canon rangefinders

[michael_bizon]

I've been wanting to set up a camera for black and white photo's (portrait mostly) and have been

intrigued with the Canon 7, 7s, or 7sz with the 50mm f.95 lens, has anybody used these and could you

tell me about issues, or are they worth the money, and which rangefinder was the best.. thanks..

[michael_bizon]

Just to clear this up a little, I checked the search pages and there wasn't much about this

particular body and I will not post this in the Leica (rangfinder group) because like you

folks I use the New F-1 and FD lenses and want your opinion on the matter, not $5000

dollar and higher Leica elite's opinion, thanks......

[akajohndoe]

Rangefinders are the "entry drug" to a full-blown camera collecting addiction. You'll soon find that you have several, plus a medium format camera (or two), perhaps a panoramic or large format, and that you will be found in your domicile, alone at night, surrounded by you collection and planning your next outing and trying to decide which camera(s) to take with you.

 

The 50/0.95 is more collectible than desirable. The Canon 7 series are generally quite usable and pleasurable; however, for many reasons, I prefer the Canon L1.

 

Another resource is http://www.rangefinderforum.com/

[awahlster]

The Canon 7 line of rangefinders are almost as big as your F-1 body wise almost as heavy and easily as rugged. The 50mm f0.95 is an extremely expensive low light lens that will block the view from your viewfinder be soft compare to either the AWESOME 50mm f1.4 or the almost AWESOME 50mm f1.8 Black and chrome. It will flare MUCH more be harder to focus wide open (due to the tiny depth of field.

 

It in short has not one single advantage over the f1.4 or the f1.8 other then low light use. And has a number of detractors.

 

As to remaining inconspicuous a model 7 with 0.95 on it will be a larger package then your F-1 with a 50mm f1.8 nFD. It will be quieter but nothing else advantageous.

 

NOW a model P or L-1 or even on of the VT series with a 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.8 will be a smaller (although slightly wider) a package as you are going to get in this type of camera while retaining the better viewfinder.

 

I own a 1951 model III w/ rapid winder, And a model L-1 I have also owned a number of screw mount Leicas (I have only kept the 1955 If RD which has neither veiwfinder nor rangefinder!)My hands down favorite is the L1 with it's excellent viewfinder.

[michael_bizon]

I was looking to set up a camera that's ready to go out of the case, with grainy B&W shots,

shot around campfires and the likes. I was thinking about taking one of my A-1's and

using the FD 50mm f1.2 or the 55mm f1.2, and then I got into looking into the

rangefinders (big mistake for sure!!) I didn't want to commit my New F-1's to the task, so I

was just looking into something that could be dedicated for that use. Mark I never seen

a L1.

[awahlster]

Michael if you go to the Canon Museum site :

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/

 

in the lower left corner click film cameras then select rangefinders you can see a very good over view of all the more popular models of Canon RF from the earliest years right up until 1968.

 

One of the reasons personally I like the L-1 is we were both marketed the same year 1957! The hinged back easy loading compared to the bottom loaders and of course that great veiwfinder/rangefinder combo.

[vivek iyer]

If you look in the Leica forum, you will see many pics I take (mainly on an Epson R-D1s) with a leica M converted Canon 50/0.95 lens.

 

One poster in one thread (leica forum again! ;) ) who has both the Noctilux 50/1 and the Canon 50/0.95 answered that the the 50/0.95 is a tad sharper in the center and the light fall off is minimal when used wide open.

 

I love my 50/0.95. There is nothing like it- the 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor (latest version) does not come close to it in terms of clarity.

[al_kaplan1]

The Canon 50mm f/0.95 lens has a unique external bayonet that only fits the Canon 7 models, which comes with both the external bayonet and the 39mm Leica thread. There are camera techs that can modify the lens to M mount. The Canon P was one of the last Canon rangefinders made. It was the equivalent of the Leica M2, a camera with a bit less of the bells and whistles, designed largely for the pro market.

 

Rumor has it that the lens was really designed for the professional motion picture and TV market. Zeiss and Angenieux also made 50/0.95 lenses in that market, and only had to cover the smaller image of those formats. Adapting the lens to the Canon 7 was a marketing ploy when they didcovered that the lens would (barely) cover the full frame format. It gave them bragging rights!

[vivek iyer]

Al, The 50/0.95 covers the 35mm frame well, in fact better than the current 50/1 Noctilux! It is a true gem.

 

Yes, mine was a TV lens. The ones made for the 7S/z had their rear elements cut to make the RF coupling. That isn't the problem with the TV lenses converted to Leica M mount.

 

I have a 7S. I bought it initially thinking that I can get my 50/0.95 adapted for it. Glad I did not.

[al_kaplan1]

Vivek, every one that I've seen had a flat side cut into the rear group, supposedly to clear the rangefinder arm of Leica and Canon bodies, and that includes those in mounts for movie/TV cameras. The earliest production might have had round rear groups. From what I remember reading at the time their use on still cameras was an after thought. They already had a 50/1.2 when Nikon upstaged them with a 50/1.1 in both Nikon RGFDR and Leica thread mounts. Films like Tri-x were much grainier then than they are now, often push processed, and seldom run very large in publication. The lens didn't need to be tack sharp.

 

Now of course half the shooters insist on flare free tack sharp images corner to corner while the other half gush on and on about "such beautiful bokeh", "a classic vintage look", and so on...LOL. The 0.95 Canon is in the second category!

[akajohndoe]

In addition to being vintage 1957, the Canon L1 was one of the first (if not the first) of the Canon rangefinders to have the film advance lever rather than the trigger on the bottom.

[alvin_hear]

Here is a <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm">Canon RF Lens Information page...</a>.

[michael_bizon]

this page got moved on me, so it took awhile to find it, just glad it dind'nt end up in some

other forum.... thanks for all the input on this subject, I've been trying to work my New F

-1 into this realm but everytime I go to grab it I can't help but start grabbing other items

and then i'm changing things to much, after a day of shooting with the F-1 and everyone

is hanging around in the evening drinking beers and cooking some food, I would like to

grab ONE camera with ONE lens with some B&W film and get some unhindered shots with

the available light (I hate flash fill lighting), so a fast lens around 35mm -85mm (50mm

being in the center) I could just adapt the F-1, but I've been hearing about how quiet the

rangefinders are, (I never used one) just some fun shots over a couple of beers, I might

look into using the F-1 for this a little stronger, but I was interested in the other Canon

rangefinders, thanks...

[akajohndoe]

In any 35mm camera line you really cannot go wrong shooting available light with a 28/1.8, 50/1.4 (or 50/1.8), or 85/1.5 lens, depending upon how you see the world and how you want to portray it.

[akajohndoe]

s/h/b 85/1.8

[steve_bellayr]

I have the Canon P. I chose that model over the 7 because it lacked a meter. The only difference between the two is the meter. The meters in cameras of that period are not as accurate as the current ones. In addition, if the meter becomes inoperable it would be an expensive matter to repair, if indeed, it was repairable. The f.95 is a rare lens and expensive. In my opionion it is overpriced because of its rarity and collectibility. For what it will produce compared to the to the Serenar f1.4 is not worth the cost. Remember when this camera was first produced the standard was ASA 100 with ASA 400 a grainy film. Today, that is no longer true. When shooting color you can use ASA 800 which we know is readily available and good quality. The lens is also heavier. In Ivor Matanle "Classic Cameras" there are several pages devoted to the Canon rangefinders of this period. This issue comes up regularly on rangefinderforum and you could search their thread.

[Troll]

Michael, I had a Canon 7Sz with the 0.95 lens. There was nothing wrong with it, but I found that I used it very little, as I felt that my M3 was a lot more ergonomic to my hands, and that I didn't really need anything faster than my Symmilux.<P>I'd say that there's nothing wrong with getting one, but remember that the Canon 7Sz is getting pretty old, and (unlike old Leicas) I don't know how you'd get it repaired, or even CLD'd.

[vivek iyer]

Collector item?! Hardly..

<p>

Here are some images (all shot @ f0.95 on an Epson R-D1s) from my favorite lens:

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1301/801428927_df8be2e9de.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a>

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1093/593502164_17105cd856.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a>

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/602124303_a3a76eb7a4.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="" /></a>

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/977836741_d046e5dc64.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="" /></a>

[luis triguez]

Steve,

 

I agree with you, I found the Canon P one of my hardly rangefinders. Sometimes I prefer it more than the Leica M3.<div></div>

[luis triguez]

Vivek,

 

Awesome boy, awesome DOF, awesome pictures.

[michael_bizon]

nice shots, I'll have to think real hard about getting involved with a Canon Rangefinder,

just becuase I've put so much into my New F-1's lenses and everything, I'll say one thing I

was taking pictures last evening right as the sun was setting and working with a FD 50mm

f1.4 and ASA 400 and even though the New F-1 was spot on, I kept switching over to my

A-1 for the L.E.D. readout's to make the shooting faster for me, when I do scenics and

I'm using a tripod I'll always have my F-1 but when it's hand held and I have to be quick I

thought the LED metering was easier to work with, thanks for all the input, again, nice

photos Vivek..thanks..

[vivek iyer]

Luis, You are very kind. Thanks! :)

 

Michael, If you do not have a range finder, start with something that is quite convenient and affordable. It is a different feeling (quite liberating in a sense) and you may enjoy it.

 

Thanks for your kind words.

[h._p.]

I really like the pigeon and the little rodents, Vivek. They show off the depth of field well. Now where did I put that Kodachrome 25?

 

:-)))

[vivek iyer]

H.P. Well, for you, I will load up a roll of my precious Ektar (better resolution than the 6mp sensor but not as great as the ones I get from a 10 mp sensor of APS-C size) and shoot that exclusively with this lens, very soon. Kodachrome 25 (I still have a bunch) takes a lot longer to get processed and all.

 

I might even scan that to show off.. ;)

[speedyturtle]

I had four Canon 7's with .95 lenses (one was a 7S and one a 7SZ) in the 70's (I still have a 7 and 7S today. When I kept reading then that these weren't good I lenses I decided to shoot inside wide open and outside at f16. The wide open ones turned out very well indeed, but I wouldn't use the lens outdoors because of flare. I was able to focus precisely and had no out of focus pictures. That's why I'm keeping two, because I never know if I might need it.