a quick question about the GIII QL17 lens

K

Kat

Well-known
Local time
4:42 PM
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
445
Location
Philippines
View My Gallery
I'm just a little confused, people have varying feedback about the quality of the Canonet QL17 GIII lens--some say it's very sharp, others say it's not as good as other brands like the Yashicas. I remember also reading that some lenses on this camera are better than others. Is there an inconsistency in the quality of the lenses? Is there any way to know if it's a good one (say, different batches made in different places, or different years), or do you have to actually use and test them and compare?
 
It may be an inconsistency in the calibration of the rangefinder, or how they use the lightmeter. There are many variables involved. I have used both the QL17 and the Yashica Electro 35 and they are both very good.
 
Something is varying somewhere. I have read on other forums about some Canonets having less than stellar lenses. Below is a link from about 6 months ago on PN. Go past my pictures to a post by Michael Schub and read what he has to say. That is sort of typical.

Canonet in action

 
Kat, I cant talk about the other cameras. I only can post some photos taken with the Canonet lens. I have the M6. But I use much too the Canonet. Have good viewfinder and very good exposure system.

Its more easy to find than the Olympus, the Konicas ... Have better design for me that the Yashicas, too big in my opinion... All the cameras have great points positives, but dont exist the perfect camera.
I believe its one of the best buy in my life. Not only in photography.

🙂
 
Yep, here are some of mine from my Canonet GIII QL17 (I'd post some from my Yashica Electro, but I'm getting ready to leave, and don't have any resized at the moment):
 
Depends on the canonet if the meter is off, rangefinder off, lens loose on body, shutter speeds not accurate, small light leaks, choice of films can all cause a picture to look bad. Once properly serviced and these items fixed they can make some nice pictures but there are sharper lenses than the Canonet out there..
 
I received mine a couple weeks ago. I must be one of those with a lower-quality lens, or perhaps expecting way too much. The test roll shows "sharp" results, but detail/resolution was somewhat disappointing for me. *shrug*

It is small, with a good weight, easy to load, quiet.
Jano
 
Wow, those are great shots! Thanks for all the replies, I suppose those bunch of factors could be the culprits...I'll keep my fingers crossed that the one I impulsively purchased from ebay is fine.
 
I'm tempted to post a couple of mine here but the examples here are so good it's not necessary. 🙂

The QL17 GIII is now my primary low-light camera and I'm very happy with it. The sharpness is superb, even when close to wide open.
 
I guess after all these years it will depend on how each individual Canonet has been used and abused.

There are poor examples out there, however I have a QL17 (small) and QL17 GIII both of which have lenses which are some of the best I've used. I find mine are tack sharp and nice and contrasty. I have friends that also use them and theirs are also superb.

You pays your money and takes your chances with all older cameras 😉
 
I've had about 10 Canonet QL17 GIII's, and one now. Two waiting for parts for repair, making it 10 or more. They have ranged from very sharp to "okay". All were well calibrated with respect to the RF. At F4 all were quite good. Wide open, the one I have now seems sharper than the others. That one has a front module from a different Canonet. I suspect variation, perhaps something in the construction. The front element retaining ring is very thin, as is the front element. I cracked one (OOPS!) putting it back in. Learned to use a rubber gasket to tighten after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom