Which Canon (or other LTM) rangefinder?

[M-88]

I have a vaguely similar question, so I figured I'd ask here, instead of opening a separate thread. I want to buy an LTM body. I had Nicca IIIf and it was nice ... for using a 50 mm lens. I'd like to go with Canon this time. The options are:

1. Canon 7. I actually used to have this model in the past. It's nice, with single shutter dial and multiple frame lines, three of which correspond to my LTM lenses: 35 mm, 50 mm and 135 mm. It has two drawbacks: its cumbersome size and the fact I can use a full space of the viewfinder only with 35 mm lens.
2. Canon P. This one seems to be venerate by many, but the viewfinder has no selectable frame lines and no frames for 135 mm. I see this as a drawback, but the option is still on the table.
3. One of L1/L2/L3/VL/VL2 et cetera. Are these models really far behind, let's say, Canon P? I don't mind a two-dial shutter. And what does the "RF" option on the viewfinder correspond to? 100mm? 135mm? Nothing at all? I like how for 35mm and 50mm lenses I get corresponding magnification in the viewfinder, even without parallax-corrected frame lines.

The "perfect" solution would be to get Canon P along with some 100mm lens to match its frame lines. What would be your advise? And please note: although I have an external viewfinder, I don't like to use it so it's out of option.

 

[aw614]

I have a vaguely similar question, so I figured I'd ask here, instead of opening a separate thread. I want to buy an LTM body. I had Nicca IIIf and it was nice ... for using a 50 mm lens. I'd like to go with Canon this time. The options are:

1. Canon 7. I actually used to have this model in the past. It's nice, with single shutter dial and multiple frame lines, three of which correspond to my LTM lenses: 35 mm, 50 mm and 135 mm. It has two drawbacks: its cumbersome size and the fact I can use a full space of the viewfinder only with 35 mm lens.
2. Canon P. This one seems to be venerate by many, but the viewfinder has no selectable frame lines and no frames for 135 mm. I see this as a drawback, but the option is still on the table.
3. One of L1/L2/L3/VL/VL2 et cetera. Are these models really far behind, let's say, Canon P? I don't mind a two-dial shutter. And what does the "RF" option on the viewfinder correspond to? 100mm? 135mm? Nothing at all? I like how for 35mm and 50mm lenses I get corresponding magnification in the viewfinder, even without parallax-corrected frame lines.

The "perfect" solution would be to get Canon P along with some 100mm lens to match its frame lines. What would be your advise? And please note: although I have an external viewfinder, I don't like to use it so it's out of option.

The one I haven't tried so far was the P and just held the one at the local camera store when they had one for sale. I currently have a 7 and an L1/L2. My personal preference is the L1/L2 over the 7. A lot of it has to do with the size and feel. Something about the 7 feels cheaper to me than the L1 and L2. While the viewfinder is bright and nice, I never liked the patch on it with the weird "shadow" on it. I never really had issues with the L1/L2 viewfinder and it never felt like it was behind the P or the 7. Its a big upgrade over say the IVF/IVSB models, but in my opinion still feels as good as the 7.

Supposedly the RF portion on the L1/L2 corresponds to 135mm. I have a 135mm, but barely use it. The one time I tried a Canon 135mm I didnt have any pictures in focus and didn't realize I needed to mount it with the lens at minimum focus.

I've listed my 7 for sale on FB marketplace (maybe asking too much), but have pondered selling my metal curtain L2...(and keeping my L1 and 7).

 

[M-88]

The one I haven't tried so far was the P and just held the one at the local camera store when they had one for sale. I currently have a 7 and an L1/L2. My personal preference is the L1/L2 over the 7. A lot of it has to do with the size and feel. Something about the 7 feels cheaper to me than the L1 and L2. While the viewfinder is bright and nice, I never liked the patch on it with the weird "shadow" on it. I never really had issues with the L1/L2 viewfinder and it never felt like it was behind the P or the 7. Its a big upgrade over say the IVF/IVSB models, but in my opinion still feels as good as the 7.

Supposedly the RF portion on the L1/L2 corresponds to 135mm. I have a 135mm, but barely use it. The one time I tried a Canon 135mm I didnt have any pictures in focus and didn't realize I needed to mount it with the lens at minimum focus.

I've listed my 7 for sale on FB marketplace (maybe asking too much), but have pondered selling my metal curtain L2...(and keeping my L1 and 7).

Thank you for your input! Canon 7 already feels somewhat luxurious compared to what we generally get in my country: Soviet knock-offs of Leica. L1/L2 must have more solid build, I guess. I also thought the dark "halo" around the rangefinder patch was exclusive to my sample of 7. Guess it's a universal thing, dictated by design?

As for the "RF" setting, some say it corresponds to 135mm, others say it's "very close to 100mm", that's why I'm confused about it.

 

[aw614]

Thank you for your input! Canon 7 already feels somewhat luxurious compared to what we generally get in my country: Soviet knock-offs of Leica. L1/L2 must have more solid build, I guess. I also thought the dark "halo" around the rangefinder patch was exclusive to my sample of 7. Guess it's a universal thing, dictated by design?

As for the "RF" setting, some say it corresponds to 135mm, others say it's "very close to 100mm", that's why I'm confused about it.

That remind me to check my 135mm viewfinder I got this past week, its really close to the "RF" setting on my L1.

It's the barnack like IVS/IVSB models that have the 100mm and 135mm equivalent in addition to the 50mm.

I am really not sure what the cause of that dark halo is on the 7, other than I never liked it. I am not sure if the P has that halo though. Hopefully someone else can respond about it.

 

[M-88]

That remind me to check my 135mm viewfinder I got this past week, its really close to the "RF" setting on my L1.

It's the barnack like IVS/IVSB models that have the 100mm and 135mm equivalent in addition to the 50mm.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I'll be looking for L/V series body then. I'll check back whenever I get my hands on one of those.

 

[mdarnton]

I've got mostly Leica stuff but bought a Canon P on a lark. It's actually a pretty nice and modern camera, In feel and size it's very similar to the early Canon SLRs. The finder isn't Leica (what is?) but it's certainly adequate. The only thing I can't get around is the 100% view. That makes the 50 frame so wide that I can't catch composition in just a glance, but have to actually intentionally look around the edges.That may or may not bother any particular person. But other than that it's a really nice camera.

Supposedly if you're right eyed (I am not) you can keep both eyes open and the framelines sort of hang out there in reality as your mind internally merges the two eyes' views, rather than appearing in a dark tube. Cool.

I also have an early chrome 50/1.8, a late 501.4, an ancient 85/1.9 and a modern black 135.3.5. For some reason I don't get along with the 50/1.4, but the other three are real sleepers. The quality of the 85 and the 135 were totally unexpected. I've had the excellent 85/1.8 (should NOT have sold that!) and two 85/1.5s (REALLY should NOT have sold those!) and they were all fine lenses, too, mostly cheap as dirt when I bought them (alas, I REALLY should not have sold the 85/1.5s!!!). It's a great system, and Ps are modern and yet simple enough that I don't think there's too much to go wrong.

 

[M-88]

I've got mostly Leica stuff but bought a Canon P on a lark. It's actually a pretty nice and modern camera, In feel and size it's very similar to the early Canon SLRs. The finder isn't Leica (what is?) but it's certainly adequate. The only thing I can't get around is the 100% view. That makes the 50 frame so wide that I can't catch composition in just a glance, but have to actually intentionally look around the edges.That may or may not bother any particular person. But other than that it's a really nice camera.

Supposedly if you're right eyed (I am not) you can keep both eyes open and the framelines sort of hang out there in reality as your mind internally merges the two eyes' views, rather than appearing in a dark tube. Cool.

I also have an early chrome 50/1.8, a late 501.4, an ancient 85/1.9 and a modern black 135.3.5. For some reason I don't get along with the 50/1.4, but the other three are real sleepers. The quality of the 85 and the 135 were totally unexpected. I've had the excellent 85/1.8 (should NOT have sold that!) and two 85/1.5s (REALLY should NOT have sold those!) and they were all fine lenses, too, mostly cheap as dirt when I bought them (alas, I REALLY should not have sold the 85/1.5s!!!). It's a great system, and Ps are modern and yet simple enough that I don't think there's too much to go wrong.

I'd be surprised if P was built on the basis of the SLR. After all, it's 1959 we're talking. Rangefinder cameras were around for decades, while SLR were still a new thing. Canon P seems like a derivative of Canon VI-L to me. Maybe even its cheaper more affordable cousin?

The frame lines for 50mm lens which take less space than the whole viewfinder area are bearable, but still annoying - that's what I found out based on Canon 7. Can't see myself seeing frame lines for three different focal lengths simultaneously - I'd have a hard time remembering which lines I should take into account.

The lens I'll be really looking for is pretty much any 35mm LTM lens, other than Soviet Jupiter-12 which is ... uninspiring, to put it mildly. Sadly these 35mm lenses are far beyond 200$ a piece right now, but who knows, maybe one day ... First I should find an appropriate body and get used to it.

 

[aw614]

I think at least the RF's are all on the same chassis, when you compare the 7 to the VL/L1 bottom, its all the same size. The top is what makes the 7 feel so big

 

[henryvk]

The lens I'll be really looking for is pretty much any 35mm LTM lens, other than Soviet Jupiter-12 which is ... uninspiring, to put it mildly.

Idk I had a Jupiter-12 and I thought the image quality was alright for the price.

But as you point out, the issue is maybe rather that there's nothing on offer in between the J12 and the German/Japanese lenses which cost 5x as much (and probably don't offer 5x the picture quality). A question of opportunity cost.

 

[M-88]

Idk I had a Jupiter-12 and I thought the image quality was alright for the price.

The issue with Soviet lenses is their inconsistent quality which varies from factory to factory, year to year, sometimes even from sample to sample and mine suffers greatly: even at f/8, corners looked terrible. If I find a decent version for cheap at my local flea market, of course I will give it a go instead of paying 200$ for Canon's 35mm lens. I'd rather invest whatever the price difference will be, into some film.

 

[Väinö Louekari]

Thank You all for the input. I now have a nice Canon 7s (no, the lightmeter is not working, but that is all right) and am halfway through the first roll of Fp4+.

 

[M-88]

My personal preference is the L1/L2 over the 7. A lot of it has to do with the size and feel. Something about the 7 feels cheaper to me than the L1 and L2.

I have received my copy of L1 a few days ago, shot a roll of film through it and I must say, it does feel more solid than 7. I think it's all about the difference in the top plate. The rotating viewfinder on L1 is a real treat. The rotating shutter dial - not so much. Maybe someday I'll make my way to Canon VI.

Thank You all for the input. I now have a nice Canon 7s (no, the lightmeter is not working, but that is all right) and am halfway through the first roll of Fp4+.

Congratulations! How do you like the camera? If I recall correctly, it used mercury battery, so there's a good chance the wires have corroded. Fixing it can be feasible, if you feel like it.

 

[Väinö Louekari]

I have received my copy of L1 a few days ago, shot a roll of film through it and I must say, it does feel more solid than 7. I think it's all about the difference in the top plate. The rotating viewfinder on L1 is a real treat. The rotating shutter dial - not so much. Maybe someday I'll make my way to Canon VI.


Congratulations! How do you like the camera? If I recall correctly, it used mercury battery, so there's a good chance the wires have corroded. Fixing it can be feasible, if you feel like it.

Thank You. I do like it. It is a very well made, solid camera. Viewfinder is big and clear, rangefinder is exact and works fine. All in all built quality is much better than I expected. A bit shame about the lightmeter, I suppose it is not something I can hope to fix myself.

 

[aw614]

I have received my copy of L1 a few days ago, shot a roll of film through it and I must say, it does feel more solid than 7. I think it's all about the difference in the top plate. The rotating viewfinder on L1 is a real treat. The rotating shutter dial - not so much. Maybe someday I'll make my way to Canon VI.

I think you are right about the top plate difference...this might be a style thing for me, but I also think the film advance lever starting from the VI, P and 7, look a lot uglier than the one off the L1/VL models. Does your L1 still have a cloth shutter or a metal one? There are a lot of frankenstein models out there

The rotating shutter dial seems like one of those leftover barnack things as the bodies started to modernize in look.

I am curious about the Canon VI-L or VI-T, from reading the facebook groups and other places it has issues with the patch fading and apparently might be different from the one on the L1.

 

[M-88]

Does your L1 still have a cloth shutter or a metal one?

Sadly it does. Based on the serial number (550xxx), it seems to be pretty early in production, so I think it's safe to assume it always had a cloth shutter. Well, at least I know how to replace a cloth shutter when the time comes.

I am curious about the Canon VI-L or VI-T, from reading the facebook groups and other places it has issues with the patch fading and apparently might be different from the one on the L1.

One source (Cameraquest) states that L1 had a gold-plated rangefinder reflector, while VI and P models had them silver-plated instead, which deteriorates more easily than the gold one. I couldn't find a proof of this statement anywhere, but if that's true, it might explain why the rangefinder patch looks different on other models.

 

[aw614]

Sadly it does. Based on the serial number (550xxx), it seems to be pretty early in production, so I think it's safe to assume it always had a cloth shutter. Well, at least I know how to replace a cloth shutter when the time comes.


One source (Cameraquest) states that L1 had a gold-plated rangefinder reflector, while VI and P models had them silver-plated instead, which deteriorates more easily than the gold one. I couldn't find a proof of this statement anywhere, but if that's true, it might explain why the rangefinder patch looks different on other models.

My L1 is 552XXX and has a cloth shutter also, though my L2 with a 525XXX has a metal shutter on it. Which maybe one time in it's life in Japan had a cloth shutter.

I also had a VL for a bit that had a blueish tint to the patch and it was a lot like the L1 patch just blue and just as clear.

Reading Canon Historical Society, there are a lot of interesting models and combinations with the L1, L2, and L3.

 

[Sanug]

...mine suffers greatly: even at f/8, corners looked terrible.

I had the issue with my J-12, the corners looked bright and blurred. It was caused by light leaks of the big rear lens. The black paint of the lens sides get easily scratched when putting the lens on and off the camera. I repainted the lens sides with black matte blackboard paint and the corners of my images appear much, much better now.

Back to topic. I own a Canon 7s and I am very, very happy with it. Smooth mechanics, good viewfinder. A joy to use.

 

[M-88]

I had the issue with my J-12, the corners looked bright and blurred. It was caused by light leaks of the big rear lens. The black paint of the lens sides get easily scratched when putting the lens on and off the camera. I repainted the lens sides with black matte blackboard paint and the corners of my images appear much, much better now.

Since I live in a FSU country, Soviet cameras and equipment are pretty cheap. So I might get lucky and find a decent sample of J-12, I guess. Alternately, I could save up some money and buy a Canon 35 mm lens. Or instead - acquire something ludicrous, like Canon 50mm f/1.2. I'll get to it eventually, for now I'm still playing with L1 and familiarizing myself with it, trying to get more comfortable.

 

[Sanug]

The Canon lenses are very high quality and sharp. But they are expensive and often available from Japan only with according shipping cost and customs duty.

Beside these facts, Japan is a country with high humidity. Many lenses from Japan have blind inner glasses or fungus. I had a Canon 3.5/100 with a damaged inner lens. My attempt to clean it failed.

If you want to go for a Canon LTM lens, check before weather all inner lenses are clean and have no fungus.

Irreversibly damaged lens of Canon 3.5/100

Jupiter-12 with repainted back lens

 

[M-88]

The Canon lenses are very high quality and sharp. But they are expensive and often available from Japan only with according shipping cost and customs duty.

Beside these facts, Japan is a country with high humidity. Many lenses from Japan have blind inner glasses or fungus. I had a Canon 3.5/100 with a damaged inner lens. My attempt to clean it failed.

If you want to go for a Canon LTM lens, check before weather all inner lenses are clean and have no fungus.

Indeed, you are correct. I had a late model of 50/1.8 LTM some time ago - ordered it from Japan. It was cleaned before I bought it. Otherwise, I came across multiple samples with haze or fungus inside. Earlier versions, silver ones, seem to have less issues with this, but still, a fairly large number of those lenses suffer too.

My main issue with 35mm lenses is in what henryvk summed up nicely in Post #34 of this thread: there is no offering in terms of price tag between Jupiter-12 and German/Japanese LTM wide angle lenses. And while the latter cost substantially more, they don't offer an equal improvement in quality.

 

[Sanug]

Well, I am very happy with my Jupiter-12 after repainting. Jupiter-9 is a bargain, too.

Canon 7s, J-12, red filtre. Adox HR-50. Silver gelatine print.

Canon 7s with Jupiter-9.

 

[btaylor]

I went through a FSU phase, I sold everything eventually but kept the LTM Jupiter 9, my example is excellent. Never got a good example of the J9 in Contax mount.