Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders

Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders For classic Leica Screw Mount Canon Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-21-2011   #41
a10101100
Owl in a human suit.
 
a10101100's Avatar
 
a10101100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Singapore
Posts: 98
oh i shouldnt be reading this - i have enough 50s! but this, makes me crave for me!
__________________
Flickr || Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2011   #42
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237

Candle-Shop by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2011   #43
Sonnar2
Registered User
 
Sonnar2's Avatar
 
Sonnar2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Age: 51
Posts: 1,399
The later, black ones tend to develop a haze type of fungus which can't be cleaned.
The same appears to the 50/1.2, released in 1956 as well.
With later lenses, i.e. the 50/1.4, this was resolved.

I never heard of a *chrome* 50/1.8 with fungus, but the black version was said to be optimized in design with newer glass types.

My 50/1.8 has a hard stand against the (classic looking) 50/1.5 and the newer, dead-sharp 50/1.4. The outcome of the 50/1.8 is just in between, so it's hard to decide when to use it. But if you want just *one* Canon 50mm, or have a low budget, then the 50/1.8 is the one you need!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2011   #44
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
Finally cleaned mine out, and got the YF repaired so I could do a test shoot.


Ground Cover by br1078phot, on Flickr

I'm keeping it!

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2011   #45
luiman
shadowgrapher
 
luiman's Avatar
 
luiman is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Italy/France
Posts: 829
My tribute to C. 50/1.8:

__________________
Luigi

My Website

My Flick

My Blog
My Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2011   #46
250swb
-
 
250swb is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Peak District, United Kingdom
Posts: 860
The Canon f/1.8 isn't a 'low budget' lens, its just a great lens for less money than alternative over-hyped lenses. It is a perfect fit on an LTM Leica for size and style, and at half the price of a Summicron. The prices are going up for good examples though, and like any sleeper it will have its day.

Steve
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2011   #47
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
Before and After shots of my 50/1.8


Canon 50mm f1.8 Cleaning 2 by br1078phot, on Flickr


Canon 50mm f1.8 Cleaning 8 by br1078phot, on Flickr

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2011   #48
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
 
jpa66 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by luiman View Post
My tribute to C. 50/1.8:

Love this photo! And love the lens. I'm glad that I got mine when I did. It's a great lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2011   #49
pagpow
Registered User
 
pagpow is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 922
Raid,

I'm with Steve on this one. I have two copies of the 50/1.8 and one copy is very prone to haze, the other not. The one that is not does not seem to render as your example one.

I am struck in your tests by the (apparently) huge difference in contrast, not to say detail, between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8. I also have th e1.4, and I do not witness that difference w my 1.8.

Apologies for not posting photos; I'll catch up with digitizing and uploading one day -- hopefully this year.

Giorgio
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2011   #50
luiman
shadowgrapher
 
luiman's Avatar
 
luiman is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Italy/France
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpa66 View Post
Love this photo! And love the lens. I'm glad that I got mine when I did. It's a great lens.
Thank you! Yes, just a great lens.
__________________
Luigi

My Website

My Flick

My Blog
My Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2011   #51
Rogier
Rogier Willems
 
Rogier's Avatar
 
Rogier is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 1,185
Does any one know the filter size of this lens ?
__________________
Smiles across the wires,


Rogier Willems


http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogierwillems/

http://www.scooter-it.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2011   #52
PMCC
Late adopter.
 
PMCC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,019
It's a 40mm, I believe. This size is a bit thin on the ground, but can be found used without too much effort. Third-party versions, such as made by Kalt, are not uncommon.

P.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-01-2011   #53
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237
Peter is correct: the filter size is 40mm. You can occasionally find step-up rings, as an alternative to 40mm filters.
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #54
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
Mine came with an Ednalite 617 Series VI holder. So I'll save on 1: Filters (of which I already have a set or two), and 2: a hood (just found an Ednalite Series VI hood, too). The original is too rare and expensive for me right now.

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #55
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by pagpow View Post
Raid,

I'm with Steve on this one. I have two copies of the 50/1.8 and one copy is very prone to haze, the other not. The one that is not does not seem to render as your example one.

I am struck in your tests by the (apparently) huge difference in contrast, not to say detail, between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8. I also have th e1.4, and I do not witness that difference w my 1.8.

Apologies for not posting photos; I'll catch up with digitizing and uploading one day -- hopefully this year.

Giorgio
Hi Georgio,
Tests are not free of flaws; I checked carefully for lenses with haze or similar problems, and then I removed the images that were taken with such lenses. Still, I am not perfect.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #56
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
I should try out my second 50/1.8 that DAG just inspected.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #57
pagpow
Registered User
 
pagpow is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Hi Georgio,
Tests are not free of flaws; I checked carefully for lenses with haze or similar problems, and then I removed the images that were taken with such lenses. Still, I am not perfect.
Hi Raid,

No criticism, nor a request for perfection; just adding my experience.

Giorgio
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #58
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
I am glad that people have alerted me to what could be a 50/1.8 with flaws.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #59
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,589
One good thing about the Canon 50mm 1.8 is that cleaning the surfaces of the lens groups is relatively easy - the lens disassembly is relatively straight forward.

My had some has on the back of the rear element in the front group. It looks like the lens itself had a lot of oil migration in general as almost every surface inside was a bit oily. Only took about half an hour to tear down and clean (though I'd done a partial disassembly before and was familiar with at least getting the first group out).
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #60
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
I just looked at my two 50/1.8 lenses.
I removed front and back covers,and then I pointed a strong light at the front of the lens and then I looked from the back. Is there a "best" way to check for haze? Should I go to a dark room? I cannot see haze as clearly as someone here has shown his lens with haze.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #61
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by farlymac View Post
Before and After shots of my 50/1.8


Canon 50mm f1.8 Cleaning 2 by br1078phot, on Flickr



PF
My lenses have numbers 62xxx and 63xxx.
I am trying to get a view as clear as you are getting of the hazed up lens.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #62
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,589
That picture is _way_ beyond what my lens looked like. I just took a small flash light and tried pointing it at the the lens at various angles, looking at the surface of the glass from both sides as I did it.

I could easily see the surface of the glass looking hazy at certain angles. With the 35mm, I was able to see this just pointing holding the lens and pointing out a window during daylight. With the 50mm 1.8 it was only visible with a flashlight.

Again though, it didn't look anything like the image above. I'm impressed something so significant cleaned up as well as it did.
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2011   #63
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,940
I cannot see any haze in either lens. I used the EP-2 for digital shots,and the results look very sharp.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #64
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
I'm not sure what that stuff was, Raid and Brian, but it came off easily with just Kodak lens cleaning solution. It did damage the coating of the element, but does not seem to have much overall effect when shooting it. I don't know the diagramatic make-up of the lens, other than it is six elements, but this was on the surface facing the rear of the diaphram. The blades are nice and clean though, and there was no other stuff that needed to be cleaned out.

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2011   #65
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
Another sample from my 50/1.8.


Tinker Mountain Cloud by br1078phot, on Flickr
Itís hard to see, but Interstate-81 runs along the base of this mountain. And the Appalachian Trail around the other side.

Complete set at:
http:[email protected]/sets/72157627703683973/

Too bad I have to set this lens aside until I get the camera repaired.

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2011   #66
mrlazyli
Registered User
 
mrlazyli's Avatar
 
mrlazyli is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
I have tried the chrome version and later black focus ring version (Type II). I like the color rendering of Chrome version more, though the contrast is quite high.

There is marking "Serenar" for earlier chrome version, which has only blue coating. The later one (without Serenar) with blue & gold coating should have better color balance.

  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2011   #67
johnamazement
Registered User
 
johnamazement's Avatar
 
johnamazement is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: England
Posts: 93
I bought my copy with haze on the back of the rear-most element in the front group too. The aperture blades were also seized with oil so I dismantled the diaphragm and cleaned and rebuilt it at the same time as cleaning the glass. Once it was all back together it was virtually mint.

However, about four months later I noticed the element was starting to haze up again. Easy enough to re-clean, but does anyone know what causes this to keep coming back if it's not aperture grease? I can't see any plastics that might be "out-gassing".
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2011   #68
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
It could be the composition of the glass itself, since I have read about the dreaded "Canon Haze" being uncurable. It was fixed in later versions of the lens, and that is why I suspect the glass itself.

I bought a series of Sears 90-230mm zoom lenses for an M42 camera, and they all had the same problem on the same element. I took one apart and tried cleaning it, but was unsuccessful. It wasn't until I received a later build that I got a clear lens.

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2011   #69
mrlazyli
Registered User
 
mrlazyli's Avatar
 
mrlazyli is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnamazement View Post
I bought my copy with haze on the back of the rear-most element in the front group too. The aperture blades were also seized with oil so I dismantled the diaphragm and cleaned and rebuilt it at the same time as cleaning the glass. Once it was all back together it was virtually mint.

However, about four months later I noticed the element was starting to haze up again. Easy enough to re-clean, but does anyone know what causes this to keep coming back if it's not aperture grease? I can't see any plastics that might be "out-gassing".
The oil at aperture blade "react" with the coating of the lens element, so you may easily find the rear lens element near aperture has haze or oil drops in many Canon lenses.

From my experience, Canon 50mm f/1.8 Type II and 100mm f/3.5 Type III are the worst ones, which most of them have haze. Also beware of the early Canon Serenar series, they are prone to haze too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2011   #70
kurotama
Registered User
 
kurotama's Avatar
 
kurotama is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 56
Posts: 74
It's great for table shots.



  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2011   #71
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237
Bumping this thread...


Stephansplatz by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2011   #72
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237

Companions by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2011   #73
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 4,983
Good shots, Bingley. Believe me, if I had a body to put my lens on, I'd be posting more too.

PF
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2012   #74
Krosya
Konicaze
 
Krosya's Avatar
 
Krosya is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 3,538
This thread made me dig out my old Canon 50/1.8 ltm and take a few shots - lovely lens - very much worth it's price and than some IMO:





__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Rangefinders : Leica M5 and RD1S w/ many M and LTM lenses

Folders
:
Welta Weltur 6x6/645, Welta Weltur 6x9/645


flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-02-2012   #75
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237
Thanks, farlymac. Lovely shots, Krosya! Here's one wide open:


Cafe Sperl by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2012   #76
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,589

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/6279406678
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2012   #77
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
 
OurManInTangier's Avatar
 
OurManInTangier is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,053
I foolishly gave my Canon 50 1.8 away to someone starting out, made me feel all warm and fuzzy for a while but man do I miss that lens.

I've been wondering about a 1.4 as a back up to my CZ Planar but the price on a good one is crazy, even the 1.8 is looking expensive now. Maybe one day I'll have another...
__________________
Cheers
Simon

| SLP: Work website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-19-2012   #78
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,277
Did one of you gentlemen notice the level of distortion of this lens?
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2012   #79
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanmich View Post
Did one of you gentlemen notice the level of distortion of this lens?
I haven't noticed any.
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-21-2012   #80
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,237
Some recent color samples, all with new Portra 400:


The Designer by bingley0522, on Flickr


Above Salzburg by bingley0522, on Flickr


The Cyclist by bingley0522, on Flickr
__________________
Steve

M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS




My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:57.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.