm, dpi, or RPM. I shoot lenses, lots of them, on film and digital. I see the results, on monitors, negatives, and prints (wet darkroom and bubblejet). You can take a great picture with ANY lens. Pixel peeping, talking about micro contrast and dpi is just noise. Go out and shoot. If you want a really sharp, nice Canon RF lens, I (and hundreds of thousands of other photographers over generations) like the 50/1.8 and 1.5. If you want a soft focus, dreamy look, I like the Canon 50/1.2 or early Nikkor 50/1.4. But the point is I don't think anyone sees a great photograph, and then says, "yeah, but the microcontrast is not as good as a Ver 2 Summicron..." or "I can tell he wasn't using a Canon 2.0, too bad..."
    I agree, photographers particularly amateurs worry too much about the photographic technicality s of their pictures rather than what they "say", if anything.
    Ben

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    It seems that for many photographers, the gear is more important than the image. I sometimes fit that statement.

    ETA My Canon P with 50/1.4 and 35/1.8 are my sunny day kit.
    Last edited by John Earley; 01-18-2014 at 08:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    If you are shooting with the 1.2, you really need to make sure your rangefinder is precisely adjusted, ideally to the lens you are using. I found my Canon 50/1.2 to be soft on my Canon 7, but sharp on my Leica M4. I also shoot the Canon 50/.095, and found that is quite sharp when stopped down to f/1.4, sharper than a regular Canon 1.4 shot wide open.

    The Canon LTM lenses often are less sharp than they should be because clumsy repairmen sometimes lose the adjustment shims located between the focusing helicoid and lens group. These lenses develop haze on the inside rear elements which must be cleaned off before it damages the internal coating. Often they are not reassemblec correctly.

  6. #26
    gorbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    323
    Hi Songetsu,
    "These lenses develop haze on the inside rear elements"
    Canon RF lenses in general or lenses who lost shims?
    My son got as present very foggy Canon RF 1.8/50mm. After full inside cleaning, one of inside elements had very wobbly-univen surface. Didn't notice it before cleaning. Also it was impossible to clean haze 100%.
    What happened there? Repair guy was well trusted and experienced.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,370
    if you dont clean them when they haze they can become etched not your repairer fault.

  8. #28
    gorbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    323
    Xmas, I do not blame camera technician for anything. It's simple case where operation was success but "patient" died on the end. Plus my son doesn't mind to have a lens with unique signature. It must be interesting list of lubricants and other chemicals used in camera & lens manufacturing 50, 60 or more years ago?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by gorbas View Post
    Hi Songetsu,
    "These lenses develop haze on the inside rear elements"
    Canon RF lenses in general or lenses who lost shims?
    My son got as present very foggy Canon RF 1.8/50mm. After full inside cleaning, one of inside elements had very wobbly-univen surface. Didn't notice it before cleaning. Also it was impossible to clean haze 100%.
    What happened there? Repair guy was well trusted and experienced.
    Any Canon LTM lens can develop haze, but the ones which suffer the most are those later ones with the aluminum bodies.

    It sounds like your repairman did what some repairmen do, and tried to polish off the haze with a dremel tool and polishing wheel. Simple cleaning is easy to do, but hazing which has fogged the glass must be polished off with precision machinery. The cost for such a repair is about the same as simply buying a clean lens.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin