QL17 III, Olympus RC, and Minolta 7s II lens quality

[jd_rose]

At CameraQuest, I love surfing that site, he has a very cool

overview of the inexpensive RFs from the 60s and 70s...but he has

not yet compared lens performance. Has anyone else?

 

Which rangefinders, listed above, has the "sharpest" and

most "colorful" lens?

 

Image is everything.

[rob_murray]

Try www.rangefinderforum.com. Great helpful folks there.

I have owned all three and would rate them in this order:

Minolta 7sII,GIII,RC. Rated by sharpness and features.

Color is subject to your film processor more than the difference

in these cameras.

[jd_rose]

Rob,

 

I certainly understand your point, however, I shoot K64 and E6 slides, and so intrinsic color rendition is fairly important.

 

Thank you so much for you assesment.

 

--- JDR

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

I have all these cameras and have used them with slide film. If I had not marked the slides I think it would be difficult to tell which slides were shot with which lens. They all are nice performers. Maybe the 35RC lens yields a tad more color saturation.

[John Smullen]

Also consider the Yashica Electro 35 GSN (and the earlier versions). They are available for very little, use a highly regarded lens and have a paralax compensated finder.

[Rob_the_waste]

I don't have the three cameras that you are asking about, however, I do have a 1958 Yashica 35 that has given me some beautiful pictures. Also, don't underestimate the Kodak Signet 35. The Ektar lens has given me some spectacular results.

[dan_fromm2]

JD, not to be a complete idiot or anything, but I think your concern about how those lenses render color is badly misplaced. I own and use many lenses made by many manufacturers over approximately the last hundred years, have shot color slides -- K14 and E6 -- with all of them. With a very few exceptions, all traceable to radiation-damaged glass, all of my lenses render color quite neutrally. I have had minor variations in saturation, all traceable to minor exposure errors or veiling flare.

 

I can't understand why otherwise sensible people go on about lenses' color rendition. Some of the major manufacturers now publish transmission curves for their lenses. Modern lenses, mind you, not antiques. All are flat as near as makes no difference across the visible spectrum.

[rustys pics]

I like the canon rangefinder glass. I own the Canonet QL19, and recently a nice little Canonet

28. Hop on over to the In Praise of Canonet 28 thread to see some examples shot with that.

I think Dan has a point though. You may see minor variations, but all the lenses are quite

good.

[jamesdak]

I can help as I own and have tested the 7sII and 35 RC against each other. The 35 RC has an easier to use viewfinder. In all other aspects the minolta wins.

 

Go to my pbase account where I have two images posted comparing the two cameras. Both images are 100% crops of the same scene shot one after the other with the two different cameras.

 

Link to gallery of comparision images:

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/temp_stuff

 

But, both camera are capable of nice images.

 

Olympus 35 RC image: (By my 9 year old son)

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/55128964

 

Minolta 7sII image:

http://www.pbase.com/jhuddle/image/55128964

[george_shihanian]

I own the Canon and Minolta and used to own the Olympus too, but there was something I didn't like about it and sold it. It was about 10 years ago, and I can't recall just what turned me off about it, I may be confusing what I didn't like about it with an RD that I also sold, my memory just won't kick in.

 

I agree you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference in the results between the Canon and Minolta, as long as you had a nice example of each. I like them both, the Minolta wins out a slight bit over the Canon though for me.

[david_m]

You will find that other factors have more effect on the 'colour' of your photos than the lens - which is after all a piece of colourless glass. Such factors are the ambient light colour temperature, exposure, the film you use, and the processing chemicals and paper. As far as lens quality is concerned, these are all mass-produced cameras and the lens quality will vary from example to example. There is no guarantee that someone else's lens will give similar performance to yours.

[jd_rose]

Thank You for the responses. Color rendition can be important. However, as many have noted, most "modern" lenses capture color very accurately.

 

It would seem that all the rangefinders noted capture color well; with the 7s II capturing it with the most acuity.

 

Thanks again.

[jamesdak]

Oh yeah, I actually own two Minolta 7sII rangefinders. Both are very sharp and produce outstanding images! In fact, I've never heard anyone complain about the image quality from these little gems. But, the wires to the light meters are brittle and prone to failure. They also have a reputation for loose lens in that the lens body has a little play it in. Both of mine exhibit this but it does not seem to effect the image at all so I have not worried about it.

[jon_goodman1]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Konica Auto S2. There is a nice lens for sure.

 

Jon

[vincenzo_maielli]

Dear friend, i own a Canon Canonet GIII QL 17. The 40 mm f/ 1,7 lens is very good for sharpness but the contrast is low.

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli Bari Italy