Canon 100mm f3.5 rangefinder lens

[jyl]

Continuing on the Canon P theme, I just bid on and won this lens on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3830914333

It is described as a Canon 100mm f3.5 for the Canon rangefinders. Comes with viewfinder and case.

I didn't do a ton of research before bidding, so hopefully I haven't bought a pig in a poke. Anyone have this lens and want to share some impressions?

P.S. I recently saw couple of 85mm Canon rangefinder lens, the cheaper one for $160, at the local photo swap meet, but since my P doesn't have framelines for 85mm, I passed. Seems like a nice focal length. Was a little more than I wanted to pay.

[Rich Silfver]

Oh it's a pig alright. Horrible. Looks like in pretty raggedy condition as well. Canon is really more of an artillery-manufacturing company.

But..you can send it over here - throw in the XA as well and I may be persuaded to split the shipping costs...

[Rich Silfver]

Should you decide to keep the lens anyway... ;)

Here's some stuff;

From cameraquest:
"The lenses which stand up best today are probably the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/3.5, 100/2, 135/3.5. "

Dante: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/canoleic.html

Compared to the Serenar 100/4: http://www.davidde.com/articles/canon100.html

Some more: http://www.pgallery.net/stevechan/folder-4713.html

The most important question now is...what body are you gonna get...? 7, P, VI-L, etc...? ;)

Second question - when will there be a canon discussion forum setup? ;-)

[back alley]

richard, he already has the canon p body.
and i second the need for a canon section on our little forum.

hey jorge!

joe

[Rich Silfver]

oopps...missed that....:)

[wlewisiii]

Threadjack - I've just bought a used Mamiya 645E and would like to know the local concescess of just what the best wide angle in the Mamiya line is. (I ask here as you all seem to actually really know whereof you speak and that's not a small thing. Sorry if I offend... )

William

[back alley]

i had a mamiya 645 years ago and found all their lenses to be top notch.
now go stand in the corner for, a) hijacking this thread and, b) talking about slr cameras in a rf forum.

joe:)

[wlewisiii]

Yes sir.

I only did so as RF people know wides better than SLR people do, IME and all that. But my budget was such that that bit was best for me. I'd still count opinion here higher than most places.

Thanks,

William

[Brian Sweeney]

I would like to see some results from your 100mm f3.5. I have the 100mm F4, it is a nicely made lens, a bit soft wide-open. It is solid. I tend to use the 85mm F2 Nikkor on the Canon 7, preferring the speed. The Canon 85mm F2 and 85mm F1.9 go for less. Canon also makes a 100mm F2; it is expensive compared to the others.

[Stu :)]

On the subject of 'tele' lenses, anyone use a Nikkor 105mm before?
Most of the reviews online seem pretty positive and thinking of trading the Leica 90mm in for one.

Stu :)

[back alley]

the 105 has a great rep. i have owned several 100s over the years and i like the focal length. the 105 has to be similar. i now have the 75 and it's not quite the same. if finances ever permit i would like to get the 100 for the canon.

joe

[Brian Sweeney]

I have the Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 for my Nikon RF's, and for my SLR's. It is a great lens. But, for whatever reason I end up using the 8.5cm F2 much more often. If you have the 90mm F2 Summicron, I would not trade it for the Nikkor. The 10.5cm f2.5 in LRM is scarce, but the 8.5cm is much more plentiful. I have one near mint, went under $300. I have seen users for under $200 in LTM.

[jyl]

I finally received this lens. I am surprised at how small (barrel diameter) it is. Won't have time to take any shots (leaving town for a week) but will post some later.

[back alley]

well john, should you ever decide to sell it, please call me first!

it looks to be in great shape and you know that we all want to see some pics from it (when you return).

joe

[taunusreiter]

I highly recommend the Canon 3.5/100. recently bought another one (and sold it again) in order to get the proper sun shade...

The Canon RF 3.5/100 is a tele lens I use even more often as my Zeiss SLR tele lenses. I've got a Canon RF 1.8/85 and a Nikkor-P 2.5/105 LTM (a fullsize beauty).

As a user I would keep away from the older 1.9 or 2/85. Design from late 40's, early 50's and even bigger and heavier than the Nikkor-P. The 1.8/85 is *much* lighter and the design is quite up to date, Canon used it well into the 80's.

Instead, try the 135/3.5. Same weight, same nice solid chrome-brass construction, but sharp and cheap to have (50-150 USD)

Frank

[back alley]

jyl,

i'm curious as to how you like the 100/3.5?
and if you're ready to sell it yet?

frank,

got a spare 100/3.5 around?

joe

[Sonnar]

Just missed a black 100/3.5... waiting for a chrome-black late series with ft/m ... cheers Frank

[Paul Connet]

Originally posted by backalley photo
jyl,

i'm curious as to how you like the 100/3.5?
and if you're ready to sell it yet?

frank,

got a spare 100/3.5 around?

joe

I'll butt-in here to post a sample pic taken with my 100/3.5 black-chrome model. IMO this is a very underrated lens, small, light weight and plenty sharp enough for most folks.

Regards, Paul C.

[back alley]

thanks paul!
examples always welcome.
i need to play with my newly acquired 100/4 serenar to see what it can do.
i think the 3.5 is normally viewed as the better lens.

joe

[Rockford]

I know this is an old thread, but his is one of my all time fovorite lenses. I had a 100 F3.5 Canon with my FT-QL back in late 1960's. Great lens. I bought a 100 F3.5 RF for my rangefinder. I wonder if the formula is the same. The RF lens was great. Dropped it. Only lens I ever dropped. After searching for another, I found one. All three of these lenses have been tack sharp wide open and great for portraits. Focus on the eyes or mouth at near distance, and the depth of field is just enough. I had a chance to buy a 90 Tele-Elemrit for a great price. Shot my standard city scape with it. Shot Canon side-by-side. At F11 Leica had just a Little more resolution in my scanned 2900 dpi pics---a distant tv antena at the edge of the field was a little more distinct---by a fraction , but wide open at3.5 and 3.5 respectively, the Canon had better contrast.. As the lens is stopped down, the Tele-Elmerit gets better but not by much. Price of this lens can be quite reasonable. Mine came with finder, case, and filter for c. $135. It is literally like new. I am told that Canon used artifical lubricants, so these lenses do not have the haze problem that some German lenses from the same period do. I am posting this because this forum has been so helpful to me in seeking out these old affordable RF lenses. By the by, I have not had a problem using this lens with the 90mm frame on my RF. It is small, light. Delightful.

[Rockford]

Should read, "As the lens is stopped down, the Tele-Elmerit gets better than the Canon but not by much." Sorry.

[Rockford]

Should also add that, at near distance, wide-open, I like the Canon rendition better. Should also note that the Canon has a 10mm advantage. Leica is great glass. Just not worth huge difference in money to a fellla on a budget. In Short, the Canon is a great lens. Do I seem enthusiastic? I hope not bombastic.

[Sonnar2]

Yes the Canon 3.5/100 RF is the same design as the SLR lens of that era. Thanks for your comparison with the Tele-Elmarit. This was the smallest LEICA short telephoto, right? I know there are bigger Elmarits now - which may be better optically, but not in the "backtrousers league" which was the pristine audience of the Mountain-Elmar... amazing that LEICA now introduces a new folding 4/90 in that class...
About the performance of the CANON; I too was surprised of wide-open sharpness and contrast. This isn't to expect from a 50 year old design, in particular if it's a simple "triplet" design with 2 added lenses. I guess the Japanese designers wanted a lens usable unrestrained wide open when it's such a "slow" lens. But it can be said as well that it could improve more at f/8... a behavior like the modern C/V lenses.
For critical applications like landscape and architecture, the CANON 3.5/100 is equal with my C/V 2.5/75 and beats the "portrait lenses" Nikkor 2/85, Jupiter-9. It's on a par with the CANON 1.8/85, but at a smaller weight and fast handling. A very similar approach to the "Mountain Elmar class" is the C/V 3.5/90 "Apo" (really?). I haven't compared these two, but from readings I guess they are very similar as far as sharpness is concerned.

cheers, Frank

[laptoprob]

How does this Canon 100/3,5 perform compared to the old 50's collapsible Elmar 90? Does anyone know about that?
I will post some pics later from this one. As small as a Summicron 50 and almost as sharp as far as I can tell...

Rob

[Rockford]

Sonnar2, my 3.5 is the later design with, I think, five elements. I have the Nikkor 85mm F2 and I agree that the Canon is sharper. However it cannot compete with the last generation 105 F2.5 AIS which is the sharpest lens I have ever used. I have never used the early 90mm Elmar. I am told that the Canon has less problem with developing haze, etc., because Canon used artificial lubricants. Thanks for the tip as to the Canon SLR lens. I moved to Nikkormat c. 1972, but always admired the Canon FT with the very intuitive stop-down metering. I had a "rangefinder kit" with mine. 100 F3.5 (for which I traded a 135mm 2.5), a 35 F2.5, and a 50mm F1.8. I think my favorite was the 100 F3.5. I wonder if Canon made that 100F3.5 in an FD mount?

[ray_g]

Yes the Canon 3.5/100 RF is the same design as the SLR lens of that era.

Somewhat on this topic, is the 100/2 FD (or EF) design similar to the 100/2 RF lens?

[Mackinaw]

I have lens diagrams for both the 100/2 RF as well as the FD 100/2 and they're totally different.

I know that Canon made an "R" version of the rangefinder 100/2 for the Canonflex which delivers outstanding results (I own one). You can mount this on most FD cameras if you wish (I use mine on an original F-1).

Jim Bielecki

[furcafe]

I've had 2 of the collapsible 90/4 Elmars, 1 black & chrome Canon 100/3.5 & 1 all-black Canon 100/3.5. IMHO, the all-black Canon 100/3.5 is the best, but it's also the newest. It's more of a wash between the 90/4 Elmar & the black & chrome 100/3.5.

How does this Canon 100/3,5 perform compared to the old 50's collapsible Elmar 90? Does anyone know about that?
I will post some pics later from this one. As small as a Summicron 50 and almost as sharp as far as I can tell...

Rob

[sychan]

FYI - I bet the Canon FL 100/2 lens is identical to the 100/2 LTM lens. I just swapped the front element and rear optical cell from an 85/1.8 FL lens into my 85/1.8 LTM lens, and they fit perfectly (the original lens elements had 30+ years of cleaning marks on them). Sharpness in the photos that came back are excellent, but it looks like the focus is off.

[StuartR]

Wow, in my experience, my Tele-Elmarit has done better than my 100/3.5 Canon. I like them both, but if I had to keep one, it would undoubtedly be the Tele-Elmarit -- it's not much larger, it fits my framelines, and it is faster. Not to knock the Canon at all, it is a beautiful lens, but not the one I prefer in this case.

[Sonnar2]

Which time was the Tele-Elmarit? I don't think LEICA has such a small telephoto today (except the brad new started Macro_Elmar 4/90) or am I wrong??

[StuartR]

I think they stopped making the tele-elmarit in the early 90s, but I could be wrong. The current elmarit is not really that much bigger. It is still rather small. The Macro Elmar is smaller than either the Canon or the Tele-Elmarit when collapsed.

[John Shriver]

sychan, I think you should swap ALL the glass between your FL and LTM 85/1.8 lenses. They really are matched sets.

Then you will need to have the LTM lens recollimated. The focal length of each lens is slightly different, and that spacer washer is selected to match the focal length. It's selected to focus at infinity at the infinity setting. (There's presumably a similar spacer in the FL lens, but so long as the lens can focus to inifinity, it's not as crucial.)

In theory, the rate of the focusing cam also should depend on the focal length of the lens. But I don't know how tight the tolerances are there, you may be "in band". They didn't make many different cams.

[Bill58]

Anybody care to comment on the quality vs current CV?