Best Budget Lenses for your Canon P
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июл 2024
- Are there any good budget lenses in M39 mount which you can use on your non-Barnack Japanese rangefinder, such as the Canon V, VI and 7 series and the Voigtlander Bessa R? A few, yes, but pickins are slim.
My images with the Industar 61L/D:
www.flickr.com/photos/1114285...
My images with the Jupiter 8:
www.flickr.com/photos/1114285...
My images with the Canon LTM 35mm f/2.8:
www.flickr.com/photos/1114285...
My images with the Canon LTM Serenar 85mm f/2:
www.flickr.com/photos/1114285...
If you found this video worthwhile, please check out "Nikon Film Cameras, Which one is right for you?", an e-book on Amazon by yours truly. It's three dollars worth of knowledge, guaranteed.
www.amazon.com/Nikon-Film-Cam...
Awesome classic analog merch available here:
www.redbubble.com/people/stil...
See all my content ad-free at my back-up account on the Odysee - LBRY platform:
odysee.com/$/invite/@briansph...
lbry.tv/@briansphotoshow:5
#rangefinder #LTM #M39
Very very informative one. The lenses are perfect for my Canon 7. Looking for a Canon P for a future collection! Awesome!
I picked up a Canon P a few weeks ago. I had a Summitar 50/2 I got with my Leica IIIc, so I was sorted for the normal lens. I started searching around and couldn't/wouldn't spend another $500+ on a 35 mm. (my favorite focal length) I settled on a Canon 35/2.8, independent of your video. It is a nice little lens. It IS little, on the bigger Canon body. I like the sharpness. It is a wide angle lens, so it will have some barrel distortion if you mis-use it. Most of the time, you won't notice it's a wide angle from looking at the pix. It's close enough to normal as to have that normal perspective, but wide enough that I rarely find myself needing wider.
Now, I'm on the hunt for a telephoto. I'm leaning toward 100 mm, so I can use the 100 mm framelines in the P's viewfinder, but as you said, the Canon 100/3.5's are all jacked-up and will need a pro cleaning before they're really usable without apologies. An 85 or 135 would need an accessory viewfinder. I guess the solution is the Elmar 135 (they are cheap-ish) and the Leitz zooming viewfinder. Maybe it just makes more sense to carry my OM1N with the 135/3.5 for telephoto, then my Leica IIIc with 50/2 and Canon P with the Canon 35/2.8. Maybe even just leave the IIIc at home, as I don't find myself looking for a 50 mm that often...
Great wider LTM lens is the CV 25/4 Snapshot Skopar lens. It has no rangefinder coupling but is ultra sharp and super compact. Works excellent for Infrared photography, too. I got mine used in EX+ condition for $200. Get the combined CV 21/25 external viewfinder.
Very helpful comments on this subject.
I've seen several videos about the wide angle lens and nobody said it bumped into anything..............Thank you for a very informative video.
I have the Jupiter 8, just need the Canon. Will go for the Model 7. The Jupiter 8 is great on my Nikon Z6.
I got Leica 90mm f4 Elmar here in the UK for £70 a couple of years ago and it’s a fantastic little lens on my Leica III
I have tried 3 Soviet lenses - the best being an Industar 50mm f3.5. Even that though is not that great and rather a PIA to use. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 which was reasonably priced but full of haze, so no good unless I can get it cleaned. I have given up trying to find a cheap solution and gone for a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5. Expensive used but not prohibitively so and definitely good enough to used on digital too. I am looking for a 35mm at present, and the Canons look very similar in price to Voigtlanders so I expect the Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 will follow.
None of these lenses are cheap of course, but still L39 is significantly cheaper than M mount glass. And let us not forget the saving a Canon P body will give you over any rangfefinder from Germany or later Japanses ones. It's certainly a great body.too,
Thanks for the info my good man :)
The build quality of those telephoto’s is impressive, especially for the money
Yeah I think you could drive a nail with one of those things without damaging the optics.
Brian's Photo Show good to see your making video’s again
I own the 135 3.5 it’s size, build quality and optics are great. It is plenty sharp! Looking for a 100 and 85 now.
Nice overview. I'm surprised you didn't give the Jupiter-11 a quick mention, but I guess you don't have one on hand. It's a "slow" f4.0, but the compression at 135mm still results in nice bokeh. Mine is a little soft and prone to some flaring, but has that vintage rendering when it's called for. It's also gorgeous to look at and handle, with a lovely amber lens coating matched with the all metal body.
I've never owned a Jupiter 11, but I'd hesitate to use one on a Japanese camera. I'm concerned that there may be a slight focusing discrepancy, as I observed with the Jupiter 9.
Thank you for this great overview! I also checked out your awesome Jupiter-8 images on Flickr. I have a bunch of Industar and Jupiter lenses laying around in grandpa's place, but it's hard to tell which copy is better. Is there any signs/things to look out for? I heard that the quality really depends on the sample (yours has such a nice looking front element)
I think the only way to check the quality is to take pictures. See if Grandpa has any Jupiter 9 or 3 series. Those are worth money in the U.S. market.
Leica 9cm or 90mm Elmar's can be had for next to nothing if you can live with f4, it's probably the only Leica lens that regularly sells under $200
Will you ever try the 35mm 1.8 or f2?
I've bought 3 of the Canon 100m f3.5 lenses. All were fogged. All cleaned up easily with normal lens cleaner. You DO have to be very careful not to replace the rearmost element incorrectly. It's easy to put it back in backwards, but you'll know you did that after the first roll of film. Pictures will be completely unsharp.
You may also get a used one that is wildly unsharp, which probably means someone cleaned it and replaced the rear element backwards. Easy to do, because the rear element looks symmetrical, but isn't.
There are lots of stories about these lenses being permanently hazed by bad lubricants or something. These may exist, but I've never seen one.
Good to know.
I paired a voigtlander 35mm 2.5 color skopar ltm. Worked a charm.
I've never tried the Skopar, though I've heard it's an excellent lens.
@@BriansPhotoShow It's very good, I had one pretty much welded to my Best R for a number of years
A fabulous lens at any price.
Great lens, but not "budget".
There are Nikon F lens to Leica LTM adapters available. Great for 20 to 28mm wide angle lenses as there is no focus coupling with the rangefinder. You just set the lens to the approximate distance which is not a problem considering the wide depth of field for wide angle lenses. The other thing you need is an appropriate lens viewer so you can frame your photograph correctly. Another budget 90mm lens is the Leica Elmar 90mm F4 lens which goes for about $220 used. For filters you would need either the SOOGZ adapter or the Series 6 adapters and filters. The Canon 135mm F4 is a real bargain as well and not as heavy as the Nikon lens.
Does the Nikon F to M39 or LTM actually work? I've read of non-compatibility on the very few web resources that mention it. Something about flange distance, but if it can fit a Canon 7, than I may be in luck.
@@ryablow I know this works on my Leica iiia film camera. The adapter that I bought 10 years ago may not still be available. The Nikon F to M39 adapter is often not LTM and won't fit Leica Screw mount cameras without stripping the threads if forced.
I have the Canon 50, 1.4 the Voigtlander 40mm 2.8 Helier, and 25mm f4 snapshot skopar, also the Canon 135mm f3.5 ltm, quite satisfied with all of them, all are quite sharp, in the market next for 100mm 3.5 or the 85mm 1.9. I use them mostly on my Fuji XT 2 with an adapter, love compact size as it allows me to easily carry multiple lenses with very little weight in a small bag. Also they don’t look expensive or intimidating to those not knowledgeable It doesn’t look like you’re toting a bunch of expensive camera equipment around when using it in “interesting” places to shoot.
I love the Voigtländer 25/4 Snapshot Skopar, they tend to be fairly inexpensive because they are not rangefinder coupled, but the image quality is outstanding.
The Jupiter 12 does work on the P as long as you buy one of the later versions. I shoot with one on my P all the time.
I've heard some people claim that the black body versions will fit. Having never owned a black body J12, I can't confirm.
@@BriansPhotoShow I hadn't heard that, but mine is a black version so there may be some truth to it. I was told as long as the serial number starts with 89 or higher, it will work.
To the 85 serenar there is the cheapest leica glass (for unknown reasons really) elmar 90 f4
no Jupiter 12 ('63 - silver version) indeed, (they work on Leica M bodies though)
but YES Jupiter 12 ('69 - black version)
The black version of the Jupiter 12 is known to fit the Canon P and the Canon 7, which the latter is Canon's last LTM rangefinder camera model.
Is the rear element smaller on the black version?
I have a black J12 and it fits my Canon 7.
I can confirm that jupiter 12 will fit Canon 7. I have a black jupiter 12. I do not expect the aluminium version to have a different optical construction, so I guess you just have to try with the camera back open so you can see if the rear element gets stuck somewhere.
I believe the industar-69 is their 28mm f2.8 and it is available for L39 mount for about 35$
Yeah - I have one and just confirmed it's L39 mount. Been a while since I used it, but my recollection is that it over-performs the $20 pricetag.
I want it how could I miss this one 🤣
This is a half frame lens and is made with a slightly different focal flange difference. It's not a wide angle, it's for smaller film. It just so happened to use the same thread.
The Jupiter 3 is a Russian copy of the original Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/1.5, the lens is identical to the original 1930's Zeiss design and some of these were made with Zeiss glass shipped as WWII reparations from the factories in Germany to the USSR. It is an excellent lens and usually bidding around 100 euros or lower. It is still a sleeper in Ebay actions. I got mine before 10 years for around 50 euros. Jupiter 8 is good but recently its price has gone up because it is known now. It used to go for peanuts, usually with a relatively good Zorki 4 for 30-40 euros.
Jupiter 3 50mm f/1.5 is much more rare and I am sure its price will skyrocket in a few years when people discover its real value as a normal lens. A really good example in mint condition goes around 100-150 euros.
Wow, I thought the Jupiter 3 was going for much more nowadays. Good to know there are still some bargains out there.
I've got the Canon Model 7 - does the Jupiter 12 work ok on it? I only ask because I have one (I set my focus ring to minimum before attaching the lens) and I find it pretty fuzzy. I thought maybe it needed calibrating....?
I don't know. I've never used a Canon 7.
LTM lenses I hear/see good things about that still seem cheap:
Steinheil Munchen Culminar 85/2.8
Tanar 50/2 (another Sonnar clone like Jupiter but better coated and housed in brass vs. aluminum)
All of the Topcor lenses seem to catching up in price to the Canon and Nikkors.
CV LTM lenses seem to be skyrocketing in price too.
I've never heard of the Steinheil or Tanar. I'll have to look out for them.
@@BriansPhotoShow Steinheil is more common to find in the US. I've only ever seen telephoto lengths. They made SLR lenses too. Exakta and M42. All slower 4 element lenses.
Tanar was the lens trade name for Tanaka. Hard to unearth much about them that isn't in Japanese.
It is not 40mm, it's 48mm. I ordered a lens hood and filter and it didn't fit. It's hard to tell if your saying 40mm or 48.
I think no J12 on canon P is bit of urban myth.On mine (silver, 1959) the baffles come close to but don't touch the edge of the rear element. Also no problem mounting on Sony a7r. Works fine on Leica M9, no corner discoloration as on Sony.
Brian it's hard to find an canon 50mm 1.8 without haze. Do you think a small amount makes much of a difference.?
Probably not, but I would demand a big discount on any lens with noticeable haze.
@@BriansPhotoShow Good id
Mir-1V good lens too!
In the 50's, many lenses that you could later see on SLR's where actually made for rangefinders in M39 first.
So, there's the Jupiter-9 (85mm f2) made in M39, as well as Jupiter 11 (135mm f4), and let's not forget the legend, the Helios 44 (58mm f2), the original, all of them under $100, if you are getting them from Ukraine or Russia that is, course in the west all of those lenses are quite rare. I'm not sure about compatibility, but given all those lenses don't have any protruding elements, and given those prices, they are worth a try...
There was a rangefinder version of the Helios 44?
Rangefinder Helios 44? Methinks not.
@@AGL93311 yeah I know it's unbelievable until you hold one in your hand. Those are quite old and not easy to find.
I know there is the m39 Zenit mount. Used on the Zenit, Zenit-S, 3, 3m, Kristall, and early Es. The zenit/zenit S were zorki cameras with a mirrorbox stuck on and used the same m39 mount but with a different flange distance. This was carrier on until about 1966 when they changed to M42 and the Helios 44 became the Helios 44-2
Disagree on a few points.
There is some variability in Jupiter -12s, I have a black version which rubs against the light baffles in the P, but works just fine on V series cameras (L1, VL2 in my case).
You neglected to mention the late black Canon 135/3.5 which is lighter and excellent.
As far as collapsible lenses are concerned, the Leitz Summitar collapses freely into the P and V Series cameras, but must be erect when screwed onto and off of the body (is that family friendly?). This is because the tabs on the bottom of the lens tube are positioned to avoid the baffles only when the les is installed. After installation you can freely collapse as desired, just be sure it is not collapsed when lens is removed. As far as I know all the other collapsible lenses cannot be collapsed on the P or Vs.
And most important for Canon ltm lens users, 40mm filters are back due to several models of Fuji digital camera which use them. A 40mm circular polarizer is available from Marumi.
That's all very helpful to know. Hadn't heard about the 40mm filters; that's certainly a big deal for Canon LTM collectors!
@@BriansPhotoShow More a big deal for Canon LTM USERS.
Just bought a 7 and I’m looking at lenses, do these same issues apply?
Protruding lens issues apply to the caonn 7 series as well?
Don't know. I've never owned a Canon 7.
@@BriansPhotoShow ok . Maybe not as the body changed but maybe because they can share lenses. More research required!
B&h has 40mm filters for under $10
How hard is it to shoot 135? I would think the framing would be very small in the viewfinder or is it not that bad?
Most of the 135s available in M39 are pretty big and heavy. Most come with their own tripod socket. As for sighting, you'd need an accessory viewfinder.
@@BriansPhotoShow The 7 series does have a 135 screen selection. Haven't got mine yet - wondering if the screens are magnified to use the full frame at each focal length. That would be sweet.
@@BriansPhotoShow This 135mm looks manageable but I am sure I would need a 2nd mortgage++ if anyone would even part with one. ruclips.net/video/dqP3KBbL25s/видео.html. Oh and I do have a Braun accessory viewfinder covering 135mm but it just masks the view down to a small rectangle. I guess it would be possible to frame shots if you took your time.
I've heard some jupiter 12s can fit into a canon P, not all but some
I've heard the later black body J12's are more likely to fit. Personally, I tend to be risk averse when it comes to equipment I care about.
Filter Size: Not only do Canon lenses have a 40 mm diameter they also use a non-standard pitch and some odd filter which seems to fit will damage the threads if you force it to be tight. 😮 Best Option is to use Series VI-Filters together with the 42 mm lenshood.
There's a Russar MP-2 20mm f/5.6 that's not extremely expensive for a such wide focal lenght.
Yuri at Fedka.com says that the Russar MP-2, "is one of the most desirable and uncommon Russian LTM lenses." He's got one for sale in excellent condition for USD 625.
Have had no problem with my black Jupiter 12 on my Canon P...also many canon p folks use the Jupiter 12
I had no idea there was such a significant difference between the black and polished Jupiter 12's.
No problems with the black Jupiter 12 on my Canon L1 :)
I also use the jupiter 12 on the Canon P with no problems...stunning lens BTW.
could this be manufactured year related ? cus mine with SN 88 (year 88) scratches my canon p light baffle on the top part. and the one i use is the black one
@@octoniousen - Mine that fits well is a 74 model
Jupiter12
No I shoot mostly Jupiter 12 on my canon p about 3 years now no prob so far
It seems many people are using the black Jupiter 12's on Canon rangefinders with no problems.
@@BriansPhotoShow true mine is black one I have contax mount for kiev4 it’s chrome
He is the only budget lenses is the Soviet lenses unless you want a wid angle lens which is even expensive for Soviet lens. And like another thing make sure you get at least a 50 mm lens when you buy a camera don't buy a body separately.
Not quite true that you can't use the collapsible 50mm lenses with these cameras.
You can certainly use them, and they'll take fine pictures.
You can't COLLAPSE them on the camera. I've seen people make a plastic ring for the throat of the lens, to prevent collapsing, but I haven't found that to be necessary.
Just don't try to push the lens into the camera.
OK I guess that could work.
You CAN collapse the Leitz Summitar (vide supra).
I have a Canon 7 and simply bought a 40 to 40.5 step up ring problem solved
The Jupiter 3 is the best lens for the money in LTM. I doubt there is a japanese lens unless somebody pays a fortune to buy an f/1.1 lens likw this Zunow Opt Japan 50mm f/1.1.. It goes now in Ebay for US $6,440.00. This is the only lens to beat the Jupiter 3 f/1.5. I have tested this lens with a nice hood against leitz lenses and it performs excactly the same in every aspect both in B&W and in color film and slides. It has the same sharpness and absolutely the same color rendering or even better in f/5.6 to f/11.
Sorry to disagree, but the Jupiter 8 is far and away the best LTM for the money. There is nothing to compete with them for the stupidly low prices they sell for.
@@LaughingStock_ I have 2 copies of Jupiter 8 in LTM. It is a really good lens and once was really cheap. Now it is not so cheap but still very affordable. The thing is that J3 is another beast my friend less flare, more sharp, better color. It comes to Leitz quality. I bought it for 70 Euros before 10 years when a good copy of Leitz Elmar went for 450 euros. When I bought it I sold my only Leitz lens immediately because I could not tell the difference in film photos between the two. If you ever come across a good J3 buy it. It worths every single penny.
You are incorrect when it comes to fitting Jupiter 12 lens on a Canon LTM rangefinder. First of all, you can find any number of RUclips videos of shooters using these lenses on the Canon P or Canon 7. Second, I personally have a Canon 7 with Jupiter 12 and it fits fine. The clearance between the rear element and the top light baffle is tight, but there is no rubbing or damage. I do think newer black versions of the Jupiter 12, with serial numbers from 1970s and up, are known to fit these cameras more readily than older silver copies. Thirdly, I have also read forum posts that detail simply applying light pressure to the top light baffle of the camera to gently bend the thin metal and get the extra clearance you need to mount a Jupiter 12. It is totally doable and that's why I opted to get this lens for $75 instead of spending over $200 for a Canon 35mm f/2.8 or over $250 for a Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar.
One needs to apply pressure and bend metal in order to get extra clearance? I stand by my advice.
@@BriansPhotoShow My Canon 7 did not need any bending of metal light baffles to fit the Jupier 12. Sure, it's anecdotal, but it's not "blanket do not use Jupiter 12 on Canon rangefinders".
индустар 61 л/д possibly sharpest among rangefinder industars, but has poor build quality (helicoid easily wears out) and 'unpleasant' picture character (highly subjective)
rigid industar-50 probably as sharp on film with 'better picture'
collapsible industar-22 is best sharpness/beauty balance among rf industars to my taste (and collapsible industar-50 is less so)
NOTE: soviet lenses are famous of their quality inconsistency, so, prepare to look through pile of garbage for a good item :) old jupiters-8 are usually all good
jupiter-3 produces most beautiful vintage picture on film (I do not recommend it for digital), but prepare for focusing issues (rf helicoid misalignments and non-leica standards) and focus shift - better look for best copy among a few
if you want reliable affordable high quality m39 lens then go for canon - they are all good, just buy one w/o lens dirt and fugus :)
I was not aware of the helicoid issues with the Industar 61 and Jupiter 3. That's certainly good to know. Thanks.
Just got an industar-22 for my Leica III and so far I really like it. I think Tessar lenses are often underrated though.
Isnt it l39 not m39? Ltm is l39, m39 is the russian mount. LTM is L39 The Leica Thread Mount is known as LTM, LSM (Leica Screw Mount), and L39 (Leica 39). But it really shouldn't be called M39, since that really stands for Metric 39 threads, and the threads don't even use standard metric pitch.
So, you need an M adapter.
L39 39mm pitch- 0.977mm tpi- 26 ffd- 28.8mm LTM (Leica Thread Mount)
M39 39mm pitch- 1mm tpi- 25.4 ffd-28.8mm Russian M39
Best avoid all Canon lenses from the 1950s or early 1960s with haze like the plague. It may be something to do with the chemicals in the grease used in them releasing gas, but the haze seems to etch the coatings thereby rendering them to junk status in my experience.
@2:51 please stop moving the lens. Trying to read numbers. Wow
The Jupiter 12 comment is not accurate at all. You do have to be very careful and go slow. And some lenses will work and some will not.. But to say it absolutely does not work on the Canon P is untrue. I had used a J12 on my Canon P for years.
Some people are saying that the black J12's can mount on a P but the polished aluminum ones can't. Mine is polished aluminum so I haven't attempted it.
It would be possible to try if you went real slow and had the back door open and shutter set to Bulb... I have heard that only a few J12’s from very specific years and countries cause issues but most are fine. Also the collapsable lenses also work fine with this camera. I have had the Elmar and Industar 22 on my black P many times with no issues. My P is from 1959.
@@LittleTinyKittens I respect your experience, but tend to be conservative when giving advice to others.
If we are going to save money with Russian lenses why not get a Russian camera and save more money.
Build quality and reliability of Japanese cameras is far superior to Soviet cameras.
@@BriansPhotoShow Only Soviet camera that appeals to me is the Kiev. But those shutters go out too. And Contax, even Nikon S, arent nearly as expensive as Leica mount cameras anyways.