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.
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..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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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
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.
...... 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
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.
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?