Canon 50mm f3.5 Serenar LTM vs Canon 50mm f3.5 non-Serenar LTM vs Leica 50mm f3.5 Elmar LTM

[John Wiegerink]

I just picked up a mint Canon 7 with a spotless, no fog 50mm f1.1 lens. I'd like to get an older 50mm f3.5 to use on it to keep the 50mm f1.1 from getting used and abused. I'm just curious as to how the 50mm f3.5 Canon lenses compare to the legendary 50mm f3.5 Elmar.

 

[Mackinaw]

Both are 4 element, 3 group lenses. The Canon 50/3.5 is a true Tessar while the Leica is almost a Tessar. I have the Canon and it's very sharp and contrasty. I don't own the Leica.

Jim B.

 

[davela]

I've owned and shot with both. They are both excellent lenses. The Canon's seem slightly bulkier, more modern overall, yet very well-made. The Elmar is a bit more lightly made as I recall. The Canon's usually cost less, as they are not as in demand by collectors. As far as I know, all the Canon's had coated optics, while coated optics on Elmar's are found mostly only on post-war models.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There is also the Voigtlander Heliar f/3.5 if you want something really modern and super sharp. If you want something cheap, the Industar-50 has worked fine for me over the years. It is a Tessar that looks like an old Elmar.

I've always liked images out of the post war Elmars, especially the later larger ones.

Congrats on the 7. Incredibly underrated camera.

 

[John Wiegerink]

There is also the Voigtlander Heliar f/3.5 if you want something really modern and super sharp. If you want something cheap, the Industar-50 has worked fine for me over the years. It is a Tessar that looks like an old Elmar.

I've always liked images out of the post war Elmars, especially the later larger ones.

Congrats on the 7. Incredibly underrated camera.

Years ago I had a Leica IIIf and used a 50mm f3.5 Elmar (uncoated) with it. It was a good little lens, but I sold the lens and bought a 50mm f2 Summitar. The Summitar was outstanding in my opinion. Later I had a couple of M3's and my favorite, an M2 with a 50mm f2.8 Elmar. I really liked the 50mm f2.8 Elmar also. Now to Canon rangefinders.......I have owned a Canon P and 7s before, but used the later Canon rigid black nose 50mm f1.8 lenses on those. The reason I ask the question about each of these lenses was to get and idea how the two Canon 50mm f3.5 lenses stacked up against the Leica Elmar. I'd like to stick to a Canon brand 50mm lens on this Canon 7 camera if they are close to what the 50mm f3.5 Elmar is in output.

 

[LtDave]

i have the Canon 50mm f1.4 for use on my 7, P, and IV SB.

the meter in my 7 either died or the needle got stuck, in the middle of a trip so i used the meter in my 5D4 to determine exposure before shooting the film. kind of the way the Nat Geo photographer did with the last roll of Kodachrome 64. he would shoot a dozen frames on a digital, check for the exposure that he liked and then shot a frame of film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think I'm just going to look for a collapsable 50mm f3.5 Canon in nice shape. Since I imagine the Serenar and non-Serenar are the same I'll just watch for either.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had the Canon 3.5 collapsible and the 1.4. The 3.5 was as sharp as the 1.4 and in good light when speed is not needed a great lens.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Paul,
That sounds good and it's what I'm looking for, light and good. Also, in my lead paragraph above I see I said I have a 50mm f1.1 lens, that should be 50mm f1.2. My mistake.

 

[MarkS]

"Serenar" was Canon's brand name for their lenses until about 1954. After 60+ years, how an individual lens has been used and cared for during its life may be more important than its specs when new. Every camera maker wanted to offer a top-quality 50mm lens, as it was by far the most popular focal length. And a 50/3.5 is not a difficult lens to design and build... so assuming good physical condition, I'll suggest that any of them will do the job.

 

[John Wiegerink]

"Serenar" was Canon's brand name for their lenses until about 1954. After 60+ years, how an individual lens has been used and cared for during its life may be more important than its specs when new. Every camera maker wanted to offer a top-quality 50mm lens, as it was by far the most popular focal length. And a 50/3.5 is not a difficult lens to design and build... so assuming good physical condition, I'll suggest that any of them will do the job.

Yes, it's pretty hard to find a 50mm lens for 35mm that's BAD. There is a bigger difference in contrast between later coated lenses and earlier non coated ones, but by f5.6 sharpness isn't much different between any of them. That goes for SLR lenses too. I'm going to look for a clean sample of the Canon 50mm f3.5 collapsible lens. I think I'll look for the non-Serenar Canon 50mm f3.5.

 

[blee1996]

I think for your Canon 7, a 50/1.4 or even 50/1.2 might be a better fit in terms of overall size and balance. The 50/3.5 collapsible will be a bit too tiny for the Canon 7, but will look right at home with a Canon IVSB or something older and smaller.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think for your Canon 7, a 50/1.4 or even 50/1.2 might be a better fit in terms of overall size and balance. The 50/3.5 collapsible will be a bit too tiny for the Canon 7, but will look right at home with a Canon IVSB or something older and smaller.

Yes, a later 50mm is what should be on it time period wise, but I wanted a smaller lens for just bumming around. The camera I have came with a mint 50mm f1.2 that I'd like to keep that way, which is why I want a knock around lens of good quality.

 

[blee1996]

Yes, a later 50mm is what should be on it time period wise, but I wanted a smaller lens for just bumming around. The camera I have came with a mint 50mm f1.2 that I'd like to keep that way, which is why I want a knock around lens of good quality.

Nowadays the Canon Serenar 50/3.5 seems to fetch more money than the collapsible Canon Serenar 50/1.9 lens. I have the latter and it is not too bad compared to equivalent Leica Summitar 50/2. All those Canon Serenar lenses are beautifully built with heavy brass and chrome. Just one more idea for your knock-about lens.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

John, Voigtlander did make a little pancake 50mm f/2.5 ltm lens too which might meet your goal of a small lens. Not sure what they sell for anymore. They used to be cheap when they were new, like 250 or so.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, I thought about the Voigtlander line, but decided to stay Canon. I do have other M39 50mm lens I could use if I want. 50mm Summitar, 50mm f2.8 Yashica and a 50mm f1.8 Canon. I just think it would be neat to have a Canon 50mm Collapsible lens.