Old Photos About Newer Times – Using a 1951 Canon Serenar 35mm Lens at the 2025 Memorial Day Arts Show in Prescott, Arizona

 

 

I am not a fan of 35mm lenses, as they do not capture what my eye sees, like the 50mm lenses do. However, there are moments in street photography when I walk among hundreds of people and all shots are taken within 15 meters. Street fairs and concerts offer such an environment and I have sometimes taken a 35 mm lens with me.

The other reason I am uncomfortable with what the 35mm captures on a frame is the amount of “noise” that distracts me from focusing on the story I want to witness and tell. I always end up cropping the photos under the enlarger. However, there are shots I would like to take, within 10 meters or so, that require a wider lens than the standard 50mm.

So, I opted to take my 1954 Canon rangefinder L3 camera with me to the downtown arts show equipped with a 1951 Canon serener 35mm f2.8.

I have used the camera around the globe with absolutely no mechanical issues. I like its simplicity and it fits nicely in my hands. It also has an adjustable viewfinder for 50mm, 35mm and about 100mm lenses, avoiding the use of an external viewfinder for each lens. That feature gave Canon rangefinder cameras a competive edge in the 1940s and 1950s.

As for the Serenar, it is a tiny, very well constructed and very smooth focusing Tessar formula 4 groups and 6 elements lens. It is known to flare easily in direct light and loses contrast, primarily because it is a not coated lens. So a shade is a must.

Here is the camera with the shade I adapted to it

 

And the lens naked of any shade

 

My goal on this trip was to capture displayed art works along with the artists when possible (with my bias for photographers and painters.) I wanted to use the view I could get with a 35mm lens.

 

The photo at the top of this page shows what the lens is capable at f8, and the flare it can capture when the sunlight hits the front glass directly. The artist and his work – with an almost mystical moment of a ray shining upon the artist from the firmament!

 

The next photo was a test of how the lens would render the grades of shape and their transition. There were two women in the photograph’s kiosk and the sun was bright outside. The first print I did was lower in contrast, as the lens is known to produce. So, I did some burning and dodging under the enlarger – 4 seconds of dodging for the hung photos and 5 second of burning regarding the women. I like the nostalgic B&W photo that resulted – the sharpness of the lens is also delightful.

Finally, a calm moment and a great photo by another photographer. I was about 25 meters away, so I did crop some of the people walking around the scene. To enhance the photo of the man and the horse, I dodged the hanging artwork for 3 seconds. Still, the sharpness of the lens captured the eye of the horse and that of the man beautifully.

 

I am pleased with the lens especially since the traditional darkroom work under an enlarger can remedy to the lack of contrast most users complain about.

For me it was just the appropriate old technique to be used to produce photos that look they were taken 75 years ago.

 

May 26, 2025

© Vahé A. Kazandjian, 2025

PS/ After I posted this entry yesterday, I got a few emails from readers. One of them said that he had used this lens, with an adapter, on his digital camera hoping that he would get that vintage photo feeling, but that it has not worked well. And he asked if I had a photo that I had not worked on it in the darkroom, that would show how the lack of contrast looks on when it is just printed as it is on the negative.

Ok, I did print a few photos other than the ones I posted yesterday. I chose to work on the above 3 because they had a story, and because dodging and burning did enhance that story. A few others went to the reject box because they lacked either the story or the composition was unexciting.

So, here is one of the rejects that shows bad composition but also some of this lens' weaknesses.

I wanted to get the artist with her works as she was behind the kiosk. But the mix of shade from the tall trees and the sun did not help the lighting of her works, and, she was moving too fast looking for something behind the stepladder. 

But the flare is there on the left side of the photo, and the contrast is quite minimal.

Hope this helps!

Mothers’ Day in Prescott, Arizona Through the Zeiss Lens of the 1954 Rolleiflex Automat TLR

 

 

Like the  many photographers who still use vintage film cameras, I do get moments when the urge to bring one sitting on the shelf back to action takes over the expected effort it will take to address the issues of long inaction time. But the desire to use an old favorite always wins.

So, as Mothers’ Day was approaching, I recalled when a couple of decades I took my 1954 Rolleiflex Automat with me to Paris to celebrate my mother’s day and take a few photos. Alas, those were the last photos I took of her.

With memories affecting the moment, I flipped the cover and looked through the waist finder glass. I was not sure if it was the dampness of my eyes or indeed, the view was significantly dimmer than I remember. After a few minutes, I realized that taking photos with such a dim view finder had become harder on my eyes…

So I looked through my camera parts box, there were the focusing and magnifying glasses of an old Yashica 124 that I had kept. Perfect, now I could ready the Rolleiflex for action.

It took a bit of doing, though, as replacing the single glass of the old German camera with the Japanese double glass affected the firmness of the internal clips that hold the viewing glass together. That in turn affected the fine tuning of the focusing and required some shaving of the glass and shimming the fit.

After checking that the shutter speeds were still in working condition on this 70 years old camera, I took it to the arts show downtown Prescott on Mother’s Day and went through a roll of Fomapan 100 ASA B&W film.

But first, here is how the “upgraded” Rolleiflex viewing glass compared to my 1961 Minolta Autocord’s.

 

Even in full desert sunshine, the Rolleiflex (on the left) is dimmer than the Autocord, a TLR camera that traveled around the globe with me for decades with absolutely no issues and great results.

 

And here is a “portrait” shot of the two cameras. The Minolta is smaller and lighter, but its shutter is louder than and not as smooth as the older Rolleiflex during film advancing. But the brighter view glass and the focusing of the Minolta fit me better during street photography when a split second makes a difference in focusing and clicking.

 

So, on this Mothers’ Day, I tested the Rolleiflex using three criteria: (1) is it now easier to focus in both well lit and dimmer street moment; (2) if a second shot is immediately needed, is the winding smooth and fast; and, if the Zeiss Opton lens’s iconic Tessar feel is still as charming today as it was 70 years ago.

(I realise that the third criterion makes more sense to a seasoned photographer than anyone else. But it is part of the reasons folks like me still use vintage cameras …)

Based on those criteria, here are three photos I chose:

A)     Well lit moment with time for me to adjust the focus. That is the photo atop the page. I saw a sunglass and jewelry vendor behind the mannequins and I wanted to get then all together in my frame. As I was ready to release the shutter, a woman walked into the frame making it more active and impromptu.

All three criteria I was using were successfully met in this shot.

 

B)      Fast winding for a second shot. I saw this young woman in front of the city Court House and wanted to test the Zeiss Opton lens for the feel of texture and transitions of gray one can only truly get on film. So I took a first photo, then I realized that I had kept the shutter speed on 1/100^th second which would be too fast for the shady areas of the frame. Thus, I quickly changed the speed to 1/50^th second and took a second one. The winding was as smooth as one would expect from a Rolleiflex and the shutter operated flawlessly.

Interestingly, when I developed the film, I realised that the first photo had captured more contrast between the textured of the sun-lit stone wall and the young lady in the middle of the frame. So, even though the negative frame showed more intense shade as I had allowed less light to pass through the lens at faster shutter speed, I opted to printing that frame rather than the second photo I took where much more of the street was captured and looked too crowded.

C)      Focusing in dimmer light. The painter was sitting on the grass in front of her kiosk for a break. I was about 50 meters away but wanted to capture the moment of respite, as I had noticed her painting standing up in front of her easel. As I was about to focus the frame, a large cloud masqued the sunlight that was already filtered through the large trees shading that part of the square. So, it got even dimmer in the view finder and I missed the focus as it was just short of the infinity mark on the focusing knob.

 But I do like the off-focus shot. It somehow makes the scene, including the trees and the two passers-by, a bit old-fashioned, and the vintage flavor of the Zeiss lens comes through.

 

Will I use the Rolleiflex to replace my Minolta Autocord? No, I have run miles of film through the latter and I have the comfort and feel using the camera. However, in nostalgic moments, the precision of the Rolleiflex mechanism is pure joy to revisit, even when it is not as functionally dependable as the Minolta to yield higher percentage of “keeper shots”.

And, the Minolta will never have the sentimental memories I have taking Mothers’ Day photos.

 

 May 13, 2025

© Vahé  A. Kazandjian, 2025