Sigh… sorry, another 28 vs 21 LTM post

[8ZLGHDN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still working on my first roll on my first ever Barnack iiif with Elmar 50/3.5, and although I can only hope in its proper functioning and rely on the seller’s word it will, I couldn’t pass up a chance to buy an Elmar 9cm f4 with matching viewfinder.

Now it’s time to go the other way, and look for a wider lens.

I’ve been searching for answers on the Internet and of course, opinions are like belly buttons. Now, I understand the Elmars aren’t “perfect” - and I don’t care. Neither am I. As a photographer, I’m solidly in the “content is king” camp, and perfection from a perfect optic doesn’t even come to mind.

Having said that, I do understand that the Color Skopar 21/4 is a more modern lens, and could likely give me a “look” that is quite different from the Elmar siblings and that Canon could better complement the family tradition of being imperfectly perfect.

My only reason for even looking at the CV 21/4 is the wider 21mm, vs 28mm of the Canon.

And before friendly and well-meaning suggestions come up to consider lens XYZ, please keep in mind that although I have an understanding wife, there are limits to how far I want to push my luck, and simply, how much money I want to spend.

Your thoughts and input will be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your time.

[250swb]

Given you don't want well-meaning suggestions don't take this as one, but a lens equally as modern as the 21mm Skopar is the 28mm Skopar in the same series. Like all the Skopars it is an excellent lens with the distinction of being made in brass and not alloy like the rest. But personally if I'm going to buy a lens for the first time I'd go with one that is technically good, because if 'imperfection' is a requirement there is always the photographer using it that can help out, however it's impossible for a photographer to do the opposite and make an 'imperfect' lens look better.

[UliWer]

Please remember that a lens of 21mm was not thought of when the IIIf was designed and produced.

A strong wide angle lens produces very flat light rays going beyond the boundaries of the camera‘s film window. So the image will be larger than the film window leaving not enough space between the negatives on the film. This was the reason the film window of the M3 was made smaller very slightly after the 21mm Super-Angulon was introduced. The much earlier IIIf still has the larger film window. When I used a 1:3.5/19mm Canon LTM-lens with the IIIf there were no spaces between the single negatives.

I am not sure about the results in this respect from other lenses. So it would be interesting hearing from users who tried a 21mm Skopar with the IIIf.

 

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

Please remember that a lens of 21mm was not thought of when the IIIf was designed and produced.

A strong wide angle lens produces very flat light rays going beyond the boundaries of the camera‘s film window. So the image will be larger than the film window leaving not enough space between the negatives on the film. This was the reason the film window of the M3 was made smaller very slightly after the 21mm Super-Angulon was introduced. The much earlier IIIf still has the larger film window. When I used a 1:3.5/19mm Canon LTM-lens with the IIIf there were no spaces between the single negatives.

I am not sure about the results in this respect from other lenses. So it would be interesting hearing from users who tried a 21mm Skopar with the IIIf.

 

I use a PYCCAP 20mm f5.6 lens on my Leica If with no problem at all.

[luigi bertolotti]

I think that,also in term of costs, you can be safe with a Skopar 21 + its finder.

[250swb]

5 hours ago, UliWer said:

 

I am not sure about the results in this respect from other lenses. So it would be interesting hearing from users who tried a 21mm Skopar with the IIIf.

 

Frame spacing is very tight but not impossible, a good set of scissors is useful.

[8ZLGHDN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, 250swb said:

Given you don't want well-meaning suggestions don't take this as one, but a lens equally as modern as the 21mm Skopar is the 28mm Skopar in the same series. Like all the Skopars it is an excellent lens with the distinction of being made in brass and not alloy like the rest. But personally if I'm going to buy a lens for the first time I'd go with one that is technically good, because if 'imperfection' is a requirement there is always the photographer using it that can help out, however it's impossible for a photographer to do the opposite and make an 'imperfect' lens look better.

Thank you. I don’t think I intended to suggest I don’t want well-meaning suggestions, but rather thoughts/suggestions of options in the same price range. And it’s not that “imperfection” is a requirement, but given the choice, I’d rather use a lens that is more in line with the Elmars. Meaning, if I can go by others’ written experience, is an “older look” - less contrasty with the Canon 28mm.

[a.noctilux]

Which Canon 28mm ?

this one from 1957 ?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

or this one from 1957, f/3.5 ?

 

any way nice choice.

[8ZLGHDN]

I was actually thinking the f3.5 version

8 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Which Canon 28mm ?

this one from 1957 ?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

or this one from 1957, f/3.5 ?

 

any way nice choice.

I was actually thinking the f3.5 silver version. Thanks.

[a.noctilux]

Serenar, then

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

6 elements in 4 groups...

This series of lenses were named “Serenar” by a Canon employee in an in-house naming contest. The word “Serenar” was coined from “Serene”, the name of the sea on the moon (the Sea of Serenity) and an adjective meaning of “tranquil”.

[8ZLGHDN]

8 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Serenar, then

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

6 elements in 4 groups...

This series of lenses were named “Serenar” by a Canon employee in an in-house naming contest. The word “Serenar” was coined from “Serene”, the name of the sea on the moon (the Sea of Serenity) and an adjective meaning of “tranquil”.

Love it. Thanks!

[UliWer]

1 hour ago, a.noctilux said:

Which Canon 28mm ?

I have the Canon 1:2.8/28mm. Though it is a well made, nice and tiny lens, the wide opening of f/2.8 certainly went beyond what was rational at this time. The lens was introduced in 1951, when Leitz was 5 years away from the 28mm Summaron with a max. opening of 1:5.6. The first 1:28/28mm Elmarit came about ten years later with a very complicated lens design and therefore much bigger. Some people say the the  Canon 1:2.8/28mm was the „worst“ lens for the Canon rangefinder system.  Well, you can quibble a lot about good and bad with these lenses. You should not expect much resolution and certainly no „bokeh“.

I don‘t know the 1:3.5 sibling. Though I expect it to resolve a little bit better due to the reduced opening.

[250swb]

5 hours ago, 8ZLGHDN said:

Thank you. I don’t think I intended to suggest I don’t want well-meaning suggestions, but rather thoughts/suggestions of options in the same price range. And it’s not that “imperfection” is a requirement, but given the choice, I’d rather use a lens that is more in line with the Elmars. Meaning, if I can go by others’ written experience, is an “older look” - less contrasty with the Canon 28mm.

I was just teasing.

A nostalgic look is something that can be created in software or the darkroom with any modern lens, so it doesn't mean you have to nail your colours to the mast with an old lens to get that look. And whichever lens you use absolutely nobody will know what's going on from just looking at the final image given the type of film and development offers it's own significant additional individual look. Film photography is too convoluted to deal in absolutes whether equipment or materials, that is why it's great.