|
|
Post by torontodon on Oct 1, 2012 6:48:22 GMT -5
Don't know if this is the correct forum, as this is a rangefinder lens . . .
I was going through some old stuff of my late father's and found his rangefinder Canon 135 mm f/3.5 lens. He used it with his Leica M3. I used it once, as I recall, but found it nearly unfocusable because of the tiny image in the viewfinder.
But it might work nicely on a Micro Four Thirds camera, with adapter.
Has anyone seen how this lens performs?
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Oct 1, 2012 10:00:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 10:18:37 GMT -5
I've never found a Leica screw-mount 135mm of any brand that was any better than average. That may be because there is just something about the external appearance and design that I never liked.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 1, 2012 14:23:18 GMT -5
The 1950's/1960's screw mount rangefinder Canon lenses are not as good as top class German productions, but are not far short, I think this sums it up.
Stopped to working aperture they match closely the best lenses, but are a bit softer at maximum aperture.
In some ways they are about the same quality as independently made quality SLR lenses made in the 70's and later.
Canon rapidly improved with the later reflex lenses series, but never developed the older rangefinder designs, which all date from the 1940's types. One lens stood out, the super fast standard, but that lens was soft, not a surprise, as what do you expect from such a large amount of glass.
Mechanically they are sound, well made, and last as well as any make. They were made to sell relatively cheaply on the US market, they were designed to undercut the German pricing.
A Canon rangefinder outfit based on the lenses would rival Leica in the delivered quality, it is just that Leica, and Zeiss, made some really outstanding lenses as well, which put the Canon in the shade.
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Oct 2, 2012 8:14:27 GMT -5
Thank you, all.
|
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Nov 28, 2014 12:52:52 GMT -5
As an FYI follow-up to this discussion, I bit the bullet and bought an adapter for the Canon 135 mm lens so it would work on my Panasonic GF2. I went to e-bay for the adapter and picked it up for about $15. I figured I didn't waste too much money if the lens proved to be a dud. And received a nice surprise: It works. Actually took pictures with it.
The GF2 has a menu option you can set which basically tells the camera to continue working even if it can't make an electrical connection with a lens.
I shot a few frames at the grey sky at various apertures, from f/3.5 to f/22, and found it showed internal spots (fungus/dust) at f/22. But at f/3.5 to f/8 the spots weren't visible. So I now have the equivalent of a 270 mm f/3.5 lens, a heavy one 'cause the barrel is metal not plastic like those of the Panasonic lenses, which means I'll have to be careful I don't bend/break the camera's mount.
That's two of the three Rs: Reuse, recycle . . .!
|
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Nov 29, 2014 16:56:14 GMT -5
The spots you see at f22 are on the sensor, not the lens. They are invisible at full aperture.
|
|
|
|
Post by torontodon on Nov 29, 2014 17:33:15 GMT -5
Well son-of-a-gun. Even better, because I can get the sensor cleaned for less than getting the lens cleaned! Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Nov 29, 2014 20:32:15 GMT -5
I'm glad that helped. Here is a disastrous result. My NEX body had been lying in the case without a lens on it. You can see the dust on the f8 pic, at full aperture (f3.5) it would have blurred out. It is depth of focus that makes it more visible.  |
|
