frank, howse the new coll. 50?

back alley · 03-25-2005

hey frank,

have you seen any results from the collapsible canon 50/1.9 yet?

i'm thinking about bidding on one or putting out an apb on one.
i like the idea of a smaller 50 but am hoping it's sharp enough.

how does it compare to the canon 50/1.8?

joe

FrankS · 03-25-2005

I'll have some results in a few days, probably before the end of this Easter weekend. Here's my guess though: you know how the Canon 50mm f1.8 has been very favourably compared to the Summicron of that vintage, and how the earlier Serenar was not quite up to that standard? Well, the collapsible, which is an even earlier lens, would be, at best, an equal to the Serenar rigid. I'm actually hoping it gives a less sharp, vintage look. I've got sharp covered with my other 50mm lenses. I'll post a result as soon as I can.

I also have a collapsible FED lens (I22) that is a copy of the Elmar, and it is reputed to be a very good/sharp lens, only a bit slow at f3.5. If you are using this lens for daytime outside shots then that would not be a concern. It is even more compact than the collapsible Serenar. (I know what you're saying now, Joe: But it's not a Canon lens for my Canon body, Currently on my M3 there is that Canon lens with a Nikon enlarging-lens cap on it. Talk about eclectic!)

I was hoping to do this a while ago, but some GAS got in the way. Now that I'm fairly settled with the gear I've got, I will eventually get around to doing a comparison of all the 50mm lenses I've aquired. (I just need to find a very patient, scantily-clad pretty woman to be the test subject. Nude would be best, but I would stick sections of newspaper over certain parts of her body so that I can enlarge them to see how clear the print is.)

back alley · 03-25-2005

thanks frank.

from the reading i've done, i tend to agree that the collapsible lens will not be as sharp as the 1.8.
my 'standards' are more relaxed than most so a touch of sharpness loss might be quite acceptable to me.
i'm thinking more compact and no real loss of lens speed.

ok, great, i'm looking forward to your immediate results and hope you find a model, real soon too!

joe

back alley · 03-25-2005

if anyone else has experience with a canon 1.9 collapsible, i'd love to hear about it.

joe

Paul Connet · 03-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

I'll have some results in a few days, probably before the end of this Easter weekend. Here's my guess though: you know how the Canon 50mm f1.8 has been very favourably compared to the Summicron of that vintage, and how the earlier Serenar was not quite up to that standard? Well, the collapsible, which is an even earlier lens, would be, at best, an equal to the Serenar rigid. I'm actually hoping it gives a less sharp, vintage look. I've got sharp covered with my other 50mm lenses. I'll post a result as soon as I can.

Frank,

I'm interested to know where you heard that the early Serenar rigid 50/f1.8 is of lower image quality than the Canon 50/f1.8. Everything I have read seems to indicate that they are the exact same optical formula, even down to the coating.
I have never noticed any difference in the results from my own Serenar and Canon versions, but have never done a real photo test of them.

Regards, Paul C.

FrankS · 03-25-2005

Paul, this impression has been created through my reading of others' reviews and stated opinions of these lenses. I could (unknowingly) be spreading false information. Once I get to this 50mm lens comparison test, I will have some firsthand results (which will only apply to the specific samples of the lenses I'll be testing.)

FrankS · 03-25-2005

Okay, since Joe is eager for the results from this lens, I finished off a roll of film using the Canon Serenar collapsible 50mm f1.9 lens this afternoon. I just finished developing the roll and the negs look good. Once the film is dry I'll make a few prints tonight and once those are dry I'll scan them and post them here. Stay tuned!

tedwhite · 03-25-2005

Frank:

What size prints will you make for scanning purposes?

Ted

FrankS · 03-25-2005

The prints are still wet but I can say 2 things: they are pretty sharp, and the lens is flare-prone. Once dry I'll scan and post one.

Ted, I usually make full frame prints on an 8by10 piece of paper.

back alley · 03-25-2005

do you have a hood for it frank?

btw, thanks.
joe

VictorM. · 03-25-2005

A hood you say? I just happen to have an extra hood for the 50/1.9.

back alley · 03-25-2005

you wouldn't happen to have an extra coll 50/1.9...?

joe

FrankS · 03-25-2005

Here's a scan of a print i made earlier tonight. Not bad for a lens made in the late forties.

back alley · 03-25-2005

hard to tell from one shot.

what's your up close & personal view frank?

joe

FrankS · 03-25-2005

I'd say that the results are consistent with what I've read about the various Canon 50mm lenses. It is a notch below the f1.8, which is simply brilliant. It is more like the softer redition that I get with the Jupiter 8.

back alley · 03-25-2005

maybe i should stick with 35's and leave the 50's for rover.

joe

FrankS · 03-25-2005

I would say that this is definitley a lens worth getting if you are interested in a vintage image from a lens in a compact package (due to it's being collapsible) and if ultimate sharpness is not the be all and end all. It would beat out the Elmar/I-22 if speed is important.

back alley · 03-25-2005

canon made a 50/3.5 collapsible too, i think.

time to visit the museum i thinks.

joe

FrankS · 03-25-2005

Joe, that 3.5 is really old. And slow.

Would you be interested in trying out my lens in person? I'll ship it to you, you try it, and if you like it, we could work something out. Like maybe a swap for your CV35mm lens. I'm flush with 50's but only have a J-12 (35) which won't fit on my Bessa R.

VictorM. · 03-26-2005

That old and slow 50/3.5 Serenar is better than any Elmar I've owned. It's always on my IIIf L...a (Canon forum ya know). It's the lens that made me realize Canon lenses were better than similar OEM lenses for the IIIf. Plus it has a conventionally located and click-stopped aperture control.

John Shriver · 03-26-2005

Let's remember that the Serenar 50/1.9 is a copy of the Leica Summitar 50/2.0. That was Leica's latest 50mm lens at the time the patents were revoked and Canon started copying the designs.

Mechanically, they look close to identical. They are same basic double-gauss optical formula. They have the same constraints of a collapsible lens barrel that makes it rather hard to design such a fast lens. So, I'd expect that they have similar character.

I'd note that testing the 50/1.9 in color could provide different results. The bokeh on my Summitar was totally tame in B&W, but I got some color shots with swirly tangential circular bokeh.

As for the Canon/Serenar 50/3.5, sure, it's old. So is the Summar, and so is the Tessar design it evolved from. But I'm sure it's a fine lens. It does have trouble with balsam separation. It's also rare enough that collector prices render it not a "user" lens.

FrankS · 03-26-2005

This is all interesting information, Thank you.

back alley · 03-26-2005

not looking for speed necessarily.
i'm thinking for outdoor use, walkabout type shooting.
i have the 1.8 if i was to push some tri-x and shoot in the dark.
i'm in no rush though.

i held a 35/3.5 today, very tiny, compact. it needed a good cleaning and it was there the last time i went into that shop so i'm thinking it will be there when i go back again.

he also had a 50 summarit that looked like it needed a cleaning also.
i didn't ask prices.

joe

VictorM. · 03-27-2005

Joe: I put the 50/3.5 Serenar on the P and it scrapes the internal baffles when collapsed. The focusing tab also rubs the rangefinder bezel as it is being mounted.

back alley · 03-27-2005

good to know victor, thank.

guess i'll scrape that one off the list.

the 50/1.9 fits ok on the p?

joe