What Are Your Favorite 35mm Manual Focus Fixed-Lens Rangefinders? (Looking For Recommendations)

[Chan Tran]

Hi all,

I put my interchangeable lens rangefinder search (I’m looking at you, Minolta CLE) on hold for the time being after I realized that a fixed-lens rangefinder might be more suitable for my needs, particularly since I’m almost exclusively a 35mm-45mm focal length user as it is.

That said, I was hoping you guys could recommend your favorite 35mm (full frame) manual focus, fixed-lens rangefinders. In particular, I’m looking for one in the 35mm to 45mm focal length range with a decent internal light meter as I shoot a lot of slides/transparencies. The quality of the lens is obviously paramount.

Here are some of the rangefinders I‘m looking at (in no particular order):

-Olympus 35 SP
-Canon Canonet QL17 GIII
-Agfa Optima 1535
-Olympus XA
-Minolta 7SII
-Konica Auto S3
-Olympus 35 RD

I’m even looking at ‘newer’ autofocus rangefinders like the Konica Hexar AF, Nikon 35Ti, and Contax TVS III, which seem promising, but truth be told, I just don’t trust autofocus and would much prefer to focus manually.

If I can get any of your recommendations, that’d of course be very much appreciated.

Among the camera listed I own the Canonet QL17 GIII and the Olympus XA. I also own the Olympus 35RC which I think similar but has somewhat less features than the RD or SP. Among those I think I pick the Olympus XA.
But my favorite fixed lens rangefinder perhaps are the Petri 7s 1.8 or the Yashica Lynx 14.

 

[henryvk]

Anybody ever tried some of the other Petris? The 1.9/2.8 Color Corrected Super tends to get mentioned.

Petri 2.8 Color Corrected Super review - by Andrew

I find myself taking the Petri 2.8 Color Corrected Super for walks and hikes often. It's a simple, straightforward camera I enjoy using.

www.35mmc.com

 

[Donald Qualls]

which of these are the most friendly to people with glasses?

I have a QL17 GIII (and a Canonet 28, from the generation before the QL) -- both are glasses friendly in my experience.

 

[Tony-S]

I have a QL17 GIII (and a Canonet 28, from the generation before the QL) -- both are glasses friendly in my experience.

I concur!

 

[GRHazelton]

Watch for the Konica IIIa. It is a wonderful rangefinder, with an excellent f1.8 50mm, and a truly remarkable viewfinder, 1 to 1 image, parallax corrected projected frame, and the viewfinder shows the contraction of the lens' coverage as it focuses closer. Even Leica doesn't do this.
See Dante Stella's opinion of the IIIa: https://www.dantestella.com/technical/koni3.html
I have a IIIa. It is a delight to use, solid, weighty...it would probably make a good defensive weapon!

 

[Sirius Glass]

WideLux F7 35mm camera has a fixed but moving lens, does that count?

The Wonderful Widelux Panoramic Camera: Jeff Bridge’s Love Affair

Photographer Peter Levitan shares his thoughts on the Widelux F7 panoramic camera, a camera made famous actor Jeff Bridges.

petapixel.com

 

[weatherproof]

Between Leica CL with a 40mm sumicron and all versions of Rollei 35 “non RF” I am set.
Most fixed lens RF mentioned here are bigger than Leica CL.
Just get a Leica or Minolta CL with Leica or Minolta 40mm.
Film is expansive to be point and shooted.

Seconding this. The Leica/Minolta CL is basically a nicer Minolta 7sII. My only complaint is the placement of the strap lugs on the left side of the body.

 

[Trask]

GRHazelton is on target -- the Konica IIIa is a terrific camera. As he says, terrific viewfinder, and a unique film advance mechanism that won't poke you in the eye (either one)! I can hardly hear the leaf shutter open and close -- very quiet. As it comes from the factory the shutter speed ring and the aperture ring have an interlock, which facilitates maintaining the same exposure value even as you increase speed/open aperture or decrease speed/close aperture. I prefer them to operate independently, so when it was in for a CLA I had them de-linked. One of my favorite travel cameras -- here's a photo taken with mine.

 

[pdccamerqs]

Kodak Retina IIa's are relatively inexpensive (under $100 USD) and the 50mmf/2 Xenons or Heligons they come with are nice lenses. Also, they are simpler in design and operation than the Iic, IIC, IIIC, IIIc models, so less to go wrong. They also are not afflicted with the LVS interlock. They are truly pocketable and have good rangefinders.

photo is from Chris Sherlock's Retina repair and info page.

 

[pdccamerqs]

GRHazelton is on target -- the Konica IIIa is a terrific camera. As he says, terrific viewfinder, and a unique film advance mechanism that won't poke you in the eye (either one)! I can hardly hear the leaf shutter open and close -- very quiet. As it comes from the factory the shutter speed ring and the aperture ring have an interlock, which facilitates maintaining the same exposure value even as you increase speed/open aperture or decrease speed/close aperture. I prefer them to operate independently, so when it was in for a CLA I had them de-linked. One of my favorite travel cameras -- here's a photo taken with mine.

The Konica IIIa is a favorite of mine as well. Was your sample photo taken with the f/2 or f/1.8 lens? The old Konica IIIa ads were right when they said, "The lens alone is worth the price!" Of course $99 in 1959 had the buying power of about $1000, so yeah it was probably worth the price. The average (median) income of families was $5,400 in 1959, so $99 represented about a week's pay. Also, in 1959, a Leica M2 with a 50mm DR Summicron cost $348.

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

Kodak Retina IIa's are relatively inexpensive (under $100 USD) and the 50mmf/2 Xenons or Heligons they come with are nice lenses. Also, they are simpler in design and operation than the Iic, IIC, IIIC, IIIc models, so less to go wrong. They also are not afflicted with the LVS interlock. They are truly pocketable and have good rangefinders.

View attachment 338516


photo is from Chris Sherlock's Retina repair and info page.

Amen on the IIa, simpler, lighter, and more ergonomic than the later models.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Kodak Retina IIa's are relatively inexpensive (under $100 USD) and the 50mmf/2 Xenons or Heligons they come with are nice lenses. Also, they are simpler in design and operation than the Iic, IIC, IIIC, IIIc models, so less to go wrong. They also are not afflicted with the LVS interlock. They are truly pocketable and have good rangefinders.

View attachment 338516


photo is from Chris Sherlock's Retina repair and info page.

I agree, the Retina IIa is excellent optically and mechanically. Beware: the viewfinder is a bit squinty, but the rangefinder is accurate. Also it took a search to find the genuine 29.5mm Kodak filters. A short summary:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2022/05/1950s-optical-excellence-kodak-retina.html

Some recent examples:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2023/03/wandering-fifth-and-third-wards-of.html

 

[Chan Tran]

I have one of the Retina IIa too. Too bad I don't have enough film to run through it.

 

[Santiago Ignacio]

For me its the Olympus XA because it fits in my jersey pocket during bike trips, and survives years of sweat, heat, dust, drizzle and bumps. It is optically decent too.

 

[manfrominternet]

So I’ve narrowed my choices down to the following (in no particular order):

-Olympus 35 SP
-Minolta 7sII
-Canon Canonet QL17 GIII

And if I really spring for it, I might be able to get the Leitz Minolta CL/Leica CL (with a Voigtlander 40mm F/1.4 Nokton Classic), but if I were to pay nearly a $1000, I might as well get the Fuji GS645S or GSW680.

Which of these three cameras - Olympus 35 SP, Minolta 7sII, Canon Canonet QL17 GIII -has the sharpest lens and has the best metering capability for, say, night photography?

I suppose what I’m really asking is: what’s the best bang for the buck? (By the way, I really do like that Konica IIIA, but I already have too many 50mm lenses.)

 

[Hassasin]

Which of these three cameras - Olympus 35 SP, Minolta 7sII, Canon Canonet QL17 GIII -has the sharpest lens and has the best metering capability for, say, night photography?

The answer is none of them covers these wishes. They are just all OK cameras with pretty good lenses, maybe a bit better than OK depending on perspective. The CL models mentioned are a different league, and cost accordingly. Metering capability for night photography simply does not exist in majority of film cameras ever made. You'd be better off guessing night exposures.

 

[eli griggs]

The Sp is known for it's spot metering ability.

The Minolta has a sharp lens, but you might as well look at the Hi-Matic 9 which is held by some Minolta Hi-Matic fans as both a better camera and LESS EXPENSIVE, than the 7sII.

The Canonet is a great little camera, that DOES NOT need a battery for it's shutter, it's a mechanical leaf shutter.

I have the Minolta 9 and the Canon, and two of the series the Olympus SP came out of and I liked the photos out of one I sometimes carried.

But overall, I think the Canonet, will make you happier.

I now have the CL and love it but it's a LTM camera and mine, like most examples, as I understand it, does not have a working meter and the meter cell scheme has an arm that swings into the path of the lens to make readings, which can be damaged by a few collapsible lenses, so be forewarned.

I am using mine with FSU lenses m39 and a FSU turret and all it took for my collapsible FED 50 to be usable was a few turns of good masking tape, which allows it to partly safely collapse l, for better pocker carrying.

I have always carried stand alone meters, so it's no hardship for me, if a mechanical camera meter does not work, Sunny 11 still works well, with a card for each iso.

Others will have valid opinions and experiences, so take your time in taking a decision.

 

[Radost]

I have had good experience with leica spot metering in the dark.

 

[eli griggs]

The answer is none of them covers these wishes. They are just all OK cameras with pretty good lenses, maybe a bit better than OK depending on perspective. The CL models mentioned are a different league, and cost accordingly. Metering capability for night photography simply does not exist in majority of film cameras ever made. You'd be better off guessing night exposures.

The Yashica Electro 35 has an excellent lens (1.7)
and meter controlled leaf shutter, that has the chops for night photography and it gives beautiful rendition of Colours.

It is dependent on batteries, and is not built for manual settings, but, for what I've seen from others, it's very capable for night time photography, IMO.

Cheers.

 

[Radost]

The Sp is known for it's spot metering ability.

The Minolta has a sharp lens, but you might as well look at the Hi-Matic 9 which is held by some Minolta Hi-Matic fans as both a better camera and LESS EXPENSIVE, than the 7sII.

The Canonet is a great little camera, that DOES NOT need a battery for it's shutter, it's a mechanical leaf shutter.

I have the Minolta 9 and the Canon, and two of the series the Olympus SP came out of and I liked the photos out of one I sometimes carried.

But overall, I think the Canonet, will make you happier.

I now have the CL and love it but it's a LTM camera and mine, like most examples, as I understand it, do not have working meters and the meter cell scheme has an arm that swings into the path of the lens to make readings, which can be damaged by a few collapsible lenses, so be warned.

I am using mine with FSU lenses m39 and a FSU turret and all it took for my collapsible FED 50 to be usable was a few turns of good masking tape, which allows it to partly safely collapse l, for better pocker carrying.

I have always carried stand alone meters, so it's no hardship for me, if a mechanical camera meter does not work and Sunny 11 still works well, with a card for each iso.

Others will have valid opinions and experiences, so take your time in taking a decision.

I have had good experience with leica spot metering in the dark.
I have an additional minolta CL with a death cell for my collapsible Leica 50mm F3.5.

 

[Radost]

I have had good experience with leica spot metering in the dark.
I have an additional minolta CL with a death cell for my collapsible Leica 50mm F3.5.

I should try to remove the arm when I open to lube my low speeds.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Okay: Here's a recommendation that will receive a collective shrug but I think it's a completely cool machine:

The Zeiss Tenax II.

It's a 35mm camera that shoots squares -- fifty frames to a 36-exposure roll. The lens is a sweet 40mm Zeiss Sonnar. (Some shipped with Tessars. In theory they are interchangeable but good luck finding lenses to fit the mount.) They are tough cameras to source. Zeiss made them in 1938 and events soon overtook camera manufactures before many could be built and sold.

I have one -- see attached. It's a competent camera, very easy to shoot. The viewfinder is big, the rangefinder patch is easy to focus, the body is rock-solid, and the Sonnar is a fantastic piece of glass. I'm attaching a snapshot of my copy -- definitely droolworthy.

 

[eli griggs]

Okay: Here's a recommendation that will receive a collective shrug but I think it's a completely cool machine:

The Zeiss Tenax II.

It's a 35mm camera that shoots squares -- fifty frames to a 36-exposure roll. The lens is a sweet 40mm Zeiss Sonnar. (Some shipped with Tessars. In theory they are interchangeable but good luck finding lenses to fit the mount.) They are tough cameras to source. Zeiss made them in 1938 and events soon overtook camera manufactures before many could be built and sold.

I have one -- see attached. It's a competent camera, very easy to shoot. The viewfinder is big, the rangefinder patch is easy to focus, the body is rock-solid, and the Sonnar is a fantastic piece of glass. I'm attaching a snapshot of my copy -- definitely droolworthy.

Nice looking camera!

Can you share a couple of pics from it, please?

 

[Radost]

Okay: Here's a recommendation that will receive a collective shrug but I think it's a completely cool machine:

The Zeiss Tenax II.

It's a 35mm camera that shoots squares -- fifty frames to a 36-exposure roll. The lens is a sweet 40mm Zeiss Sonnar. (Some shipped with Tessars. In theory they are interchangeable but good luck finding lenses to fit the mount.) They are tough cameras to source. Zeiss made them in 1938 and events soon overtook camera manufactures before many could be built and sold.

I have one -- see attached. It's a competent camera, very easy to shoot. The viewfinder is big, the rangefinder patch is easy to focus, the body is rock-solid, and the Sonnar is a fantastic piece of glass. I'm attaching a snapshot of my copy -- definitely droolworthy.

Might be just me but it’s way to expansive to buy and maintain.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Nice looking camera!

Can you share a couple of pics from it, please?

Sorry, the images I have from the camera aren't family-friendly. Generally, I would say that the Sonnar performs as you would expect of any other prewar uncoated Sonnar. The drawback to the 24x24 format is that grain becomes prominent so you are better off shooting a tablular grained film unless you really like golfball-sized grain in your images. There is a Flickr group that features photos from the camera, available here:

Zeiss Ikon Tenax II

Welcome to the group! Post photographs taken with this exciting camera. Please do not post any Tenax I / Taxona etc shots, Thanks and enjoy, Teja

www.flickr.com