Leica IIIf and Canon 50mm f1.4. General questions to users

[evgeniy_kirillov]

<p>Hello,<br>

I became very interested in Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM lens. Mostly because of it's speed and "bokeh" qualities, I guess.<br>

But I'm not sure it would fit my IIIF as it's a big (48mm diameter) thing and would be seen in that tiny leica's viewfinder. I'm not intending to use aux viewfinders as original leica ones and/or off branded are too expensive for me. I mean it's kinda strange that Leitz 5cm bright line viewfinder could be priced same as some japanese ltm lenses.<br>

My questions are: Did anyone have any experience using this combo? Any comments on lens itself? Is it any better than Canon 50mm f1.8 (black/chrome version) or it is significantly different?<br>

I've seen it for sale with Canon P rangefinder so my last question would be about this camera - how does it compare to Canon 7? In terms of size/weight/shutter sound. I used to have a Canon 7, but I didn't like the "feel" of it as it's bulky and lacks elegance. Not mentionining that lightmeter window.<br>

And my very last question is a bit out of topic - Is IIIF RD better than IIIF BD? I've read some threads on this and want to know if it's really better. As I want to have something "tougher" than BD, I mean RD's ball bearing shutter impresses me much. Did anyone tryed it in extreme cold conditions?<br>

How much $ should I pay for a serviced IIIF RD in very good physical condition? Self timer presence is not necessary.<br>

Thank you for your time,<br>

any comments appreciated.</p>

 

[rick_janes]

<p>Evgeniy, the Canon P is a smaller and mechanically much simpler camera than the 7 series that's a joy to use (I believe it's based on the VI-L body platform). The P body & 50/1.4 combination feels very natural in my hands.<br /> You might surf on over to Karen Nakamura's www.photoethnography.com site and look in her equipment section- she has some very good info on Canon RF gear, including the P.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Go with the Canon P. They are easier to load and advance. They cost less and a modern case is available for the Canon P which makes handling easier. </p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"I want to have something "tougher" than BD, I mean RD's ball bearing shutter" <em><strong>Evgeniy K</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, but to the best of my knowledge and observations, that's just <strong>not true</strong>.<br /> The sync mechanism/system was upgraded to accommodate a higher top shutter speed (50th when set to 20).<br /> For this reason <strong>only</strong>, the "Red Dial" paint differentiated itself from the earlier "Black Dial" sync design.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, the "Black Dial" is more simple with fewer sync parts (i.e. The one piece shutter speed dial) that is almost impossible to have the sync out of adjustment. Not so for the two piece shutter speed dial of the "Red Dial" model...</p>

<p>I concur with the Canon P recommendations.<br /> Compared to <strong>all</strong> of the Leica screwmount bodies, this Canon provided <strong>many more</strong> useful features.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The Canon 50/1.4 is usable on a screwmount Leica, but you do lose a good bit of the finder. It's the Canon 50/1.2 that's laughably absurd on the screwmount Leica, as you lose over half of the rangefinder window.<br /> Persistence and patience can get you a Leica 50mm brightline finder for about $150.<br>

That said, the Canon P and Canon 7s are much more elegant solutions.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I have various LTM bodies and various 50 mm lenses. With a IIIf, the rangefinder is still usable even with a 50 mm f1.5 Nokton (52 mm filter) provided that I use the small lens shade included with the lens or a larger 3rd-party straight sided shade. A tapered shade makes the RF impossible to use. All 50 mm lenses obtrude into the viewfinder to a greater or lesser degree. If this annoys you, use an SLR instead.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Just looked with my IIIa, you lose about 20% of the finder. Comes up about a third of the way on the right, and tapers down across the bottom.<br>

The A36 50/3.5 Elmar is the only 50mm lens that doesn't show in the finder. Even the Summar 50/2.0 shows a tiny (insignificant) bit. Summitar 50/2.0 is about 10% blockage.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>I have tried to use the Canon 50/1.4 on my IIIf and found too much of the finder blocked. The Canon 50/1.8 on the other hand is a lot better. </p>

<p>The Canon P is fine with a 50. It is also okay with the a if you don't mind all the other frames in the way. Canon RF like the P and the 7 have a tendency to have shutters that suddenly go out. Invariably it is cheaper to buy a new P or 7. But they they do have advantages over the Barnach Leicas.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>I've used Leica M and Canon P and 7 models with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and other lenses. The Canon bodies eventually failed while the 41-year-old Leica M4 still works well. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens was my best option for indoor sports in dim gyms until Kodak produced T-Max P3200 film. Then I could use a Summicron at a higher shutter speed and get better photos. At wide apertures the Summicron was distinctly sharper than the Canon. The Leica auxillary finder isn't the only option: Nikon and others made them, often in zoom models. They may not have compared well with Leica, but they sufficed.</p>

[rick_janes]

<p>I'd bet a quality schnitzel that the typical Canon rangefinder is less likely to receive proper servicing in its lifetime than a Leica of similar vintage. </p>

[jackm1]

<p>Why bother? The collapsible Summicron 50/2 and Elmar 50/3.5 are wonderful lenses. The 'cron is sharper across the frame, but can be seen a little bit in the viewfinder. The Elmar does not intrude upon the viewfinder, is a little warmer than the 'cron, and makes for a completely pocketable camera. Both can be had for $500 or less on the bay.<br>

Here's a little Summicron vs. Elmar vs 5DII test I did:<br>

http://www.jmphotocraft.com/leica/leica.htm</p>

[red_robin]

<p>Welcome to Rangefinder World! First, I, wanted a Leica, had my eye on an old Leica IIIG. Everything about the camera reminded me of a boat(a hole in the water you throw money into), it was dirty, kept in an old Crown Royal bag! Would have cost 350 + an expensive CLA, maybe another 250+parts(?). I received some sage advice on another forum. BE HAPPY WITH THE RANGEFINDERS YOU HAVE(insert echo). I saved a lot of money by just keeping and using the Canons I already had. ( Three P's, a III, a IIs2, a 7, and a VI-T. My collection grew over time. Some lenses I now own came with a camera. Some camera's came with a lens. There are plenty of both for sale on the internet. If you just need the name, and some do go that way. But for me I wanted cameras to use. Canon made some very good cameras, and NONE of the ones I own have needed a CLA. Just use! </p>