Collapsable lens Canon P ?

[jgoody]

I am thinking of getting a 50mm f2 Summicron or possibly a 50mm Elmar f3.5. I want to know how far in a collapsable Leica lens can go in a Canon P? I'm thinking I can put something around the lens to keep it from going too far in but how far is too far? Will it collapse enough to make it worth the trouble? Trying to make a more pocketable Canon P. Am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[macfred]

It can work - with restrictions ...
There was a thread on rangefinderforum.com about this : http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52477

 

[02Pilot]

The short version is that slow collapsible lenses with small diameter barrels (like the Elmar 50/3.5 and Canon 50/3.5) are generally fine; faster lenses requiring larger diameter barrels (Summitar 50/2 or Serenar 50/1.9 for example) will not collapse fully.

 

[McFortner]

Add the Industars to the list of "not good". You have to be WAY too careful, making it extremely easy to damage the baffles.

 

[choiliefan]

Will an old 50mm F2 Summar work?

 

[jgoody]

The short version is that slow collapsible lenses with small diameter barrels (like the Elmar 50/3.5 and Canon 50/3.5) are generally fine; faster lenses requiring larger diameter barrels (Summitar 50/2 or Serenar 50/1.9 for example) will not collapse fully.

Interesting -- Some say the opposite regarding the Summitar vs Elmar on the P. I read that the Elmar needs to be oriented correctly while the Summitar does not. Have you tried these lenses yourself on a "P"? There is so much conflicting information - I wonder if there is variance in the internals of "P"s.

 

[02Pilot]

OK, I just mounted a bunch of lens on my P and here's the results:

Retract OK: Elmar 50/3.5, Canon 50/3.5, Summitar 50/2

Cannot retract fully: Summar 50/2, Serenar 50/1.9

I mistakenly conflated the Summitar with the Serenar 50/1.9; the designs are almost identical, but the Serenar's barrel is marginally larger in diameter. The Elmar and Canon 3.5s can get very close to the baffle, but they do clear. Note that the baffle is thin sheet metal and can be easily tweaked to clear these lenses if it doesn't already - I had to do the same to clear the large rear element of the Jupiter-12.

 

[jgoody]

OK, I just mounted a bunch of lens on my P and here's the results:

Retract OK: Elmar 50/3.5, Canon 50/3.5, Summitar 50/2

Cannot retract fully: Summar 50/2, Serenar 50/1.9

Thank you so much for taking the time to check what fits!

 

[choiliefan]

Yes, very informative.

 

[jgoody]

OK, I just mounted a bunch of lens on my P and here's the results:

Retract OK: Elmar 50/3.5, Canon 50/3.5, Summitar 50/2

Cannot retract fully: Summar 50/2, Serenar 50/1.9

One or two more questions please! Is it true that the Elmar has to be in a certain position to retract fully in the Canon P while the Summitar can retract in any position? And what I'm gathering as well is that the Elmar fully retracted sticks out about 1/2 inch while the Summitar is about an inch -- does that seem about correct?

 

[02Pilot]

Not exactly. The Summitar barrel's orientation in the base is fixed, whereas the Elmar's is free; put another way, the head of the Elmar rotates with focusing, while the Summitar's doesn't. In practice, this means the Elmar's barrel can spin around, and thus at some points the locking flanges may be close to or in contact with the light baffle in the body. Because the Summitar's barrel only retracts in a single, fixed orientation, the flanges are positioned away from the areas of tightest clearance.

The Elmar is utterly tiny when collapsed - it barely protrudes at all. The Summitar is much more substantial in every way. On the big Canon bodies the Summitar seems like it's about the right size, while the Elmar looks much more appropriate on a screwmount Leica body or one of the smaller early Canons (pre-Series V).

 

[jgoody]

So on the Elmar if I set the focus correctly before I retract the lens I should be ok - while with the Summitar no worries as the barrel doesn't rotate with focussing? I am trying to have a more pocketable version of my Canon P so the Elmar is appealing but I am torn as I can see myself not checking. BTW are the reports of easily damaged front elements on the Summitar any real concern? Which lens do you prefer?

 

[02Pilot]

They're both somewhat vulnerable to front element damage, as the elements are close to the forward edge of the housing; I always use a hood. If you really want pocketable, you need a smaller body than the P. If you want the Elmar, just bend the light baffle out of the way and move along - it's easily accessible from the front with the lens removed, and you can observe from the back (shutter on B) to make sure everything clears. As I said, the Summitar looks a bit more balanced on the P from a size perspective.

The Elmar is a very neutral lens - no peculiar optical characteristics, quite sharp from around f/5.6. The Summitar, aside from being almost two stops faster, can be a little wild in the out-of-focus areas. I love the Summitar, but some complain of distortion and swirliness. Acquiring a good example of either is a matter of either time or money; neither is rare. Much depends on how much speed you need and what your objectives are.

 

[jgoody]

Thank you for all the help!