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

[Radost]

. The 40/2 M-Rokkor isn't better than the Nokton 40/1.4 MC,
only ca. 80grams lighter from weight.

Better? Yes. IMHO. Better size and feel. Makes the camera so much better in the hand. And to my taste minolta bokeh is better than nocton.

 

[Yashica]

Better? Yes. IMHO. Better size and feel. Makes the camera so much better in the hand. And to my taste minolta bokeh is better than nocton.

Not better IQ, and no F1.4 when it's being needed (at night times). I like the noct on the CLE from size, and it doesn't need a hood. YMMV.

Summicron-C 40/F2 vs Nokton 40/F1.4

The Minolta 40/F2 CLE (Version 2) does have subtle better MC than Version 1 (CL).

Quote from another forum:


"The 'Cron-C has a bit more contrast at f/2, otherwise there's very little difference in performance between the two."

I couldnt disagree with this statement more. I have all 4 of the 40mm lenses. At f2 the Nokton has greater resolution over the entire field. As far as contrast goes the CLE Rokkor has greater contrast than the Summicron and the MC Nokton has greater contrast again. Unless that comment is refering to the lower contrast SC version perhaps? There is no way the MC Nokton has lower contrast than the 70's made Summicron lens. In fact I think its so high contrast Im thinking of getting the SC version as well. Your slection should be based on overall size, filter size and if you will use it alot at f2. If you need to use it at f2 then the Nokton is the choice, if a more compact lens is more important then go with a Summicron or Rokkor.

Original quote here by joel_matherson

 

[Radost]

Not to mention the original lenses are better investment. The

Not better IQ, and no F1.4 when it's being needed (at night times). I like the noct on the CLE from size, and it doesn't need a hood. YMMV.

Summicron-C 40/F2 vs Nokton 40/F1.4

The Minolta 40/F2 CLE (Version 2) does have subtle better MC than Version 1 (CL).

Quote from another forum:


"The 'Cron-C has a bit more contrast at f/2, otherwise there's very little difference in performance between the two."

I couldnt disagree with this statement more. I have all 4 of the 40mm lenses. At f2 the Nokton has greater resolution over the entire field. As far as contrast goes the CLE Rokkor has greater contrast than the Summicron and the MC Nokton has greater contrast again. Unless that comment is refering to the lower contrast SC version perhaps? There is no way the MC Nokton has lower contrast than the 70's made Summicron lens. In fact I think its so high contrast Im thinking of getting the SC version as well. Your slection should be based on overall size, filter size and if you will use it alot at f2. If you need to use it at f2 then the Nokton is the choice, if a more compact lens is more important then go with a Summicron or Rokkor.

Original quote here by joel_matherson

are you using it on digital?
Maybe you can see the difference in resolution.
the 2 minoltas and the leica 40 have better renditions in my opinion. Also the leica seams to have no distortion. But again I am not pixelpeeping.

Not to mention the original lenses are a lot better long term investment .
I see noktons locally for $250 $300 perfect condition.
I got a Leica CL with working matter and brand new S40mm and elmarit 90 for $650 4-5 years ago.
Good luck finding only the lens for that much.

All I am saying is the difference in optical quality is matter of taste.
And even if pixel peep it is not worth it to spend all the money on the nokton.

Example:
If you pixel peep my Leica 50mm F1.4 2nd gen you will be very disapointed. But the rendition of the image is magical.

 

[Radost]

P. S. The vignetting with F1.4 is not my cup of tea. Also Good luck nailing focus with f1.4 and CLE. Get something wirh bigger rangefinder spacing. Some nice Soviet cameras will take better pictures at f1.4

 

[Yashica]

Not to mention the original lenses are better investment. The


are you using it on digital?
Maybe you can see the difference in resolution.
the 2 minoltas and the leica 40 have better renditions in my opinion. Also the leica seams to have no distortion. But again I am not pixelpeeping.

Not to mention the original lenses are a lot better long term investment .
I see noktons locally for $250 $300 perfect condition.
I got a Leica CL with working matter and brand new S40mm and elmarit 90 for $650 4-5 years ago.
Good luck finding only the lens for that much.

All I am saying is the difference in optical quality is matter of taste.
And even if pixel peep it is not worth it to spend all the money on the nokton.

Example:
If you pixel peep my Leica 50mm F1.4 2nd gen you will be very disapointed. But the rendition of the image is magical.

35mm film only ! I can't afford simply a M10-D, or M10-P. Or a M Monochrom. I paid 385 EUR for this, and its like new. It's different into the EU, original price for the Noct is 549 EUR into germany. I know, into Japan, one does only pay like 250 EUR, without import, taxes, custom fees, of course to EU. The Leica CL (Minolta made, as stated serveral times "Made in Japan") does suffer 99% from a inconsistent or broken LM anyway, and that repair here does cost usually twice the CL price..into other words, not worth it. And i like the CLE design much more. It's the Leica CL and Leitz Minolta CL successor. Then there's the issue with the CL series battery, which is no more avialable (1.4V) then the LM needs being recalibrated for 1.5V battery cell substitutes, and the CL is being opened like my serveral Minox 35 series...well, if it works, it's still a fine M rangefinder, of course. But i like personally the CLE more. I am not pixel peeping anway, that's for GearHeads, or ppl with G.A.S. syndrome..sometimes, it even affects me...GAS, but not pixel-peeping. Pixel peepers are not being photographers. 8) The noct doesn't need a hood, but the 40/2 cron does need one, and so are both M 'kors...and into case of the 'cron, the filter size is very odd - good luck finding something here. True, it does have no visible distortion, though, the 'cron. CLE-based 'kor does have ordinary 40.5mm standard filter size, and the noct 43mm here. One can't have it all. I see F1.4 only as a last resort emergency aperture, won't use if before F2, and then, depending onto the light situation, up to F/11.

 

[Overrank]

P. S. The vignetting with F1.4 is not my cup of tea. Also Good luck nailing focus with f1.4 and CLE. Get something wirh bigger rangefinder spacing. Some nice Soviet cameras will take better pictures at f1.4

Its been said that the choice of lenses with the Leica CL “kit” (40mm f/2 and 90mm f/4) were chosen as to what was reasonable to focus with the very short rangefinder base length (IIRC the CL is one of the shortest base lengths, and the CLE is only slightly longer)

 

[Radost]

The CL is a great camera for the 40 and 50.
I have a minolta CL as well with a death matter. I want to one day take the arm out so I can use my collapsible Leica 50mm
Yes the CLE is my favorite camera and it has a 28mm Elmerait parked on it. But I use the CL a lot more than I taught.

The CLE needs resistor and new wires upgrade.

 

[Yashica]

The CL is a great camera for the 40 and 50.
I have a minolta CL as well with a death matter. I want to one day take the arm out so I can use my collapsible Leica 50mm
Yes the CLE is my favorite camera and it has a 28mm Elmerait parked on it. But I use the CL a lot more than I taught.

The CLE needs resistor and new wires upgrade.

The CLE design is perfect also for a 28mm M lens.

Why I Choose the Minolta CLE Over Any Leica M by James Tocchio

 

[bluechromis]

You could also add the Yashica Electro 35 GT/GS/GTN/GSN - aperture priority only by otherwise very nice.

You may find the Canonet QL17 cheaper than the Giii version - it’s essentially the same camera. Although, I’ve never been impressed with the feel of either.

I’ve owned the Optima 1035 (1535 without a rangefinder) and the build quality is very nice - it has the feel of the Leica CL / Minolta CL.

My Yashica Electro 35 GSN has a cracking sharp, 45 mm f/1.7 lens. It is only aperture priority. But there are many situations where this works fine. I have been able to do some compensation by tweaking the ISO setting. It's not the most convenient, but it can work and is not so bad if you only do it occasionally. I think it is one of the most affordable options and, if nothing else, could also serve as a backup camera.

 

[Yashica]

My Yashica Electro 35 GSN has a cracking sharp, 45 mm f/1.7 lens. It is only aperture priority. But there are many situations where this works fine. I have been able to do some compensation by tweaking the ISO setting. It's not the most convenient, but it can work and is not so bad if you only do it occasionally. I think it is one of the most affordable options and, if nothing else, could also serve as a backup camera.

I have the GSN, GTN too. Sadly, my GS is broken it seems...just bought a new 4LR44 6V for the adapter, put it into...and about 30-50 sec later, the energizer cell was totally depleted...oh my... :-/

 

[dave olson]

My two favorites are my Leica 35 f2 asph, and my 75 f1.4, With these two I can capture nearly all I want. I can also switch my 35 f2 asph for my 28 f2 asph for the wider vista. I try to keep my equipment weight/bulk to a minimum. In my mind the 75 f1.4 (Canada) is one of the finest lenses ever produced by Leica for the M series.
I like to put these lenses on my M4-P, M6 and M7. My M7 has a .58 VF, which I don't mind as I do not own anything longer than 90 f2.8.

 

[manfrominternet]

I know it's not a genuine rangefinder, but does anyone have any experience with the Contax TVS III (or TVS II) and would recommend either of them? While I do like the idea of the Olympus XA, from what I gather from the many reviews I've read, the lens simply isn't sharp/contrasty enough.

Otherwise, I'm particularly torn between an Olympus 35 SP, Olympus 35 RD, Canon Canonet QL17 GIII and Contax TVS III. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In the end, I'm basically looking for a small fixed-lens (or possibly zoom lens) 35mm film camera, with a sharp lens (the sharpest one I can reasonably get) with a focal length at or between 38mm & 42mm, that I can carry around anywhere and everywhere that also has a decent light meter. I was sadly almost burned once with the Minolta 7sII, but I luckily got a full refund on that.

Otherwise, the medium format Fujica GS645S also looks very promising, but alas, I have no experience with it. :/

 

[Donald Qualls]

a small fixed-lens (or possibly zoom lens) 35mm film camera, with a sharp lens (the sharpest one I can reasonably get) with a focal length at or between 38mm & 42mm

IMO, the best answer here is still the Canonet QL17 GIII. The only caveat is that they're prone to pad and wire corrosion due to having batteries left in them for years or decades...

If you didn't want a meter, I'd suggest anything with an f/2 Xenon -- which as far as I know would include a couple models of Retina and some examples of the Welta Weltini. My Weltini folds to the size of a Rollei 35 and has a much better/faster lens; it's my everyday carry camera.

Canonet QL17 GIII, .EDU Ultra 400 EI 800 in HC-110 Dilution F

Welta Weltini (50 mm f/2.0 Xenon), XP2 Super EI 800, bleach bypass.

 

[manfrominternet]

I'm definitely torn here. Donald Qualls (and I believe him) and many other people here have said that the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII would be the best choice. The Olympus XA and Olympus 35 SP came up a lot as well. And same the all the Yashicas!: Yashica Electro 35 GT/GS/GTN/GSN. The Konica III looks magnificent! The Minolta-Leitz CL or the Minolta CLE would be my top choices if the prices weren't as high as they are now.

Let me, if I may, refine what I'm looking for: A small rangefinder camera that has excellent metering capabilities (or as good as they can get for rangefinders of the '70s & '80s era), with a viewfinder that can accommodate those like me who wear glasses (or, alternatively, have diopter correction lenses so I don't have to use said glasses), has the "sharpest" lens between 35mm and 44mm, and has a bulb mode feature for when I'm shooting at night with a standart cable release. I'd like to have full manual control, but that isn't 100% necessary.

As it stands, I am now really both the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII and the Olympus 35 SP, however, I'm also interested in the Yashica offerings, but I'm simply not as familiar with them. If someone would can suggest what Yashica models I should look for, I'd appreciate it a lot!

Otherwise, like I mentioned, it might be best to put my money into the very small Fuji GS645/GS645S (6x4.5) rangefinders as I have an awful lot of medium format film left.

 

[Craig]

Let me, if I may, refine what I'm looking for: A small rangefinder camera that has excellent metering capabilities

You should look at one of the Voigtlander Bessa's, as they are relatively modern and have the brightest/easiest to use rangefinders.

 

[M-88]

You should look at one of the Voigtlander Bessa's, as they are relatively modern and have the brightest/easiest to use rangefinders.

...... And bessa is NOT a fixed lens camera. This topic and another one in 35mm film camera forum, also opened by the OP is starting to look like a silly charade.

What is "best"? What is "excellent"? These are subjective terms and the discussion goes on and on and on.

Funny enough, forum members seem to be enjoying this.

 

[manfrominternet]

...... And bessa is NOT a fixed lens camera. This topic and another one in 35mm film camera forum, also opened by the OP is starting to look like a silly charade.

What is "best"? What is "excellent"? These are subjective terms and the discussion goes on and on and on.

Funny enough, forum members seem to be enjoying this.

First of all, I'm genuinely interested in every person's response, even yours. It's not lost on me that many photographers put in a lot of time and effort in their responses, so it would be absurd and, at worst, cruel, for me to ask for their experiences with these cameras if I wasn't even interested in their responses. So, with that, I'm sorry if my merely asking questions (even if they seem inane) seems like a "charade" to you. I can assure you that it's anything but. Also, in response to your last sentence, I suspect that people at times simply do like voicing their opinions on these questions, either collectors and users of these cameras alike. There are a zillion film cameras out there, and I think it helps anyone who is interested in similar questions to have a thread where they can see what other photographers are saying and also voice their own opinions. That's partly what forums are for.

I mean, sure, my asking what are some of the best fixed lens rangefinders might seem too broad and vague, I'll give you that, but I at least try to put some parameters around my question by mentioning what my goals are or what features I'd like said camera (or lens, or whatever) to have.

On the other hand, I also do notice a fair bit of needless policing of all forums, as if it's a vehicle to virtue signal to others what terrific members they are by tacitly pointing out what questions should and shouldn't be asked. I'm not saying that you're doing this at all (I don't think you are anyway), but I think it's just a reflection on the sad state of affairs with all online forums. All it really does, in my opinion, is just make people afraid to ask questions lest they be made out to look silly.

 

[M-88]

@manfrominternet

There's always someone dismissive like me, who after trying out dozens of different cameras and admittedly - being too nitpicky, came to conclusion that there can't be the "best" tool. There's always someone else who had a different experience in their life, found a perfect camera in Olympus 35RD, Pentax LX, Nikon F6, Hasselblad, Leica, or even Speed Graphic, you name it. These are personal experiences which sometimes match with objective reality, but other times - they're just subjective.

I don't think remarks like mine makes anyone afraid to ask anything. Pretty much all forums, including this one, have those perpetually asked questions and I don't think my input is somehow deterring or anything. Still, I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.

Also, on the subject of this specific topic, any rangefinder camera with meter cell situated around the lens collar (like QL17 GIII has, for example) will have a reasonably accurate metering, for negative film. Higher precision is found in TTL-metering circuits, but I can't think of a single fixed-lens rangefinder camera which has TTL meter. After all, fixed-lens rangefinders were inherently designed to be cheap, so they had to cut some corners. So if you want a rangefinder camera with a light meter as good and as precise as an average SLR, it will be something like Cosina-made Bessa cameras, or Leica M5, CL, or Minolta CLE.

 

[manfrominternet]

@manfrominternet

There's always someone dismissive like me, who after trying out dozens of different cameras and admittedly - being too nitpicky, came to conclusion that there can't be the "best" tool. There's always someone else who had a different experience in their life, found a perfect camera in Olympus 35RD, Pentax LX, Nikon F6, Hasselblad, Leica, or even Speed Graphic, you name it. These are personal experiences which sometimes match with objective reality, but other times - they're just subjective.

I don't think remarks like mine makes anyone afraid to ask anything. Pretty much all forums, including this one, have those perpetually asked questions and I don't think my input is somehow deterring or anything. Still, I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.

Also, on the subject of this specific topic, any rangefinder camera with meter cell situated around the lens collar (like QL17 GIII has, for example) will have a reasonably accurate metering, for negative film. Higher precision is found in TTL-metering circuits, but I can't think of a single fixed-lens rangefinder camera which has TTL meter. After all, fixed-lens rangefinders were inherently designed to be cheap, so they had to cut some corners. So if you want a rangefinder camera with a light meter as good and as precise as an average SLR, it will be something like Cosina-made Bessa cameras, or Leica M5, CL, or Minolta CLE.

No need to apologize at all! I never felt offended by your comment in the slightest. Perhaps I felt a little bit misunderstood, if anything, but that was really my fault. In fact, even though I was genuine with my questions, I obliquely proved your point in my other thread where "I apologize[d] beforehand if I'm beating a dead horse, but..." and then went on to proceed to ask which SLR is considered the best for night photography/has the best meter for night photography, as I knew that asking what feels like essentially the same question over and over again was starting to look absurd.

In any case, I may very well end up getting the CL, CLE, or one of the Bessas that you mentioned, specifically because each of those camera models have TTL metering and diopter correction lenses that would let me shoot without my glasses. Admittedly, though, the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII and Olympus 35 SP do look like very attractive choices, I can already preemptively tell that if I bought either of those cameras, I'd still want either the CL, CLE, or one of the Bessas, so it might be better for me to just bite the bullet and get one of those instead.

Nonetheless, every camera that everyone on this thread mentioned are almost certainly amazing cameras, and I'll carefully go over the entire thread to make a note of what each person said about whatever camera they've recommended. As subjective as the camera-using experience is, hopefully this thread will help some other people down the line if they have a similar question.

 

[BMbikerider]

Without a doubt, if you can find one it has to be for me an Olympus SP. They are getting VERY rare now.

 

[StanMac]

Add the Yashica Electro 35CC with its 35mmf/1.8 lens to your list. Excellent lens, 52mm filter mount, and it uses a modern battery. Great casual travel camera:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2020/03/small-towns-in-texas-panhandle-with.html

Loved your blog!

Stan

 

[BorHa]

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.

Nothing beats the size of the XA but I had trouble with my light meter and exposure on mine. Thats why the canonet is any excellent mechanical choice and I highly recommend it.

 

[Chan Tran]

For the compact camera I love the Olympus XA. I have a couple of Yashica Lynx 14 (one with the E and one without both the meter don't work but I don't care). They are very nice but the shutter are slow.
My favorite is the Petri 7s f/1.8 lens. It was the camera I first used when I was 10. Very difficult to find one in good condition but I do like it a lot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nikonos V for under water and inclement weather photography.

 

[aw614]

I like the Olympus XA, but it feels like the ones I've gotten has had weird issues and I go back to preferring the scale focus models like the XA4/XA2 for regular use.

I never really warmed up to some of the larger fixed lens rangefinders when they are as big as some of the LTM Canons. I had an Electro GSN and it worked well, but I think I would have kept it if I had a 35cc or 35 gx instead.

The flipside is, I can't get used to the handling on the Olympus 35 RC and am thinking of getting ride of mine, the aperture ring ergonomics just do not make it enjoyable for me. If the meter worked on mine, I wouldn't mind shooting it in shutter priority instead..