Related Local Links:
Canonet FAQ [4/2001]
Contax T3 [3/2001]
Jupiter Lens Data (German) [7/2001]
Kiev 4 Pages [7/2001]
Koni Omega Medium Format Rangefinder Cameras
Lens Registration - Leica Vs. Konica [10/2002]
Mamiya Universal Rangefinder Cameras
Medium Format Rangefinders and Press Cameras
Rangefinder Adjustments (Konica S2 Auto..)
by Winfried Buechsenschuetz
Rangefinder FAQ
Rangefinder Lenses (Russian, Leica clone..)
Repairing Rangefinder Gaskets
by Winfried Buechsenschuetz
Repairing Stuck Canonet GIII Rangefinder Shutters
by E.J. Kowalski [1/2001]

Related Links:
12mm Heliar Test Shots [12/2000]
35mm M39 SLR Cameras (Nate Dayton) [6/2001]
Alfred's (Russian/Soviet) Camera Pages (lenses, cameras, manuals) [10/2002]
Bessa R Pages (Mike Elek) [1/2001]
Bessa Rangefinder Adjustment Tips [1/2001]
Bessa T - Economy M mount Rangefinder [3/2001]
Bessa T Review
Bulgarian Dealer List [7/2001]
Canonet pages (KYPHOTO)
Canonet QL17 III Pages (S. Gandy Cameraquest Pages)
Canonet QL17 Repair Notes Pages
Classic Rangefinder Repair Forum
Contax G1/G2 RF [11/2002]
Distance estimating device [8/2002]
Fed 5 Manual [1/2001]
Fed 5 Pages [1/2001]
Fed/Zorki info [3/2002]
Fujica Rangefinders [4/2001]
Heliar and Elmar compared (Erwin Puts site)
Konica Rangefinder Shutter Repair Adventure
by Kar Yan Mak [4/2001]
Kyle Cassidy's Canonet QL 17 Pages
Leicas for Leftys [1/2001]
Minolta Rangefinders [5/2001]
Nikon S3 Announcement (Japan)
Olympus Stylus Epic Review
Rangefinder Accuracy (Erwin Puts)
Rangefinder Envy Pages (QL17 Ultra Cool Pages)
Rangefinder focusing accuracy (Leica, Mr. Putts)
Rangefinder Focusing Tips (Kevin Kalsbeek)
Rangefinder Renaissance 35mm.. (Bob Shell, Beststuff.com) [8/2002]
Rangefinder Adjustments (Alfred's Camera Pages) [10/2002]
Rangefinder Site (Photos..) [1/2001]
Ricoh 21mm Rangefinder Fixed Lens Superwide Camera [10/2000]
Russian Fake Cameras (Alfred's Camera Pages) [10/2002]
Russian Leica Copies
Russian Lenses Table
Russian Rangefinder Lenses and Cameras (Japanese site) [1/2001]
Russian Rangefinder Pages (Manuals and articles)
[Fed1/zorki1, fed3, fed5, zorki5, zorki6, gost table, articles...]
Vito C Rangefinder
Voigtlander Bessa-L (Cameraquest)
Voigtlander Bessa-R (Cameraquest)
Voigtlander Pages
Werra RF [3/2002]
Yashica 35mm Rangefinder Models and Chronology [8/2002]
Yashica Rangefinder Pages (Cameraquest)
Yashica Rangefinder Pages (Yashica-guy) [5/2001]
Yashica Rangefinder Repair tips
Yashica RF List..
Yasuhara New RF TO12 Camera [10/2002]
Zenit Mfger Page [02/00]

Rangefinders come in many sizes, ages, and flavors, with differing features. Identifying a "best buy" rangefinder is a combination of conventional wisdom and experience about a particular model. But you have to do your homework and decide which features you need, and what level of quality you can afford and live with!

Compact Rangefinders

A recent review (circa 1/2000?) by Herbert Keppler, Senior VP for Popular Photography, recommended the compact and lightweight Olympus stylus epic (non-zoom) and a similar Yashica T4 for pocket cameras. At under half a pound in weight, yet with many electronic features, this Olympus camera sports a relatively fast and surprisingly sharp 35mm f/2.8 lens for circa $80-90 US (street price). The Yashica T4 is equally nice, but twice the price of the feature rich Olympus model.

The vast majority of rf/P&S; also-rans generally had poor quality optics or very slow lenses, mandating fast films and use of flash. Zoom lensed models seem to be poorer optically as well as really slow, mandating fast film use, and subject to more repair problems too. I find it a rather sad commentary on the state of current rangefinders and point and shoot cameras that only a few (2) out of a hundred+ models had optics as "fast" as f/2.8. By contrast, many of the larger older rangefinders sport lenses as fast as f/1.7 and even f/1.4 (e.g., Lynx).

The other compact cameras often recommended are the older Rollei 35S..35LED and autoexposure Minox 35GT.. series and Ricoh GR1, among others. These cameras are compact, with very well regarded optics, but they tend to command premium prices as many are considered collectibles (e.g., $250-350 US). Some models don't have metering built-in, and the controls are in sometimes odd places due to the small body size (e.g., on bottom). The lenses are generally excellent, slightly wide (40mm typically), relatively fast (f/2.8 to f/3.5) and sharp wide open.

Fixed Lens Rangefinders

I am a fan of the 50mm normal lens as the sharpest, fastest, lightest, and cheapest lens available in most lens lines. But most users today want a wider angle lens than the 50mm. So most recent rangefinders sport lenses ranging from 35mm (average) down to 30mm and even 28mm as their fixed lens offering. Unfortunately, lens speed tends to get traded off against such wide angle coverage. So while you can find 50mm f/1.7 and even 50mm f/1.4 fixed lens rangefinders inexpensively, you probably won't find any 30mm f/1.4 or even 28mm f/1.7 low cost rangefinders out there. Instead, these wide angle lenses tend to be more like f/2.8 or even f/3.5, if you are lucky. As Keppler noted in his reviews, the majority of today's rangefinder and point and shoot cameras sport lenses that are surprisingly slow (e.g., even f/5.6..).

The Konica Auto S2 (vs. S or S3) is often cited as a very good budget rangefinder with a relatively fast f/1.7 lens (slightly wide too, at around 40mm). The Canon Canonet QL 17 G-III is another relatively fast fixed lens rangefinder that gets high marks from users. Other Canonet models may be larger physically, or slower (e.g., Canonet G19 is f/1.9, QL 17 is f/1.7..), while QL indicates the quick film loading feature. Similar examples include the Olympus 35SP or 35RD and Minolta Hi-Matic 7S and 7S-II and later Hi-Matic 9 series. I also like some of the Fuji rangefinders, especially their Lynx models, one of which sports a fast f/1.4 lens of surprising quality.

Some of these camera models have auto-exposure options, often shutter priority, along with full manual controls. Surprisingly, these rangefinders often sell for under $75-100 US!

Medium Format Rangefinders

At the other end, you can find lots of fixed lens rangefinders from the past, including many bellows mount models that fold up compactly. Most of these oldie rangefinders had modest optics, and the ones with higher end optics by Zeiss and Schneider and other big-name makers typically command collectible camera prices. A few examples are still optical bargains, such as the Mamiya 6 folder rangefinder used a moving back focusing system with surprisingly good Zuiko (later Olympus) lens.

One of the alternatives to the collectible older Zeiss lensed rangefinders are the Soviet/Russian-Ukraine copies, such as the Moskva-5 rangefinder. While the finish is not as refined as the original Zeiss optic Super-Ikonta C, this camera is a remarkably compact 6x9cm rangefinder for under $100 US on the used market (versus $500-750 and up for the original Zeiss model).

Some older medium format rangefinders such as the Koni-Omega and Mamiya Press/Universal models are worth investigating too. These cameras often have removable backs in some models, permitting use of polaroid and various format backs (e.g., 6x7cm and 6x9cm on Mamiya Universal). The really delightful surprise is the surprisingly low cost leaf shutter lenses, such as the contrasty 58mm biogon wide angle lens design for the Koni-Omegas and similar offerings for the Mamiya press camera series. You may be able to pick up a camera, back, and standard lens for $200 US and up. Some models permit using ground glass backs and even limited back movements. But these cameras are unpopular largely because of their weight and ungainly shape, as well as orphan status (for repairs).

Kodak Ektar lenses were some of the sharpest lenses ever made, and the original lenses on the first Hasselblads were Ektars, among many others. The Kodak Medalist I and II cameras featured interchangeable lenses and a brick solid body with high quality construction rangefinder design. So why are these great cameras often sold for only $125-175 US? The short answer is that they use 620 film. Unless you know the secret of respooling common 120 film onto 620 spindles, you will probably prefer the bodies converted to 120 film. But this doubles or triples the cost of these rangefinder cameras.

Leica Rangefinder Clones

The last of the Soviet block Leica clones differed significantly from the Leica rangefinders, with features and innovations (some from the Contax II/III models) that may be of interest. The Fed 5C is the last and latest variant, and can readily be purchased from stock for $75-100 US with its built-in selenium cell lightmeter, fast wind lever, and other features. Russian optics can also be surprisingly decent, if you luck out and get a good example. However, quality control of both camera bodies and lenses was highly variable, so try to get a return warranty or other guarantee until you can properly test the camera and lens(es).

Leica Rangefinders

While collectors continue to snap up all manner of Leica items at often outrageous prices, you can still find some user condition Leica rangefinder bodies such as the M3 and later variants for prices from $500 and up. The conventional wisdom is that the M4-2 and related rangefinders are a current "best buy" if you don't need built-in metering, with clean models under $1,000 US. On the other hand, some Leica models have declined by 50% or more since the (largely Japanese) collecting frenzy of the late 1980s has waned.

Older Leica screw-thread lens mount rangefinders such as the IIIc models can also be found in user condition for circa $300-500 US and up. The older Leica lenses also can be found in user condition, making it possible to find such classic cameras for $500 US and up as a user (versus collectible ) camera. But be forewarned that using and even loading film into these cameras is an acquired taste and art! Don't forget to budget for a handheld meter too.

So if you have the cash available, you may want to consider buying a classical Leica rangefinder. If you are really name brand conscious, and likely to be unhappy because you haven't got the "real thing", then by all means "invest" in a Leica rangefinder. You will have plenty of company if you decide the money is well-spent. You will enjoy a relatively compact and classical rangefinder design of high mechanical and optical quality.

However, many of the budget rangefinders costing under $100 US cited here may well be easier to use, have more features like auto-exposure and built-in metering, and even offer extended flash synch speeds. Many of the later designed budget rangefinder lenses will also outperform the earlier Leitz/Leica lens designs in many technical parameters. And no 35mm lens, even by Leica, is likely to provide the tonality and enlargeability of even such modest cost medium format rangefinder lenses as those Kodak ektar lenses cited above, simply due to the advantages of the larger medium format negative.

Leica M6 and 50mm f/2 Summicron Versus Older Pentax M42 Spotmatic - Surprise!!!

The above quoted article by Popular Photography's Herbert Keppler raised an understandable storm of protest on the Leica mailing lists. I have generally given the superb Leica optics the benefit of the doubt, and suggested that they are perhaps 10-15% better (in resolution or aberration corrections) than their average SLR or rangefinder competitors, but at 200-300% higher costs. The Leica camera and lens mechanics may well be rather better, contributing to a finer quality feeling in using Leica cameras. If you are not doing a lot of prints at 16x24", you probably won't see major improvements over your current SLR or rangefinder despite large investments in Leica optics, based on the tests reported here. If you really need higher quality prints in 16x24" range, you should probably be shooting medium format anyway.

The lens test data below for a Leitz 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lens for the M series rangefinder may surprise some readers. This Leitz lens is clearly optimized for wide open shooting.  If you are buying a very expensive fast lens over the cheaper f/2 and f/3.5 normal lenses available, you might prefer for the wide open apertures to be optimized too! Note that this lens also has more "excellents" for edge resolution (5) than center resolution (3).  But the mid range aperture performance is rather less refined per these tests. A majority of 50mm normal lenses stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 would rate excellents in both center and edge in similar tests.

I grant you that lens resolution is not the sole criterion for lens selection, and undoubtably the Leitz lens has very good distortion and other characteristics. Still, you can find many modest lenses on lesser cost cameras that will perform better in the overall  center and edge resolution parameters than this Leitz optic. 

Modern Photography Lens Test data from 1972-75

The above two charts will offer little solace for those who are looking for an excuse to upgrade to Leica lenses. The two samples of the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar performed very well against the Leitz 50mm f/2 Summicron (for the Leitz SL2 SLR) in both center and edge resolution. You can readily see how Keppler's tests at f/8 on the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 optics was at the "sweet spot" of these fast lenses. My own pentax SMC 50mm lenses are also outstanding in both M42 and K-mount versions, despite less than $100 invested in both fast lenses. The classic 50mm f/3.5 Elmar from 1955 got blown away by the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 SLR lenses, especially in the edges. Ouch!

The Minolta Rokkor MC 50mm f/1.4 for classic Minolta SRT101 series also substantially outperformed the Leica 50mm f/2 at all but one of 16 tested stops. Again, I have often advocated the low cost Minolta SRT101 and MC/MD optics as a very low cost but high quality and high resolution lens line. A number of us believe that the bokeh of the Minolta optics is often very nice too. While the Modern Photography tests were of the 50mm f/2 Summicron for the Leitz SL2 SLR of mid-1970s vintage, Keppler's tests of the latest 50mm f/2 Summicron for M6 rangefinder suggest these older Pentax and Minolta 50mm f/1.4 lenses are still quite competitive against the slower Leitz lenses.

Source: Modern Photography, June 1985 (for Leica M6 with 50mm f/1.4 summilux) and April 1977 (for Minolta SRT202 and 50mm f/1.4)

Again, the above comparison of the 50mm f/1.4 Leica summilux (from 1985) with the rather older Minolta 50mm f/1.4 (MC for SRT from 1977) shows the Minolta lens on average has higher resolution both center and edge and higher edge contrast. In this 50mm f/1.4 lens comparison, it is remarkable how well an older Minolta lens holds up against the reknowned Leica 50mm f/1.4 summilux for the M6 rangefinder in both resolution and contrast.

You may also realize that the tradeoffs and corrections for a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens often result in the slower and easier to design and build 50mm lenses at f/1.8 and f/2 being even better corrected and sharper than their faster cousins? If you are using a slower f/1.7 or f/1.8 lens of the above lens lines, you may be enjoying even higher resolution factors. For example, it is generally believed that the slower f/1.8 and f/2 nikkor AIS lenses were often sharper than the faster f/1.4 and especially f/1.2 nikkors. So comparing a Leitz or Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron (new for M6 or old for SL2) against an older 50mm f/1.4 lens is prejudicial - but against the older but faster lenses and in favor of the high priced optics tested here.

Resolution is only one factor in choosing a lens, while other parameters such as distortion or bokeh or flare resistance may be very important criteria depending on your needs. But don't buy into high priced and heavily advertised optics of any 35mm brand and expect to do much better than these cheapy 50mm normal lenses on the classic Pentax and Minolta SLRs! The differences are much more subtle than that, and more like slight improvements in distortion in the corners wide open or better baffling to reduce off-axis flare. Similarly, don't be surprised if the rangefinders from the same 1970s period also perform amazingly well in resolution, even against the most costly lens lines.

Modern Photography Lens Test data from 1972-75

If you are using a decent quality rangefinder or 35mm SLR with good technique, chances are excellent that few folks could tell your photos from identical shots taken with a Leica at any print size below 16x24", as noted in the above article. Technique and factors like using the optimal "sweet spot" of the lens and high resolution films will have more influence on your final results than the lack of pricey Leica brand lenses compared to even older SLR lenses. So stop obsessing about the need to "compromise" on a budget SLR or rangefinder, and get out there and use it!

Voigtlander's rangefinder clone

Besides the Voigtlander rangefinder offering, Nikon has just announced its own limited edition high end S-3 rangefinder (for its much earlier classic collectible S rangefinder series). Other manufacturers including Canon have indicated an interest too. My guess is that a modest number of high end rangefinder models will now become available. Unfortunately, most of these rangefinders will not be in the budget rangefinder price range, and many will be instant collectibles due to limited production runs (e.g., Nikon S3). But the new lenses will provide a range of more competitively priced lenses for users of original Leicas and Leica clones alike.

Warning about Clones that aren't Exact Clones

The above article concludes with "Warning: When cross-dressing Leica M and Voigtlander M lenses and cameras, be careful. Some lenses may fit the mount but not slide properly into the interior of the camera."

Dante Stella's excellent lens registration article examines this issue for Konica Hexar RF and Leica M series bodies. I believe his explanation for the above discrepancies in poor focusing effects is reasonable. The Leica lens registration distance in practice is essentially identical to that of the Konica Hexar RF, with a small allowance (.05mm) for film buckling. This observation makes much more sense than the claims that Konica cloned the M-bayonet mount, but got the lens registration wrong. [Update 10/2002]

As we point out on our Leica Clones pages, you simply have to test your lenses to be sure they match your camera body(s), especially if you are using Russian or Ukrainian lenses (e.g., in LTM to M mount adapters). Shoot some critically focused shots wide open with a fine grain film, and compare with other known good lenses (for a resolution standard). If the new lens shows poor performance wide open, ask a lens repair technician to check it and your cameras for lens registration distance mismatches. A few shims or adjustments may yield a surprising and gratifying increase in performance.

This check is probably especially important with older screw mount and Russian or Ukrainian clone lenses, which may vary more in lens registration distances between sundry lens samples. Unfortunately, this "Babel" of lens registration distances means you can't assume that a lens hasn't already been adjusted for another camera model (e.g., M mount voigtlander, versus Konica RF, versus Leica M).

This discovery helps explain why some folks have gotten great results with some bargain or clone lenses, and others have gotten terrible results from the same optics. A 0.2mm or less difference in critical focusing position with fine grain film can cut lens resolution in half! So if wide open performance is less stellar than expected, consider having your lens(es) and camera checked for possible lens registration distance mismatches.

Budget Buys Under $100

You will be hard pressed to beat the optical quality, convenience, and features of the compact 35 rangefinders typified by the Konica Auto S2 and Canonet QL-17 GIII series. While these rangefinders are similar in size and weight to many compact and larger SLRs, they offer leaf shutter flash synch at any speed (up to 1/500th second) and more accurate focusing in poor light conditions (thanks to long baseline rangefinder designs).

If you really must have an interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinder with built-in metering for under $100 US, consider the Fed 5C. The Russian and Ukrainian optics can be quite good, if you get the right production sample.

In medium format, you can go with either the fixed lens Moskva-5 copy of the Super Ikonta-C, or the Kodak Medalist I or II with interchangeable lenses for slightly more than our $100 budget. If you have $200 or more to spare, you might find an original Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B/C (see posting below) or a budget Koni-Omega interchangeable lens rangefinder model with fixed backs (slightly more buys an interchangeable back model).

The postings below and related rangefinder FAQ and Leica Clones pages provide additional notes, links, and resources.

Canonet Rangefinder Notes

Be aware that there are at least two major variants of the most desirable models (QL 17 and QL 19) - not counting all-black cosmetic versions. The compact versions (usually labeled G-III) is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the full size models. Compact here means 4 3/4" x 3" x 2 3/8" and only 20 ounces.

The Canonet QL 17 G-III is usually the most recommended model, largely because of its surprisingly good Canon SE f/1.7 lens. That's 1.5 stops faster than the f/2.8 lenses found in today's fastest point and shoot or autofocus rangefinders. The f/1.7 lens is generally rated higher, perhaps because it is a 6 element lens versus 5 elements for the f/1.9 lens on the standard models? In case it isn't obvious, the number after the model references the maximum f/stop of the lens; QL 17 -> f/1.7, QL 19 -> f/1.9, QL 25 -> f/2.5, QL 28 -> f/2.8, and so on.

The compact QL 17 and QL 19 models (e.g., QL 17 G-III) have a wider 40mm lens, versus a 45mm lens on the non-compact models (QL 17). Here again, the slightly wider lens would be a plus for most general users (cf. 35mm focal length on most point and shoots today).

You can use these QL 17 or 19 model cameras in full manual mode, with the built-in CdS meter (with battery), or in full-automatic shutter priority mode. You select a shutter speed, and the camera sets the aperture automatically. Standard flashes can be used with the X-synch top shoe (or PC cable outlet on left side of camera) by setting aperture and distance on lens manually to match flash guide number. The Canonlite D flash has some automatic features to set correct aperture based on distance set on the lens.

The quick loading device (QL) is designed to reduce loading errors and speed loading film. More importantly, you can also tell that film is being moved or wound through indicators on the camera.

The viewfinder is surprisingly bright if you are used to slow zoom lenses on SLRs. Magnification is about 0.7x (estimated). The viewfinder shows the aperture selected on automatic mode (except E models, see notes below). Two arrows in viewfinder show when manual settings will be under or over-exposed. In automatic mode, you can't trip the shutter unless there is enough but not too much light to take a properly exposed photograph.

One nice feature of the full sized QL 17 and 19 models is their shutter speeds go down to 1 second, versus the 1/4th second for the compact models. If you need these slower speeds, you might want to consider the full sized models. But keep in mind you may be able to use a neutral density filter to permit manually timed longer exposures with the Bulb setting.

Among the few gotcha's of the compact QL series is the small 48mm filter ring will usually require a step-up filter ring (e.g., 48mm to 49mm, 48mm to 52mm). The #625 mercury battery is hard to find, but there are sources online, and they last a long time (3-5 years intermittent use).

The bottom line is that the Canonet QL 17 G-III represents a "best buy", often for $60-80 US on Ebay. Many dealers will ask $100-140+ US, so buy while these out-of-favor prices hold! You will have a relatively compact rangefinder with full flash synch (1/4th to 1/500th second) and a surprisingly good 40mm Canon lens that's 1.5 stops faster (at f/1.7) than even the fastest f/2.8 point and shoots! Moreover, you will have full automatic shutter priority and full manual setting capabilities.

• Canonet (general)
  • 1 second to 1/500th second plus Bulb Copal SV shutter
  • 45mm SE f/1.9 lens - 5 elements/4 groups
  • coupled rangefinder (3 feet to infinity)

• Canonet (pre-1962 model)
  • no shutter speed selector
  • no aperture scale in viewfinder

• Canonet (1962 on)
  • selenium cell meter

• Canonet S (1965)
  • 45mm f/1.7 lens - 6 elements/5 groups (51 degrees)
  • Cds meter

• Canonet QL (1965)
  • quick loading feature (QL)

• Canonet QL 17
  • ASA 25-800 range
  • focus range is 30 inches to infinity
  • the G-III is a compact version (see below)
  • 45mm SE f/1.7 six element/4 groups
  • M (flashbulb) or X synch at any speed selector (manual mode)

• Canonet QL 19
  • 45mm SE f/1.9 lens five element/4 groups
  • quick load feature (QL)
  • M (flashbulb) or X synch at any speed selector (manual mode)
  • see notes on compact version (below)

• Canonet QL 19E
  • similar to QL 19 but with only automatic electronic shutter
  • no aperture scale shown in viewfinder
  • red "idiot" light lights up to show out of range
  • no shutter speed or aperture manual settings
  • no time exposures
  • M (flashbulb) or X synch at any speed selector (manual mode)

• Canonet QL 25
  • fully automatic or manual setting modes
  • 45mm f/2.5 lens 5 element/4 group
  • quick loading film device
  • shutter speeds 1/15th to 1/500th second
  • no self-timer
  • M (flashbulb) or X synch at any speed selector (manual mode)

• Canonet Compact QL 17 and Compact QL 19 (1971)
  • similar to regular QL 17 and QL 19 models listed above but:
  • compact models usually identified with G-III (e.g., QL 17 G-III)
  • 4 3/4" x 3" x 2 3/8" (much smaller size)
  • 20 ounces
  • 1/4th second to 1/500th second shutter + bulb
  • X-synch for flash (canonlite D or other brands)
  • Canon SE 40mm lens (covering 55 degrees)

• Canonet Junior (1962)
  • simplified Canonet w/o built-in rangefinder
  • fully automatic shutter without aperture scale
  • set distance on lens, or landscape/group/portrait marks
  • Canon SE 40mm f/2.8 4 element/3 group lens
  • 1/30th to 1/250th second shutter plus Bulb
  • flash synch when at 1/30th, f/2.8-f/22 aperture range
  • no self-timer
  • 5 1/4" x 3 1/4" x 2 1/2"
  • 20 ounces

• Canonet 28 (1969)
  • electronic exposure (EE)
  • auto-selects aperture and shutter speed
  • flash cubes
  • no shutter speed selection
  • distance scale on lens
  • 40mm f/2.8 4 element/3 group lens

• Canonet Compact 28 (1971)
  • electronic exposure compact camera
  • CdS meter
  • programmed shutter
  • range f/2.8 at 1/30th to f/14.5 at 1/620th second
  • Canon SE 40mm f/2.8 lens
  • coupled rangefinder
  • viewfinder has parallax correction marks
  • Canonlite D flash
  • regular flash by manual aperture settings
  • 5 1/4" x 3 1/16" x 2 5/16"
  • 17 5/8ths ounces

• Miscellaneous
  • 48mm filters for compact models
  • 55mm filters for standard size models
  • accessories: (n)ever-ready case, flash gun
  • self-timer accessory for model 25
  • closeup lenses for closeup within 30 inches
  • lens hood - clamp-on, reverses over lens for compact storage
  • Mercury #625 battery used in model Canonet 17 and 19...

Source: Canonet Guide Focal Press 1979

Some Personal Notes...

Personally, I recommend that if you really need high quality images, that the easiest way to ensure getting them is to use medium format cameras, thanks to the larger film area. But whether rangefinder or SLR, most medium format gear is much larger and heavier than most 35mm SLRs or rangefinders. But if you can live with the Moskva-5 or original Zeiss Ikonta B/C, you might be surprised by the resulting quality images.

My personal style of photography involves a lot of closeup work, exotic wide angle and fisheye lens work, and some telephoto landscapes as well. So I prefer a small compact 35mm SLR such as the Pentax ME Super or Nikon FE for my style of photography. If you are into photojournalism or street photography, you may find the small size and quiet of an interchangeable lens rangefinder to be more ideal. But there are lots of budget rangefinders with surprisingly good optics and featuares out there for under $100 US, so why not try one out to see how you like rangefinders?

See the original source for more on lens testing techniques and standards. Here we are comparing two 35mm rangefinders by Yashica in the same Electro-35 series. The Electro 35 CC features a 35mm f/1.8 color yashinon DX lens, while the Electro 35 GT has the 45mm f/1.7 color yashinon DX lens. A quick look at the chart shows that these lenses are quite different. The 45mm f/1.7 has no ratings of "excellent" and only one "very good" rating in center resolution, while the 35mm f/1.8 has three ratings of "excellent" and "very good" respectively. Moreover, the 35mm has more "excellent" ratings in the edge (6) than the 45mm.

So which camera do you want? Do you shoot exclusively wide open in "available darkness"? If so, then you probably want the 45mm f/1.7. Surprise! While the 35mm lens turned in a great performance from f/2.8 onwards, the 45mm lens beat its "acceptable" only ratings by providing good and excellent resolution when used wide open. On the other hand, if you rarely shoot wide open, then the 35mm lens certainly looks very attractive, yes? Notice how both cameras share a surprisingly high number of "excellent" ratings in edge resolution. We might hope that a similar pattern would govern similar color Yashinon lenses.

See the article for more information on the lens tests and interpretation standards. The M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 had only 0.47% barrel distortion, versus under 1% pincushion distortion for the other two. The 40mm did have a surprisingly high 1.5 stops of light falloff, versus only 0.25 stops for the telephoto 90mm and 1.125 stops for the 28mm wide angle.

Selected Postings

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: "David S. Berger" dberger@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Leica IIIf

MLapla4120 wrote:

> Anybody know which lenses have leica thread mount/rangefinder coupling?
> Did Zeiss make any? So far I know about Canon, Nikon and now the
> new Voigtlander series.
> Thanks

A complete list would be rather long. From the top of my head:

Leitz - Germany: Lots of old ones, couple of recent ones
Zeiss - Germany: none post-war
Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) - Japan: Full line
Canon - Japan: Full line, early ones called Serenar
Minolta (Chiyoko) - Japan: Super Rokkor, Tele Rokkor, current 28mm
Schneider - Germany: Tele Xenar, Xenogon, others
Steinheil - Germany: a bunch
Komura - Japan: a bunch
Kyoei - Japan: Acall
Tanaka Kogaku - Japan: Tanar
Olympus - Japan: rare 40mm (only one?)
VoigtlSnder - Germany: old Nokton 50/1.5 (others?)
VoigtlSnder - Japan: new Cosina stuff
FED, Industar, Jupiter - Russian: lots and lots (Zeiss designs mostly)
Arco - Japan: Tele Colinar, others?
Schacht - Germany: Travenar, Travegon, others
Ricoh - Japan: lens from GR (is this so??)
Wollensak - US: Wartime, joint with Leitz NY
Soligor - Japan:
Adorama (other names) - Japan: couple of wide angles
Sun Optical - Japan: 90mm, 135mm, others?
Angenieux - France: certainly rare
Kilfitt - Germany: viso lenses
Taylor-Hobson - UK: 50mm (rare ?)

I'm sure there are many more.

cheers,

David

David S. Berger, Ph.D.
Department of Medicine/Cardiology Section

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Paul Chefurka chefurka@home.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica? (Differences?...)

rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>Hi Paul,
>
>I guess I don't find it surprising that a M series non-retrofocus wide
>angle lens, with fewer optical design constraints, would equal or
>outperform an SLR lens using more elements (higher flare, lower contrast)
>in a retrofocus design.

Actually, I believe most of the new Leica M wides are retrofocus designs. Certainly the 24, the new 28/2.0 and both 35's are.

As to lens elements, I checked and found the following (go to fixed-pitch font for the table):

        Lens             Elements   Groups
---------------------------------------------
21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH       9         7
20/2.8 Nikkor              12         9
24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH       7         5
24/2.8 Nikkor               9         9
28/2.8 Elmarit-M            8         7
28/2.8 Nikkor AIS           8         8
28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH     9         6
28/2.0 Nikkor AIS           9         8
35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH      9         5
35/1.4 Nikkor               9         7
35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH     7         5
35/2.0 Nikkor               6         5

Interestingly, the only Leica lenses that uses fewer elements than their Nikkor counterpart are the 21 and the 24. However in many cases the Leica lenses use fewer groups, which I assume means fewer air-glass interfaces. Also most of the Leica lenses incorporate aspheric elements, and according to Erwin Puts each aspheric element can be considered to replace two spherical ones as a rule of thumb. And to quote from his review of the 28/2.0 Summicron, "More lens elements can potentially improve performance, as more parameters can be controlled." If you can achieve the effect of more elements through the use of fewer aspherics, you should reap a benefit in terms of contrast among other things.

>While you may feel that the nikkor wide angles are rather poor, nikon's
>wide angles have historically been among the leaders in 35mm SLR wide
>angle lenses, at least prior to the rise of autofocus, with lots of
>optical firsts among SLR lens designs on wide angles to their credit.

I agree that Nikkor wides have been seminal designs. Their 35/2.0 and the 24/2.8 with its floating elements were revolutionary at the time of their introduction.

On the other hand, they have done very little R&D; on wide angle primes over the last 15 years. The current 20/2.8 was introduced in 1985, the 24/2.8 dates from 1967, the 24/2.0 from 1978, the 35/1.4 from 1970, the 35/2.0 from 1965 (albeit with a couple of upgrades), the 28/2.0 from 1971 and the 28/2.8 AIS from 1982.

In fact, the last time most of their wides could have been reworked was in 1982 when the AIS redesigns took place. The only new wide angle formulae that were introduced after that date were the 20/2.8 and of course the AF 28's (which were hardly upgrades). The remainder of the reworks after 1982 appear to have been the fitting of AF barrels.

In contrast, Leica's current M wide angle lenses were introduced as follows:

21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1997
24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1998
28/2.8 Elmarit-M        - 1993
28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 2000
35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH  - 1995
35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 1997

So, while the Nikkor designs were revolutionary when they were introduced, they have not been kept up to date, and have been decisively surpassed in all respects (including price) by Leica's current M lenses.

>a more interesting question is how well the new and much cheaper Cosina
>and other lenses are being received, and how well they perform versus the
>more pricey Leitz/Leica originals, in an apples to apples comparison.

Indeed. Cosina's new 28/1.9, the 35/1.7 Ultron, the 35/2.5, the 50/1.5 Nokton, the 25, the 15, the 12mm, the 75/2.5 and Konica's new 28, 50 and 90 have really put the cat among the pigeons. It sure in nice to see such a renaissance in rangefinder cameras and lenses.

>In the meantime, on my budget, I'm pretty happy to follow the 90/10
>rule; getting 90% of the quality for 10% of the cost ;-) ;-) grins bobm

And I OTOH am amazed that we can buy such state of the art devices as the current Leica lenses for such a pittance (when you consider what state-of-the-art costs in most other technological fields).

Paul Chefurka

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: Raymond Copley raycop@bigpond.com
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Bessa

Hullo Robert. Thanks for your swift reply. Congratulations on your site, it's a beauty which I have started to devour with an appetite. The review of the Bessa-R is the best I have read for a long time. Adeal Pty. Ltd., the Australian agents for Leica and Cosina, said they had been unable to get any backup information from Cosina and simply left me with a body, 3 lenses and the basic instruction manual - thin pickings for a review!

Here is something which you might like to pickup and amplify. Adeal's chief, Brian D'arcy, recently back from Photokina, said he had been told by the head of Leica optics that Leica lenses made 20 years ago were still ahead of the reproductive capabilities of current films and enlarging papers. On my estimation, it will be about 50 years before photographic materials catchup with the lenses NOW being made by Leica! In view of this disparity, it might make economic sense for Leica to slowdown on the costly research and development of new optics which cannot be fully exploited by users and with the savings cut prices which in turn would expand the market for their wonderful goodies. I recently made comparitive photographs using my 50mm F2 Sumicron made in 1955 and the latest version and couldn't detect any difference.

Another morsel from Brian which might provide interest for your viewers. Leica lenses manufactured in Canada are being sought after because of their exceptional optical quality. I have the Canadian 90mm F2 Sumicron and 135mm F2.8 Elmarit puchased in 1978 and they are positively superb.

Thank you again for the site addresses; I'll be making very regular visits. Happy New Year. Raymond Copley, Melbourne. raycop@bigpond.com

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: "Ken Iisaka" ken@iisaka.org
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bessa-T focusing accuracy

> >M3       - 62
> >M6 .85   - 59
> >>Bessa T - 58
> >Screwmnt - 58 (II b-f, III b-g)
> >Nikon SP - 58
> >M2       - 49
> >M4,M4-2  - 49
> >M6 .72   - 49
> >Hexar RF - 41
> >Screwmnt - 41 (II - IIa, III-IIIa
> >M6 .58   - 40
> >CLE      - 28
> >Bessa R  - 24
> >CL       - 18
>
> What about the M5?

The same as M2/4/6. .72x magnification, at 49mm effective base length.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001
From: imx imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] historians burden

Any Leica collector and/or historian would like to have all facts neatly arranged and ready to study.

The area of the production numbers and years of production of Leica products will however always be fragmentary and full of uncertainties, even when the collector books do suggest the contrary.

Let us face these very basic facts.

Leica has a thick book in folio format where you will find several entries on a line:

a date, two serial numbers, a lens or body identification and a code number.

As example:

17 december 1957, 1.000.000 to 1.003.000, elmarit 2.8/90, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This entry tells you that on this date the indicated serial namber range has been 'booked' for that lens. That is all! Every author of any Leica book in existence (except one) has interpreted these lines as meaning: "there have been produced 3000 elmarits, producton starting in december 1957".

In fact the correct interpretation is:

"On 17 december the factory has the intention to produce a batch of elmarit lenses and has reserved the indicated number range for that purpose and the engraving of front lens rings with the lens name and consecutive serial numbers may begin at any time."

It is a reasonable assumption that these rings have been produced. But there is no evidence what so ever in the factory records about production of lenses itself.

Several possibilities now pop up.

(A)The full range of numbers has been indeed produced, but not in one batch, but in several ones, stretching over a longer but unknown period, making it difficult to correlate the production years to the allocation years. A current case is the VE2.8/35-70. Number range has been allocated in 1998, but production is not yet finished.

(B)The full range of numbers has not been produced, but we do not know how many.

There is on the other hand fragmantary info about sold lenses (Verkaufsbncher). But if we find a gap in the serial numbers (and many can be found), what does that mean: not produced? not sold?, sold by other means? kept in the factory? Laney's books do use the sales figures as being identical to the production numbers, which is tricky.

Sartorius uses the allocation numbers as production numbers, although he sometimes mentions the allocation principle. But he uses the allocation dates as dates of production, which is tricky too.

A small French booklet does the only thing that can be done to find reliable info: he presents the lowest and highest number he has ever spotted. But even then he does not know if and how many gaps there are.

The real production figures not being available, there is a certain amount of uncertainty around all figures and dates that try to indentify dates and numbers of production. The documents that exist give valuable info for imaginative leaps of fantasy.

The 1,5/85 is a case: production numbers are allocated from 1943, but there are sales recorded in 1949. has this lens be on stock for 6 years? are there some lenses made at a later date?

I think we should get accustomed to the fact that the world is not so well ordered and neat as we hope. And some information we may never get to a satisfactory level of reliability! Leica history is a fascinating, but somewhat trivial pursuit. But if it is taken on, it should be done professionally according to the rules of the profession of industrial history.

Erwin

[Ed. Note: noteworthy in context of Leica build quality claims etc.]
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
From: kirk tuck kirktuck@kirktuck.com
Subject: RE: Definitive Hexar Leica Answer

Actually, Roger, the newest Summicrons are made of aluminum whereas the Konica uses heavier brass and aluminum construction. The Konica may have the advantage on build quality. The real battle ground would be the glass and I would still give Leica the benefit of the doubt there. Just posted the findings as there are alot of folks using Hexars, and I thought they should know.

Best, Kirk

P.S. We pros will shoot with just about anything we can get our hands on. As long as there's a red dot somewhere nearby :-)

Roger Beamon wrote:

> but not too bad if you factor
> in the build. The Summicron IS considerably better, and that is
> important to you pros, not?

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?


Several posters have suggested that the average (modal?) Leica user only 
owns one lens. I believe this, as similar studies of hasselblad optics 
show only a few lens per owner based on published lens sales, and over 
half the lenses sold are the normal lens alone. So I wouldn't be surprised 
to find out that very few leica owners have more than one lens. Here's the 
math and my sources: (see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mffaq.html)

the annual Leica M sales for 2000/1 shows 49.8 million euros on M system
sales (cameras and lenses), source:
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/19.pdf

M sales = 49.8 million euros = $44 mil US (http://www.xe.com/ucc/ 
converter euros to $, 88 cents per euro

12,000 sales M bodies (6,000 R) in 1999 Erwin pots
http://medfmt.8k.com/brondeath.html#1999

16% growth to 2000/1, so 1/6th, so add 2,000 M bodies for growth to 2000/1
12,000+2,000 = 14,000 M bodies  [growth stats in above pdf annual report]

price M6TTL.58 = $1,995 (B&H; Price) [www.bhphotovideo.com]
price M6TTL.72 = $2,695 (B&H; Price)

dealer markup on mailorder bodies is claimed to be 5-10%, so let us be 
conservative and just use $2k for average body cost with above prices;

14,000 M bodies (2000/1) * $2,000 body = $28 mil sales (worldwide) bodies

price 50mm f/2 Leica = $995 (B&H; price) (call it $1k) [dealer markup?]

14,000 M lenses * $1,000 = $14 mil sales (worldwide) for leica lens, one 
per body sold, cheapest leica standard lens

total for sales of 14,000 bodies each with 50mm f/2 lens = $28 mil + $14 
mil = $42 mil for M6 body plus one lens

total sales for all M items, including lenses and accessories and bodies
= $44 mil (49.8 mil euros).

amount left to buy more lenses = $2 mil
if lenses cost $2,000 each, only 1,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.07 
lens/kit)
if lenses cost $1,000 each, only 2,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.14 
lenses/kit)

Even if we allow for some pretty large dealer markups on the lenses and 
bodies (and the claim is only 5-10% on mailorder on bodies and lenses)
we still are forced to conclude that there isn't much room here for sales 
of Leica lenses to be much over 1.2 lenses per average leica owner.

I am forced to conclude that the posters who claimed that the average 
leica owner had only the standard 50mm f/2 on the average were probably 
more correct than I thought. Naturally, I am not counting voigt-sina or 
konica or fed/zorki and clone lenses or remounted LTM and so on here. 

Does anyone have any lens production sales statistics which can help us 
understand just how many lenses leica owners on average have got? I hear a 
lot about those nifty 35mm f/1.4 and other optics, but it doesn't look 
like every Leica owner has run out and bought one ;-) Does anyone have 
figures on the average lens ownership by leica owners? Or if the above is 
wrong, can someone explain how and why, citing their sources?

thanks for the stats and info in advance!

bobm


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: nathandayton@netscape.net
Subject: Soviet lenses resoloution

Lens          Middle      Edge
Vega 11y      70          40
Industar 50y  60          20
Industar 96y  60          24
Industar 90y  50          25
Industar 23y  50          13
Industar 100y 70          35 another document says 40

I also found a document that says the Volna 9 has a resolution of 47 middle and
30 edge and a second that says 42 middle and 30 edge.

I can find nothing on the Helios 103 1.8/53 for Kiev rangfinders.

Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com
--

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: "Per Backman" pbackman@algonet.se
Subject: Re: Soviet lenses resoloution

nathandayton@netscape.net wrote:

>Lens          Middle      Edge
>Vega 11y      70          40
I found 65/35 at 5X enlargement.
>Industar 50y  60          20
>Industar 96y  60          24
>Industar 90y  50          25
>Industar 23y  50          13
>Industar 100y 70          35 another document says 40

Vega 29u (50/2,8), has a resolution power of 75 l/mm in the center and 60 
l/mm at the edge

>I also found a document that says the Volna 9 has a resolution of 47 middle
and 30 edge and a second that says 42 middle and 30 edge.

The factory specs say "not less than 42 in the center and 30 at the edge" at
infinity (at 24cm it is 42/20). This is by fully open aperture, in practice you
would not use it as the depth of field is to small.

It seems to have been a policy to set the specs so low, that no complaints
could be expected.

>I can find nothing on the Helios 103 1.8/53 for Kiev rangfinders.
Helios 103 53/1,8 has a resolution power of 55 l/mm in the center and 28 
l/mm at the edge.

Per


From: "Tony Polson (the one and only)" tp@nospam.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: NEW LEICA M7.  The verdict.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002


Shout it from the rooftops:

The Leica M7 is *real*.

The Leica M7 is *here*.

The Leica M7 is *beautiful*.

The Leica M7 offers *real value for money*.

ACCEPT NO IMITATIONS!!!!



OK, now for some facts.

I handled the M7 today at the UK exhibition "Focus on imaging".  I had
about 10 minutes with the camera and loved it enough to order one.
It's basically an M6 TTL with added aperture priority AE and an
electronically controlled shutter offering some interesting
possibilities for flash synch at higher shutter speeds than the usual
1/50 sec.

Body dimensions are identical to the M6 TTL.  The shutter is still a
horizontal travel cloth focal plane shutter but is now electronically
controlled.  Shutter speeds top out at 1/1000 as with the M6 TTL, but
the only non-battery dependent speeds available on the M7 are 1/60 and
1/125 sec.

The body has a new shutter release locking collar which also turns
on/off power to the light meter and AE system.  The shutter speed dial
has an additional click setting "AUTO" but is otherwise similar to the
M6.

DX film speed coding is added but there is full manual over-ride.

Fastest flash X-synch speed remains at 1/50 sec., but a special Metz
SCA 34xx adaptor allows flash synch at speeds between 1/250 and 1/1000
sec including first and second curtain synch.

Now hear this:  In the UK, the M6 TTL lists at GBP 1698.00 including
17.5% sales tax (VAT, about 15% of the selling price).

**The M7 is only GBP 100.00 more.**

I think this represents excellent value for money.  The M6 TTL will
continue in the Leica range for the forseeable future because it
offers a full range of mechanically controlled shutter speeds.


The M7 will be available from March in the usual chrome and black
finishes and with 0.72X, 0.85X and 0.58X magnification viewfinders.
The M7 black 0.72X will come first, followed by the M7 0.72X chrome.
The other viewfinder magnifications will come later.  I was told to
expect my M7 black 0.58X in May 2002.

My thanks to Peter Antoniou of Leica UK for the opportunity to handle
this camera and discuss its specifications in detail.

Leica have a winner on their hands in the M&, no doubt about it.
--
Regards, Jan



[Ed. note: I'm not sure about the cause, but I think it is a good idea to have
RF bodies checked, and your lenses, to ensure proper registration, esp. with older
bodies and lenses, or lenses in adapters...]

From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: "dante@umich.edu" dante@umich.edu
Subject: Film register problems for everyone?!

I was discussing the issue of film-flange register with a certain repair
wizard who lives up on a mountain. The question was how you would check
film-flange register on a given camera/lens combination. The conversation
started with my idea of having my Hexar RF tested against a selection of
lenses and concluded with my wondering if it was my M3 instead that needed
to be checked.

First, besides telling me that as a real world test it is impossible to do
because the film starts to bow inward after a minute (relative humidity
changing); he also shared this interesting insight: Leica late LTM (IIIc and
on) and M bodies contract over time, enough to cause the body focus to
change. This is the same principle which makes boring out old engine blocks
more attractive than using new ones; the cylinders keep their shape. If I
recall, he called it "seasoning" of the alloy.

To be fair, this isn't just Leica, but anything with a diecast chassis (ever
wonder why old SLRs sometimes focus a hair past infinity?). Leitz perceived
this to be such a problem in the screwmount era that it advertised that they
were made of metal stampings to improve precision and stability. Then they
started die-casting and the party line became that die-casting was better
(in reality, die-casting allows smaller tolerances but apparently does
nothing to promote stability).

Second, register problems do not manifest themselves with lenses like the
Summilux 75 close-up, but rather with fast, wide lenses at infinity. Wide
lenses have very little focus travel at the longer distances, and if there
is a register problem (like body focus being too long), the lens will fall
well short of focusing at infinity or focus well past it. This would tend to
suggest that a lot of the people with troublesome Summilux 75s and Leica M6s
close up are having rangefinder or lens problems, not register problems.
Having used a 21/2.8 both on my M3 and my Hexar, both seem to be fine at
f/2.8 at infinity at 50x. My interlocutor said that that fact suggested that
it was unnecessary to test either camera.

My personal conclusion from this is that is that a lot of old M cameras
probably have less than ideal body focus and that the modern Ms (of whatever
brand) are heading that way. It also makes me think twice about all of this
(probably manufactured) argument about the Hexar RF's register distance
being slightly longer, (1) because most people who have complained about
focusing problems have complained about long lenses not focusing
(=rangefinder alignment); (2) because the Leica frame of reference on any
camera before the M6 (1985) is a moving (contracting) target; and (3) given
the nominal dimensions of the Hexar FFR (28.00 +/- 0.03mm) vs. the Leica M
(27.95 +/- 0.01), it seems just as likely that after 10 years, a Hexar RF
could have a FFR closer to Leica spec than a Leica does.

I suspect that the Hexar RF is now mfd to the same FFR as the Leica (27.95
to the inner rails). because it seems that everyone who has had real
register problems has had a low-S/N Hexar. Even then, the majority of
complaints I have seen have centered around focusing long and/or fast normal
lenses.  I surmise that Konica figured out the problem fairly early on.

The solution to all of this seems to be checking body focus (on any camera)
every 10 years or so.

Strange.
------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com



[Ed. note: the latest Popular Photography has a blurb on the lens registration distances
between Leica M and the various Bessa... clone lenses - there are some differences which
need to be considered and taken into account by adjustment of some lenses or bodies...]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article

 Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at peterk@avaya.com wrote:

> BTW, you do not point out the 1.2 mm difference in the film to lens
> distances for Leica v. Konica.
> Your comments on that on this list were proven true in this month's Pop
> Photo where they measures the distance on the Hexar, Leica-M, and
> Voigtlander.  The Hexar RF was the only one of the 3 that was out by 1.2mm
> which would make for an out of focus picture if you were using a Leica 50mm
> or longer focal length (or so it was said). Wide angles the difference does
> not easily produce soft focus especially when stopped down.
> Why on earth would Konica built a better M6 (or even an M7) and shot
> themselves with this small difference?
> Peter K
>


That article wasn't the place to go into that.

Yes, it was gratifying to see Pop confirm what I already knew to be true.
But I had my Hexar adjusted and it produces great photos with Leica lenses
now.

Bob


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002
From: "Dave" SaalsD@cni-usa.com
Subject: More lens tests

Well, I have gone and done it.  The test of what I think are the finest of
the mf Minolta lenses against the test of Leica R systems lenses  of similar
focal lengths.  First off let me say that there were a few surprizes in my
results and the tests were repeated to eliminate human error as best as
possible.  I have not tested all the lenses in their systems, only the ones
I personally own or could borrow.  All the lenses tested have perfect
unmarked lens elements with no scratches, cleaning marks ( which is the ebay
term for scratches) ;-) fog, haze or fungus.  All lenses were very carefully
cleaned prior to test and all lenses had lens hoods mounted during the
shooting.

  The lenses tested are as follows:

35mm MC W. Rokkor f/1.8
35mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8
50mm MC Rokkor-X f/1.4 late version
50mm Leitz Summicron-R f/2 last version
60mm Leitz Elmarit-R Macro f/2.8
85mm MC Rokkor f/1.7 with chrome aperture ring
90mm Leitz Summicron f/2 late version
90mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
135mm MD Rokkor-X f/2.8 4 element version with rubber grip and all metal
construction
135mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
180mm Leitz APO Telyt-R f/3.4

First in the 35 mm catagory.  No contest, Leitz wins at all f stops

In the 50mm catagory.  Minolta MC Rokkor-X wins very handily.  In all
apertures, the Rokkor beat the Leitz lens hands down.  This was a very big
surprize for me.  The Leitz Summicron 50 is a very respected lens and rates
a very high number from Photodo. This MC Rokkor is a real winner!  Hats off
to the Mind of Minolta.  I tested the 60mm Leitz Elmarit-R just for fun and
it was an incredible lens beating even the Minolta MC 50 at comparible
apertures.  Even wide open at f/2.8 it beat the MC Rokkor-X at f/2.8.  But
you have have to compare them at 50x magnification to really see the
difference.  At 10x you cannot tell the story.

In the 85 and 90 catagory.  Number one in performance is the Leitz 90mm
Elmarit-R with a close second to the Leitz Summicron 90mm.  Minolta had a
third place showing here with the MC-Rokkor f/1.7.  The Leitz 90mm Elmarit-R
is a fantastic lens and not a surprize here that it beat all comers.

In the 135mm catagory.  Here another surprize for me.  The Leitz 135mm
Elmarit-R late version beat my favorite 135mm Minolta MD-Rokkor-X but only
wide open and f/4.  By f/5.6 the MC Rokkor almost caught up and only at 100x
magnification could you see any real difference.  The Leitz 135 was much
sharper than I had imagined and it had a warmer color cast as well.  Bokeh
with the Leitz 135mm is superb but that sucker is heavy and not one I would
like to lug around too much or too far.  The MD Rokkor-X 4 element  is still
a very sweet lens and still one of my favorites.

Again for fun, I shot the Leitz 180mm APO Telyt-R f/3.4 and have to say it
lives up to it's reputation.  This lens was designed and built in the ELC
plant in Canada for the US Navy as a special recon lens and it is amazing.
It is very sharp wide open and doesn't show any appreciable improvement with
stopping down.  I have not yet shot the MC Rokkor 200mm f/3.5 lens against
it but when I do, I will let you know.

In conclusion, the Minolta lenses faired very well against what is
considered to be the best in the world.  In one case, the 50mm, it even won.
I would love to test the new Leitz 50mm Summilux f/1.4 which is supposed to
easily win against the Summicron but I don't have a spare $2000 in my
pocket.  Which brings up my whole point of this comparison.  There is no
better value in camera lenses than the superb Minolta lenses.  They perform
along with the best at prices that are unbeatable.  Minota owners hold your
heads high when that Nikon or Canon owner looks at your equipment with
disdain.  We know better.

Dave Saalsaa



From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier jbcollier@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Take your M2 and one of your M6TTLs and try the following. Look thought
the center of the finder, as you normally do, and then slowly let your
eye go off-center to one side. The M2's super-imposed image will shift
slightly, grow dim and finally go white starting at one edge. This
requires a good deal of movement by the eye relative to the finder so in
practice you do not notice it. The M6TTL's super-imposed will shift
slightly, dim and go white all at the same time. It takes very little
eye movement for this to happen so you notice it frequently.

It really annoyed the h*** out of me at first but I have become used to
it now. When it happens I just center my eye again and it disappears. It
is all second nature now such that I do not even notice it happening.
There is another finder flare that is induced by a strong oblique light
hitting the viewfinder. This causes the finder patch to white out and
eye centering will not get it to reappear. All M cameras suffer from
this equally.

The M7 with its coated windows is better than the M6TTL but not as good
as the M2. It is a good compromise though and, if Leica does not soon
announce its long awaited fix for the finder flare, I will get the M7
windows fitted to my two M6TTLs.

John Collier

Steve LeHuray wrote:

> I have been wondering about the dreaded M flare for several years now,
> wondering because flare has never occured with any of my Ms (2 M2s, M3, 2
> M6TTLs). Many others have also have no flare problems. Could it have
> something to do with the difference in peoples eyes? Could it be there is a
> correct and incorrect way to look through the viewfinder?






From: ejkowalski@aol.com (Ejkowalski)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Date: 30 Dec 2000

Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?



>Subject: Re: Canonet - poor man's Leica?
>From: "Ken Rosenbaum" kenrosenbaum@accesstoledo.com
>Date: 12/29/00 
>There's a reference here to stuck shutters on the GIII rangefinder. I have
>one in absolute mint cosmetic shape with a stuck shutter. Who fixes these
>things reasonably?
>Ken




Here's a procedure I posted to a Newsgroup subscriber some time ago (and I
quote myself):



"This shortcut has been successful with every GIII I've subjected to it.
Going in through the front of a GIII is difficult because of all the
delicate stuff packed into the lens barrel. I take a backdoor approach.



Looking in from the film chamber to the inside back of the lens barrel,
there are three retainer rings; the outermost looks a bit different and
holds the entire lens barrel in place. The innermost holds only the
rearmost glass element. The middle one holds the entire rear lens group.
This is the one to extract. Sometimes it's easier done with good pinhead
pliers rather than a spanner wrench because there ain't much clearance.
You need to have a good grip on the front of the lens barrel with your
left hand while working the tool with your right, you never want the tool
to slip from the notches. 


When the lens group is correctly removed, the shutter leaves are exposed.
If you set the aperture to f 22, the next glass element will be somewhat
protected from the cleaning procedure. 


Be careful to put the very minimum of pressure on the shutter leaves; if
they are dislodged from their little posts, it's very bad news. For
cleaning I use a little lighter fluid (Ronsonal) because it dissolves the
grease and gum but tends to evaporate without residue. Apply carefully; if
it gets on the light seals in the doorway, it could damage them; if too
much gets into the focusing threads, it will loosen them; and you don't
want any up in the viewer or rangefinder. Best to let it drain forward and
down. Applying a few drops to the shutter, work it at various speeds to
let it get into the pivots. If you're very careful, you can soak some
dirty fluid up with len tissue. 


When you think you have fast speeds, set it down for a few hours to dry,
protecting the open back from dust, and come back to it.



Try it at 1/500 while watching the blades. If it didn't work, you can
clean it again, and walk away from it again. 


Let it sit overnight. If fixed, open it up to f 1.7, set it at B, and
check to see if the backside of the front elements needs any cleanup by
looking through at your desklamp from both sides. Then make sure the front
of your rear lens element is clean with breath fog and lens cloth before
reinstalling. 


Make sure you don't crossthread the retainer ring. It should catch the
thread and turn easy for a while. Turn it until it stops, then snug it a
bit without undue force. 


Beats a complete teardown if one is not needed.



Good luck."


EJKowalski


[Ed. note: the following may prove interesting data for Bessa fans!]

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000

From: "S. Gordon" sgsg@iname.com

To: rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu

Subject: Re: Cosina lenses

	

> re: Cosina as mediocre
>
> kind of hard to tell; Cosina has made lenses for Tokina, Nikon, Olympus,
> Ricoh, Canon, Yashica and even cameras - both SLRs and rangefinders/lenses
> - the editor of the #3 USA photo mag says "Cosina makes very good optics."
> see related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/mfg.html


	

Hi Bob,

	

I saw this message of yours in rec.photo.equipment.35mm and I thought
I'd mention that the 18 November 2000 issue of Britain's AMATEUR
PHOTOGRAPHER magazine had a very positive review of Voigtlander's
75/f2.5 manual focus lens. This lens initially came out a year or two
ago for its Bessa cameras (in the venerable Leica screwmount), and the
review is for the lens now available in manual SLR lens mounts for Canon
FD, Nikon AI-S, Minolta MD, Olympus OM, M-42 and Yashica CY-MM. It's
list price is #299, around USA $450 list. (The lens in Bessa RF-mount
sells in the USA for $450.)

	

I spoke to a Voigtlander rep at the Photo Expo in NYC several weeks ago,
and the U.S. importers are not sure whether there's enough demand in the
US for them to import the lens, so for now anyone in the US interested
in the lens will have to buy mailorder from Europe. (My guess is that if
they do import the lens, to maximize sales, it will only be in the Nikon
and Olympus mounts, since those are the only mounts in which cameras are
still being built.)

	

According to the review's summary charts, the lens ranked in the top 25%
of all lenses tested by the magazine for resolution. The lens showed the
following tested lines per millemeter resolution for HIGH CONTRAST
images at the center and edge:


	
f-stop          Center          Edge

f/2.5            81                     71
f/2.8            90                     80
f/4             110                    100
f/5.6           118                    118
f/8             120                    120
f/11            118                    118
f/16             98                     98


	

The lens showed the following tested lines per millemeter resolution for
LOW CONTRAST images at the center and edge:

	

f-stop          Center          Edge

f/2.5           60                      50
f/2.8           65                      58
f/4             80                      70
f/5.6           90                      89
f/8             90                      90
f/11            90                      90
f/16            88                      87


	

For some reason the ratings don't go beyond f/16 even though the lens
stops down to f/22.

	

One of the two reviewers, Joel Lacey, admits in his part of the review
that 75mm is a natural portrait length, but says that the lens is so
sharp (he uses the term "mercilessly unforgiving full resolving power")
that he urges caution in using it for that purpose, and then says this
explains the absence of portrait shots in the test.

	

But Lacey is apparently not all that familiar with manual focus lenses:
he starts off saying that he "thought the resistance of the focusing
ring was stiff until it dawned on me that this is how manual focusing
lenses were before we got used to AF dual-purpose lenses. Given the
degree of accuracy required in focusing a 75mm f/2.5 lens at full
aperture, this stiffness is a real boon...." They let this guy do the
review?

	

Given that the final rating for the handling of the lens is 24/30 (see
below) it seems that the lens might have been compared to the prejudiced
preferences of reviewers more familiar with an AF lens. So, despite the
positive review, perhaps the rating ought to be higher.

	

Here are some quotes from the review:

	
     The new Voigtlander Color Heliar is a very up-to-date
     computation, lacking only the currently fashionable
     composite sandwich in its optical makeup.... The optical
     train is made up of six elements, a pair of which are
     cemented making up an objective of five groups

     How good is this new Voigtlander lens? It is all but free
     of linear distortion and its colour rendering is
     effectively neutral. Its image contrast characteristics
     would match the expectations of even a professional fashion
     photographer. An even larger group will be attracted by its
     compact size and weight. Its length on camera is a hair
     longer than 40mm and its diameter is 53.6mm. When you focus
     to its near point of 0.7mm, its 50.6mm length is still less
     than its diameter. On top of this (in spite of its
     traditional body construction) its weight is only 239g.

     I have only one gripe... the lens hood with its unique
    location-locking bayonet is supplied as an extra -- and at
     #50 it's a very substantial extra. I admit that I was able
     to deliberately establish flare only within a limited set
     of circumstances, but the otherwise crisp, bright imaging
     made it quite startling as it blinked into view.

     HANDLING -- I've had the opportunity of using most of the
     Voigtlander lenses for Leica L-39 mount rangefinders since
     the Bessa-L camera was launched. Without exception, they
     have proven their quality on the laboratory bench and in
     the field. For this test the lens was fitted to a
     colleague's AI-S mount Nikon FM2 and seemed perfectly at
     home with its gun metal lens hood and 'wrong way around'
     focusing.... There was not a sniff of vignetting, either in
     the FM2's bright viewfinder or on the final slides.
     Contrast is punchy, with bright and natural colors.
     Defocused highlights have a very pleasing look thanks to
     the smoothness of the iris diaphragm's overlapping nine
     blades. Flare is not an issue with non-axial light, as the
     lens has an accessory hood that really sets off both the
     look and the optical performance of the lens. Even with
     backlit subjects, flare control is super.

     ###

     AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER VERDICT

     This latest lens marks a new aspect of Voigtlander's bid
     for world domination. Not content with ruffling Leica's
     feathers by marketing exceptional and very affordable
     lenses, the firm is now attacking the vintage SLR market.
     Is it a serious assault? Well, all in all, the 75mm f/2.5
     handles like a dream and produces absolutely cracking
     results. The impeccable record for Voigtlander continues.


     OPTICAL QUALITY: 27/30
     HANDLING: 24/30
     BUILD QUALITY: 19/20
     VALUE FOR MONEY: 17/20

     AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHY TEST SCORE: 87%


	


From Rangefinder Mailing List;

Date: Wed,  6-Dec-2000
 
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz w-buechsenschuetz@gmx.de

Subject: RE: Konica Auto S2 rf adjustment



I do not know that camera in detail, but removing the top cover works
almost the same way with all those rangefinders.



1. Remove the advance lever. If it is held by a screw with two tiny
holes in its head, try to move them with pliers with sharp-edge blades
(there are some types of pliers with conical pins). Turn it
counter-clockwise. If there is only a ring around the shutter release
(like the Canonet QL17), try to move it with pliers with
leather-protected blades, or turn it by pressing a metal or wooden tube
covered with some rubber on the ring.



2. If there are no other screws holding the top to the body, it is
probably held by a ring nut around the advance lever axis, and by screws
underneath the rewind crank. Sometimes, there is a ring nut around the
rewind crank axis, too. To remove the rewind crank, in most cases, just
block the fork inside and turn it counter-clockwise, even if there is a
screw head inside the rewind crank (this holds just the leaf spring). In
a few cases, however, you will have to loosen that screw under the crank
lever.



3. Remove any other screws holding the top cover to the body (usually 3
pcs.).



4. Gently lift the top cover. There may be some wires leading to the PC
and/or hot shoe. If necessary, solder them off.



It is really no problem if you tinker around a bit and look where there
might be screws or ring nuts holding the cover.



Winfried





See Related postings on postings and comments pages
(but note 800KB+ size, split here to speed downloading of this file...)




End of Page