Canonet lens vs LTM lenses

[Diffraction]

Hi all,

I own and rather like a Canonet QL-17 G-III. I am afflicted with a bit of GAS and am tempted to buy a Canon 7 or Canon P. I think I would enjoy the good build and probably also the large viewfinder (I don't know how big the difference is). I don't really change lenses much, so that part is not particularly appealing; I would probably stick with a good 50mm lens (and maybe add a 35mm).

One thing I'm wondering about is lens quality. I'm pretty happy with the Canonet's lens and I'm wondering how the LTM lenses for the Canon 7/P compare. The Canonet was not that expensive in its day, as I understand it, so that might suggest that there are better LTM lenses. On the other hand, people seem to speak highly of its lens, and it is also more modern than most LTM lenses (introduced in 1972, whereas the P was introduced in 1959, for example).

I guess what I'd like to know is: should I expect a step down / up when shooting with e.g. the Canon LTM 50mm 1.8? Or likely no noticeable difference?

Thanks!

 

[Bill Burk]

You should expect a step up in quality. The Canonet’s lens wasn’t why that camera is beloved. The Canonet loads easily, focuses quickly and winds easily. I found the lens had a bit of softness. I was shooting color print film, it was used for family snapshots duty. What made me love that camera was how fast it went through film and how many of the pictures were keepers. I sold it on when the shutter got cranky.

 

[Diffraction]

You should expect a step up in quality. The Canonet’s lens wasn’t why that camera is beloved. The Canonet loads easily, focuses quickly and winds easily. I found the lens had a bit of softness. I was shooting color print film, it was used for family snapshots duty. What made me love that camera was how fast it went through film and how many of the pictures were keepers. I sold it on when the shutter got cranky.

Thank you, that's very helpful!

 

[BrianShaw]

I concur… Canonet is a sweet camera to use but the one I had seemed to feature fairly mediocre optics.

For me the “step up” in rangefinder cameras was to a Retina IIIc, and then a IIIC.

 

[reddesert]

I think the Canonet QL17 is fine. I used one a lot. The Canon 7 and lenses are also fine (I have used one less). A fixed lens RF that has a more spacious finder with nicer framelines than the Canonet is the Konica auto S2.

With any rangefinder camera, you should check the rangefinder for alignment by focusing on an object at infinity and at some close measured distance (like 5-10 feet). Lens problems wide open often can be caused by focusing errors.

Some things to look for: on any RF, but especially on fixed lens RFs like the Canonet or Konica S2, look for signs that the camera may have taken a fall (dents on the filter ring) and ensuing looseness of the lens mount, focus inaccuracy, etc. A dent doesn't mean for sure that the lens will be loose, but it might. On older rangefinders like the Canon LTM RFs, look for haziness in the lenses.

 

[Jim Jones]

Long ago I bought a lightly used Canon 7S for the its 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens. For years that lens was needed for indoor sports film with Kodak Tri-X film rated at ISO 400 for good shadow detail. Exposure for quality negatives was usually f/1.4 at 1/125 second in small-town gyms. Then the Great Yellow Father who lived and died in Rochester, NY, produced T-Max P3200 that could be shot and developed at ISO 1600 with good shadow detail. This let me use a Summicron at f/2 at 1/250 second. Doubling the shutter speed and using a far better lens more than compensated for the dramatic grain in the faster film. The Canon lens was fine when stopped down.

 

[Paul Howell]

I had a 7S that I used with 35 or 28mm as my second body to a Nikon F, 2, or 3P, I also had a Leica IIIG. Although the Leica had better build quality the 7S with built in frames for the 35, coupled non TTL light meter although with a top ASA of 400 not good when pushing film last much easer to load was the body I generally garbed. I had the Canon 35 2.0 which I thought was a fine lens. Although I did use them much I also had the Canon 50 1.4 and a Minolta 85 and Canon 135 and Leica 28. If you don't plan or need a meter the earlier version with the selenium cell is a bit cheaper.

 

[Chan Tran]

The name Canonet in itself that it's not of high level quality. Most if not all of them made in Taiwan. So while the Canonet is good it's not high end stuff.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Canon 50 1.8 LTM is one of the most affected by not removable haze lens I ever deal with. First version is better than later ones.
Lens quality could be as primitive as sharp lens. I doubt here are better lenses in this regard from oldies. You have to look at much later Viogtlander Cosina LTM offerings.
Where are much more interesting lenses in LTM. Canon 50 1.2, collapsible Cron, first version of Leica 21/4, 90/4 Elmar and so on,
If you need just one lens here is no reason to spend many hundreds on LTM, IMO.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The Canon 7 is a great camera. Completely underrated. I use the two of mine more than my M3.

You won't be disappointed with Canon lenses. I have a wonderful 50 1.4. Really nice lens. The 1.8 version is reputed to be about the same as a Summicron of the same period (aghast!). Canon was no slouch when it came to lenses. In fact they were out in front of Leica at times.

 

[narsuitus]

I think I would enjoy the good build and probably also the large viewfinder (I don't know how big the difference is). I don't really change lenses much, so that part is not particularly appealing; I would probably stick with a good 50mm lens (and maybe add a 35mm).

For decades, I owned and liked the Canonet QL-17 G-III (right) with 40mm f/1.7 fixed lens. I could have continued using the Canonet but I really needed interchangeable lenses.

Eventually, I purchased a Leica M6 (left) with 35/90/21mm lenses. For me, the difference in viewfinders, image quality, and ergonomics was insignificant compared to the ability to change lenses. It would have not been worth the expenditure for me to "upgrade" from the 40mm lens to a 35 and/or a 50mm lens.


Rangefinders by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[David888]

The 7 is a great camera as long as you are not using lenses wider than 35mm. It does not have an accessory shoe -- the meter is also problematic. Other than that it is built like a tank and if you are shooting all day with a 50mm lens the weight will begin to tell on you. The haze that builds up inside lens is easy to clean and I've done it myself. Moreover the shutter curtain is made of steel so no need to cap the lens all the time.
If weight is a concern go for a Barnack - it has its own quibbles.

 

[DonW]

So long as your photographic interests extend beyond taking photos of test charts, you probably won't notice a big change.

The camera ergonomics of each should factor larger in your decision making.

 

[BobD]

The QL17 GIII is a nice little camera but it is currently overpriced in my opinion.

The Olympus 35SP has a better lens and even a spot meter for around the same price.

I haven't used a Canon 7 but I have used a P and an L-1 and they are beautiful cameras with excellent lenses available for them. Better than the GIII anyway.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a GIII, last week got my Konica S2, (The Wards rebranded version) serviced and shot a roll of Tmax 400, I would have to say that the lens on S2 are a bit shaper. Surprised me as Tmax 400 resolves around 125LMM, would have thought that the GIII would as sharp as the S2, not as small the Konica S3 and lens little more on the normal side at 47mm and has manual exposure. Thinking about sell the Canon off while prices are high.

 

[GRHazelton]

I have a Canon P. It is a delight, parallax corrected frames for 35, 50, and 100mm lenses, smooth film advance and proper rewind crank as opposed to the Barnack Leicas. I have the 35mm f/1.8, the 50mm f1.8, and the 100mm f2. Mine needs a little TLC since the shutter tends to "hang" at speeds slower than 1/8 sec. At least with the P's stainless steel shutter there's no worry about burning a hole in a rubberized cloth FP shutter as used in the Leica film cameras. The P is....elegant.

 

[gone]

I owned several Canon 7 cameras, the Leicas were better, to me anyway. The Canons are bigish and heavy, they just didn't feel the same in my hands.

You give up a lot when you go to cameras w/ replaceable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, cost more money, you'll end up buying multiple lenses....there's some stellar small cameras w/ fixed lenses. The Konica C-35 w/ Hexanon lens is one, and they have many clones of that model by other makers. The C-35 has that classic rangefinder look, everyone liked it that saw it when I was street shooting.

My best, budget rangefinder w/ replaceable lenses is the Bessa R. Really fun cameras w/ great meters and good viewfinders. Pretty light too.

 

[BobD]

The GIII Canonet has a quirk I find annoying: The meter only works in Auto mode and stops working when in manual mode. This makes no sense to me. Manual mode is when I most want the meter.