35mm lens test

Z

zuikologist

.........................
Local time
5:50 PM
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
1,970
Location
London
View My Gallery
I have been browsing this forum for a while - it seems a warm and friendly place.

I subscribed today, mainly to
acknowledge my obsession (Yashica GSN, Oly 35SP, Canonet G111 17, Canonet 28, Rollei 35LED, Ricoh 500ME, Vivitar 35ES, Zorki 4, Pentax MX, Pentax ME) but also to garner opinion on a lens test undertaken on another site

http://www.rodpurcell.com/range1

The results surprised me. I have found both the G111 and Oly SP very good and on a par. I am also always amazed by the performance of the 35ES.
 
Re: 35mm lens test

zuikologist said:
I have been browsing this forum for a while - it seems a warm and friendly place.

I subscribed today, mainly to
acknowledge my obsession (Yashica GSN, Oly 35SP, Canonet G111 17, Canonet 28, Rollei 35LED, Ricoh 500ME, Vivitar 35ES, Zorki 4, Pentax MX, Pentax ME) but also to garner opinion on a lens test undertaken on another site

www.rodpurcell.com/range1

The results surprised me. I have found both the G111 and Oly SP very good and on a par. I am also always amazed by the performance of the 35ES.
Click to expand...

Great site, Zuikologist. Thanks for the link. Especially interesting because I seem to recall that the Konica S3 tested the best back in the '70s when "Modern Photography" did its tests.

I suspect that his tests are accurate, but he only tested at f/4 & f/8. Photodo would tell you much the same story. The difference with a Leica lens would be at f/2.8, f/2, ,etc. I recall that the differences between Konica S3 & Canonet QL17 GIII were also at the wider apertures.

Canonet too heavy? He better start putting in some work out time in the gym. 😀

Cheers
 
Last edited:
welcome to our humble forum!
we all know your pain (of obsessing).

as to that test, the author turned me off right away with his comments about the bessa r. i doubt he looked at one for more than 30 seconds, if at all, and most likely just passed along the mis-information he found on the net.

too bad he did not test an oly 35rc, if he wanted a small & light carry camera with an exceptional lens. the oly lens is at least the equal of the canon.

ah well, different strokes...

joe
 
I have a Canonet Ql17 (actually have had 8 over the last 30+ years), have a Konica S3, and had an Olympus SP. I suspect that the Sp that was tested was a bad example; the one that I sold was amazingly sharp and of high contrast. I believe it had the sharpest lens of any of my fixed lens RF's. However, I found its mechanics not as good as the lens and replaced a hair-thin spring that broke myself. The design placed the spring under constant tension.
 
It's at wide open that these lenses prove their worth. Who here hasn't been in the situation where an important shot has to be made in low light? It's a good test. But strange that he didn't go that one extra step.
 
I would have like to see a test at F2, F4, F8....
It would have been better if these cameras had been serviced
and the rangefinders adjusted and lenses cleaned I bet.
They are about 30 years old.
Hope he didn't sprain anything lifting that heavy GIII....???
 
Well,
I've got the QLIII, an SP and a Konica S2. The Konica is marginally sharper than the Olympus SP and the Canonett coming in last.
As for the Canonet being TOO heavy!? What is he, twiggy? My last cross-country trip I carried the QIII in my pocket all over Wash. DC, with two SLR's and a small Velbon tripod all in my photo vest pockets.
But at 210 lbs and a former weight lifter, it didn't phase me at all.
😀
 
Re: 35mm lens test

zuikologist said:
http://www.rodpurcell.com/range1

The results surprised me. I have found both the G111 and Oly SP very good and on a par. I am also always amazed by the performance of the 35ES. [/B]
Click to expand...


Zuikologist

I too, am always amazed at the performance of my Vivitar ES. In the last few months, I have burned many rolls of film with my Viv ES, Oly RC and Canon GIII QL-17. After viewing the negatives and prints, I have come to the conclusion that the Vivitar ES and Oly RC cameras are great little rigs with great lenses. I have also come to the conclusion that the Canon GIII QL-17, is very overrated. I have repeatedly tried to find the "poor man's Leica" in it, but to no avail. I find that my Viv ES, Oly RC, and Minolta Hi-Matic 7sII, have considerably better lenses. The GIII QL-17, is a fine camera. I just can't figure out where it's mythical status and following originated from...

Russ
 
Joe,
LOL - Love that winter guy!
The 210 pounder is ME, not the Canonet. I've yet to pick up an RF that I considered "heavy", but then I've only tried about a dozen of them.
Now, if you want to pick up a Nikon F4e, whew!
 
35mm lens test

Thank you for your replies. I suspect that the test says as much about the state of 30+ year old cameras than just the lens performance.

By the way, as has been mentioned, the rest of his site is quite good, particularly the link to no rules photography.
 
Weight Lifting: Nikon F2S w DS1 Servo-Motor, MD1 Motor with MB1 Battery pack (10AA) and a 300mm F4.5 Nikkor-H.

In defense of the Canonet: Of all the Trap-Needle automatic Fixed-Lens RF's that I own (a LOT), it has the best shutter release, a great finder, a "decent, fast" lens, and is very reliable. If I were rating on Lens Quality alone, the Olympus SP that I sold would have won. The Minolta Hi-Matic 9 and Hi-Matic E have a great build quality and better-than-Canonet lenses, but the long-throw shutter release on both and lack of manual over-ride on the "E" put them in back of the Canonet for overall rating in my book. The Konica S3 and Minolta 7S-II are not as well made as the Canonet and the viewfinders are no where near as good.

I have a Konica S2 coming in with a working meter, the one I had previously had "issues".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am also hankering after an S2 and prices seem very reasonable on ebay (of course with the usual caveats on ebay purchasing). I will probably need to sell or trade something.
 
The full-size Fixed-Lens RF's of the late 60's and early 70' are the most under-rated cameras out there. The Konica S2, Canonet "other than the QL17 G3", Minolta Hi-Matic 9 (and 7s), Yashica Lynx series, and others of the genre are better built, have better finders, and are (usually) more reliable than the compact cameras that replaced them. I guess "size" matters!
 
I still haven't gotten around to shooting film with all my fixed-lens rangefinders, but so far the Konica S3 and Yashica Electros are the sharpest, followed closely by the Canonet and Hi-matic E.
I just picked up a Konica S2 this weekend at a pawn shop for $18.95. It's in great shape. I never paid much attention to this rig until I read a couple of threads on this site. I can't wait to run some film through it.
 
In my experience & based on test results I have read, the lens on the Canonet GIII QL17 is outstanding from f/4 or f/5.6 on down. Rangefinder lenses often seem to be rated on what they can do at wide apertures, but that isn't necessarily the philosophy with which all lenses are developed.

The Canonet GIII QL17 was designed as a snap shot camera for taking candids. Focus has a short throw, so it's easy to throw it quickly into focus. IMO it was designed to be used at the middle apertures with a lot of depth of field & its lens is excellent for this purpose. The faster apertures are there if you need them, but use at these apertures are not the primary intent of this camera. The short base length doesn't really give you the precision you would like for shooting at f/1.7 anyway.

Its other strengths are its quiet shutter, its quick load film system, its build quality for a camera in this price range, its shutter priority AE, its compact size, & its innovative flash system for its time as well as the fact that it can be used in manual mode if so desired. Any tool looks bad when evaluated for a purpose that is not the primary function for which it was designed.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion with me late as always 🙂 Welcome Zuikologist !

As for that test... odd. I've used an Olympus 35 SPn and the lens is just superb, IMHO beating the Canonet.

I can understand his opinion about its ergonomics though, some people may find the Canonet winning in that field (I do), but if after reading that review somebody's willing to TRASH his/her Oly SP, I'm sure somebody here would be more than happy to free its original owner from that pain 🙂

The Hi-matic 7s I got from Joe has also a razor sharp lens on it, and being one of the big boys goes underrated most of the time as Brian says. Who knows, maybe it's better that way 🙄
 
Huck,
I'm curious. I've read alot about the Canonet QIII and never saw anything about it's "design" parameters. Do you know someone on the Canon design team? LOL.
Seriously, I'm really curious how it was designed differently than other RF's of that era.
 
Taffer

I know what you mean about the SP - it seems blasphemous to suggest trashing it!

I am finding the Konica S2/Himatic 7S idea increasingly attractive. Neither is perhaps as compact or as sought after as the Oly or G111, hence low prices.

I hear the siren call of the 'bay ...... perhaps after Christmas!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom