New Canon 7P with 50mm 1.8 !

Over the weekend I picked up a rare black Canon P and Canon 50mm 1.8 combo (and lens cap). Body is in excellent condition easily 7.5/10. Shutter is moderately wrinkled, but seems to fire correctly at all speeds. Lens is in great condition 8/10. No haze, fungus, scratches, or blade oil, and appears very very clear.

I found it locally and thought I paid a more than fair price. After purchase research indicated I am very luck to have found a black body at the price I paid. It feels great in the hand, and I love the bright 100% viewfinder with frame lines. Rangefinder lines are bright and distinct.

This will go nicely with the rest of my LTM collection; IIIc Collapsible Sumar / Fed IIc Ind 55mm / Zorki 3m J8. Now to acquire more LTM glass !

Looks like I need to take some photos this spring. Lucky me !

Should be exactly the same. If it's a Leica screw-mount lens it should work/mount/collapse on any camera without disturbing the shutter curtains. There are no screw mount rangefinder cameras made by Leica or Canon with meter arms to foul, or TTL metering systems with light paths to block.

That's a beautiful Canon P. I remember, long ago, purchasing an exquisite chrome copy of the P with an equally beautiful, black 35mm f1.8 Nikkor. I don't remember the price other than I know if wasn't more than $500 and that's one of a few classics that have passed through my hands that I truly regret selling because I had to have something else at that moment in time.

pretty!

For inexpensive LTM lenses don't overlook the Soviet lenses. I compared them to real Canon LTM lenses and found them very fine. They would. at the very least, give you some fine shooters while you are accumulating for the pricier "real thing".

I'm kind of a purist on these things, but if the cyrillic inscriptions bother you, there's always India ink;)

I’m looking to buy a P and while investigating came across this site: Canon P - my favorite Japanese rangefinder - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB

And Canon P - my favorite Japanese rangefinder - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB the person states that using collabsible lenses is bad on the P because they can damage the inside.

With Soviet lenses be careful. QC was not the best. I have two Soviet lenses: An Industar 26m 5cm f/2.8 & an Industar-61 L/D 55mm f/2.8. Both were in terrible shape when I got them. The 26M would not focus as it was all gummed up. The 61 L/D likewise was gummy and the RF coupling was off.

I sent both to Don Goldberg and he fixed them. They now are dead on and smooth as butter. Not cheap to repair but I was looking for Tessar type lenses at the time. Good luck!

I have an old Leica Elmar and recently bought a Canon IV although I wasn't sure if the film to flange distance was the same. Also will the Canon body allow you to collapse a Leica lens? Thanks for any info.

The Canon rangefinders' registration distance is the same as the Leicas, so you shouldn't have any problem with LTM lenses, except for one or two oddballs perhaps.

With Soviet lenses be careful. QC was not the best. I have two Soviet lenses: An Industar 26m 5cm f/2.8 & an Industar-61 L/D 55mm f/2.8. Both were in terrible shape when I got them. The 26M would not focus as it was all gummed up. The 61 L/D likewise was gummy and the RF coupling was off.

Of course, the condition of heavily used lenses is not a measure of QC in production.

As it happens, I have a number of different Soviet-made lenses, and they are as good as Canon and other non-Soviet lenses.

This meme about poor quality control in Soviet production is just that. Everybody says it, but nobody produces real-world examples.

Anecdotes won't do. I got a battered Canon FDn lens that was in terrible shape. Obviously the fault of Canon's production?

Of course, the condition of heavily used lenses is not a measure of QC in production.

As it happens, I have a number of different Soviet-made lenses, and they are as good as Canon and other non-Soviet lenses.

 

This meme about poor quality control in Soviet production is just that. Everybody says it, but nobody produces real-world examples.

 

Anecdotes won't do. I got a battered Canon FDn lens that was in terrible shape. Obviously the fault of Canon's production?

I really have to jump in here to respectfully disagree.

From personal experience over the past 20 years, I can only urge caution when considering purchase of a FSU lens in leica mount.

1) Jupiter 8's are usually OK and sometimes very good. A lot of (soft) aluminum was used in their construction and considerable wear is a common problem. Unless the J8 is priced as a real bargain, go for a Canon, or Canon Serenar 50mm f1.8. An appropriate price for a J* is one half that of a Canon lens.

2) Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 9 lenses are an absolute crapshoot. My own experience with four J3's is a 25% success rate in getting a lens that was useable on a Barnack Leica.

The other three required shimming, by an expert (not me) to make them useable. I just sent the offending J9's back to the Soviets; one useable one out of three.

3) The Jupiter 12's I have all be good on receipt; some of this may be the forgiving DOF characteristics of a short lens. The J-12's make useful WA enlarging lenses.

4) Most of the FSU 50mm Elmar 50mm/3.5 lenses I've accumulated (a dozen now) have been OK shooter but not as sharp as any coated Elmar to which I've compared them. OK lens is your prints don't exceed 8x10.

Gentlemen can disagree.

Gentlemen can disagree.

for sure.

I have the black Canon VI that took my baby pictures (with 50/2.8 lens).

Well, I think it was new when I was one.

But I also have a chrome P with 50/1.4 lens.

The black P looks nice, though.

I have a Canon 7, which I think evolved from the P, and I absolutely love it.

My only lenses at the moment are Leica, but I've had Canon 50mm 1.8s and they are wonderful also. Its only downside vs. III series Leica that I see is the size-they are quite chunky. A collapsed 50mm Elmar looks comical on them. Aside from that, though, you get a huge and clear viewfinder and rangefinder combo with selectable frame lines and a swing-open back. I can't help but think that Leica might have ended up with something similar had they continued developing LTM cameras.

Aside from that, the Canons in general are great rangefinders.

Of course, the condition of heavily used lenses is not a measure of QC in production.

As it happens, I have a number of different Soviet-made lenses, and they are as good as Canon and other non-Soviet lenses.

 

This meme about poor quality control in Soviet production is just that. Everybody says it, but nobody produces real-world examples.

 

Anecdotes won't do. I got a battered Canon FDn lens that was in terrible shape. Obviously the fault of Canon's production?

Sorry for the late reply. I stand by my statement. Not an anecdote. Real experience. Both of my lenses (an Industar 26m 5cm f/2.8 & an Industar 55mm-61 L/D f/2.8 ) had factory defects that were not caused by heavy use. My FSU lenses were not heavily used. The focus was never quite properly set. How do I know? Don Goldberg told me based on his examination & repair. Yes, the lube was gummy due to age but both could never have properly focused to infinity/close up even if they were still new, smooth and shinny. The black Industar-61 in fact looks very very good - it just didn't work right. Ditto for the 26m in aluminum. When I said "terrible shape" I was referring to the mechanical functions. They probably didn't get much use as all they produced were blurry photos. That is a QC issue.

My first FSU lens was an ugly 52mm Industar in chrome that I sold even though it worked properly. It was abused from use - not a factory issue.

The Industar 26m chrome cost $110 plus shipping to have Don Goldberg fix it back in 2016. The 55mm f/2.8 was around $75 to fix back in 2011. They both have a nice Tessar look to them. I have no plans to get rid of them.

The later Jupiter-3's that I've taken apart suffered from poor workmanship, much worse than those from the 1950s up through the mid 1970s. I've taken apart "new old Stock" lenses, the last one required a full flood cleaning because the metal filings from the taps for the set screws had never been cleaned out. These were original to the lens- it only had one set of taps. I've seen the focus bind up because the guide pins were too long, set screws too long and gouge metal, in short- Cans of Worms. Take apart a couple hundred of these lenses and you tend to know good years from bad. The 80s- Bad. 1950~1951, some very bad ones- as in the optical fixtures being the wrong length, throwing the focal length off. I get my best glass from those- no one could use them. I've seen mistakes made and "hacks" in German and Japanese lenses, mostly those made just after the end of WW-II. But many of the J-3's from the 1980s: just sloppy workmanship.

I have 7 J-3's now, not counting the 1949 ZK 5cm F1.5. The later Valdai required some work, such as resetting the helical deeper into the mount so it would drive the RF cam to infinity- and getting all the metal filings out of the mechanism, and adding 0.4mm to the shim, and swapping the front element with an earlier lens- it is quite good, matches the Zomz. Now it does. Both 1950 J-3's have Zeiss SN's on the optical fixtures, both required changing the distance between front and rear sections to bring the focal length in spec. The 1952 J-3: moved all of the glass to a new fixture, could not bring the original to spec. The 1956 KMZ- perfect, they got it down.

I bought a Russian screwmount once where there wasn't enough space to thread film in the camera between the back of the camera and the shutter assembly. You literally couldn't load film. I got someone to go over it and it managed to take pictures after that. Yes in this case it's a matter both of the years between production and now and MORE importantly, the care that was taken to manufacture it (or lack thereof).

They can work as serviceable cameras if you get them worked on, but they're never going to feel like a Leica (or Canon or Nikon, or any modern'ish manufacturer). It's a crapshoot. You might get a good serviceable camera or lens but don't be disappointed if you pay for a few lemons before you get a decent one. And you'll still be much better off with a camera like the Canon P or 7 if you actually are looking for a camera to use.

....They can work as serviceable cameras if you get them worked on, ....... And you'll still be much better off with a camera like the Canon P or 7 if you actually are looking for a camera to use.

I agree. My screw mount bodies have all been Leicas - a III, a bunch of IIIf modes, a IIIg, and a couple of If models. All were serviced by Don Goldberg; I sent my current IIIf to Youxin Ye for a curtain replacement when Don was really backed up. I currently have 2 screw mount bodies - the IIIf RD & a If RD. If I were to get another screw mount body the Canon P would be high on my list. Sometimes I regret selling my IIIg but it paid for my Leica M4-P.

With any old mechanical camera that you buy, you should add in the cost of a CLA as it will be needed. When I buy a used camera I immediately send it out for a CLA to the best person I can find to have it serviced. It pays off in the long run.

The later Jupiter-3's that I've taken apart suffered from poor workmanship, much worse than those from the 1950s up through the mid 1970s. I've taken apart "new old Stock" lenses, the last one required a full flood cleaning because the metal filings from the taps for the set screws had never been cleaned out. These were original to the lens- it only had one set of taps. I've seen the focus bind up because the guide pins were too long, set screws too long and gouge metal, in short- Cans of Worms. Take apart a couple hundred of these lenses and you tend to know good years from bad. The 80s- Bad. 1950~1951, some very bad ones- as in the optical fixtures being the wrong length, throwing the focal length off. I get my best glass from those- no one could use them. I've seen mistakes made and "hacks" in German and Japanese lenses, mostly those made just after the end of WW-II. But many of the J-3's from the 1980s: just sloppy workmanship.

 

I have 7 J-3's now, not counting the 1949 ZK 5cm F1.5. The later Valdai required some work, such as resetting the helical deeper into the mount so it would drive the RF cam to infinity- and getting all the metal filings out of the mechanism, and adding 0.4mm to the shim, and swapping the front element with an earlier lens- it is quite good, matches the Zomz. Now it does. Both 1950 J-3's have Zeiss SN's on the optical fixtures, both required changing the distance between front and rear sections to bring the focal length in spec. The 1952 J-3: moved all of the glass to a new fixture, could not bring the original to spec. The 1956 KMZ- perfect, they got it down.

Seems like you have a great deal of experience with these lenses. I wish I had the skills to service them myself but I don't. Thanks!

The Valdai Rebuild- Looked like new, never been opened. All the original paint was in place for the set screws.

filings_inlens by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The mount required grinding down to screw the helical in deeper to drive the RF to infinity.

Helical_in_deeper_to_mount by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The hard part is drilling new taps for the focus ring, which must be re-indexed.

focus_ring_ready_for_drilling by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

focus_ring_new_taps by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

The index came up conveniently near the viewfinder- this is intentional at the time of manufacture.

valdai_on_M9 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Wide-Open on the M9.

L1007938-Edit by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I have the Seven "vintage J-3's", and two new J-3+. The latter are a "beautifully made and carefully built. I also have 5 pre-war 5cm F1.5 Sonnars converted to Leica mount using J-3 focus mounts, two wartime 5cm F1.5 Sonnars, the ZK 5cm F1.5 Sonnar, and a "transition" 5cm F1.5 Sonnar. The latter- I had to replace the middle triplet as the original was not fully polished. The 7 J-3's are "cherry picked" from years of buying J-3's to CLA and selling quite a few. I also used to CLA them for forum members on Leicaplace and RFF- years ago.

If anyone else requires "more than a meme"- I took a lot of pictures and have lots of stories.

Tales from the Greasy Side: Miscellaneous Notes on the Jupiter-3

I have an old Leica Elmar and recently bought a Canon IV although I wasn't sure if the film to flange distance was the same. Also will the Canon body allow you to collapse a Leica lens? Thanks for any info.

The flange-to-film distance is the standard 28.8mm. It is possible that a collapsible lens, when collapsed, will bump against the baffles: but it's easy to check this. Just keep the back open while slowly pushing in the lens barrel and you can see what happens.