Ace0fClub5
Member
Today I got my newest oldest camera, a great condition iib with standard 50/1.9. I just finished reading Peter Dechert's book and immediately set my sights on one. Being built sometime I'm estimating in late 1949/ early 1950, it is now the oldest camera I own by about 20 years and it really feels like a piece of history in my hands.
My Newest Oldest by Ace0fClub5, on Flickr
But I really wasn't prepared for some of the things missing that I take for granted on my more modern cameras..
-HolyCrapTinyDimViewfinder! Wow. Going to take some getting used to, and perhaps a CLA will do the finder some good as well, but I absolutely love the magnifying feature. Absolutely brilliant.
-Loading. Again, going to take some getting used to. Figured out after a few mins how to keep the shutter locked open, and that helped a bit.
But so far I really like it, and cant wait to finish my first roll.
I've been looking into another lens for it of matching timeframe, as I have heard the 50/1.9 is not a stellar performer, and the 85 serenar looks promising (what's the difference between the 2.0 and 1.9 versions?).
Are there any tips or tricks you guys have for using these older canons?
I cant quite seem to figure out how to correctly set the frame counter yet...
Heh, it's going to be an adventure with this one!
My Newest Oldest by Ace0fClub5, on Flickr
But I really wasn't prepared for some of the things missing that I take for granted on my more modern cameras..
-HolyCrapTinyDimViewfinder! Wow. Going to take some getting used to, and perhaps a CLA will do the finder some good as well, but I absolutely love the magnifying feature. Absolutely brilliant.
-Loading. Again, going to take some getting used to. Figured out after a few mins how to keep the shutter locked open, and that helped a bit.
But so far I really like it, and cant wait to finish my first roll.
I've been looking into another lens for it of matching timeframe, as I have heard the 50/1.9 is not a stellar performer, and the 85 serenar looks promising (what's the difference between the 2.0 and 1.9 versions?).
Are there any tips or tricks you guys have for using these older canons?
I cant quite seem to figure out how to correctly set the frame counter yet...
Heh, it's going to be an adventure with this one!
John Shriver
Well-known
The ultimately practical lens on this is the Canon 50/1.8.
The 85/2.0 and 85/1.9 are pretty similar. The aperture ring is "backwards" on the 85/2.0. Both are heavy and slow to focus. The 85/1.8 is the one that's stellar, and getting very rare and pricey.
I'd suggest a Canon 35mm as the lens after the 50/1.8. Either f/2.8 or f/1.8.
The 85/2.0 and 85/1.9 are pretty similar. The aperture ring is "backwards" on the 85/2.0. Both are heavy and slow to focus. The 85/1.8 is the one that's stellar, and getting very rare and pricey.
I'd suggest a Canon 35mm as the lens after the 50/1.8. Either f/2.8 or f/1.8.
David Murphy
Veteran
That's a beautiful camera. The 50/1.9 is an excellent lens and its increasing in value too. Please post some photos taken with this when you get them!!
peterm1
Veteran
With these all Canon rangefinders had small and quite dim viewfinders. But most models also had a lever that allowed you to increase magnification for focussing purposes (not sure if your model does.)
But they are never the less a chore. I always preferred to use the finder to focus, then even if using a 50mm lens, use a supplementary finder in the accessory shoe for composition. Loading is a problem and like the similar Leica screw mount cameras they require the film leader to be cut to a longer length to facilitate easier loading. If you do not do this you will struggle with loading. If you do cut the leader longer be careful not to chp thru a frame adance hole in the film edge as this can cause the film to tear as you wind it on - leaving you with a problem to ge the torn film out of the guts of the camera (yes its happened to me.)
Apart from that they are every bit as well made (some say better made) than the Leica equivalents but none of these cameras are as easy to use as the M mount models.
But they are never the less a chore. I always preferred to use the finder to focus, then even if using a 50mm lens, use a supplementary finder in the accessory shoe for composition. Loading is a problem and like the similar Leica screw mount cameras they require the film leader to be cut to a longer length to facilitate easier loading. If you do not do this you will struggle with loading. If you do cut the leader longer be careful not to chp thru a frame adance hole in the film edge as this can cause the film to tear as you wind it on - leaving you with a problem to ge the torn film out of the guts of the camera (yes its happened to me.)
Apart from that they are every bit as well made (some say better made) than the Leica equivalents but none of these cameras are as easy to use as the M mount models.
Thomas78
Well-known
Good to see that I am not the youngest here with my 32 years. 
The camera looks very nice!
Personally I don't like to have separate settings for the fast and slow shutter speeds. I perfer the modern Canon 7 and now I am waiting for my Canon P to arrive.
How ist the brightness of the rangefinder compared with a FED-2 ?
The camera looks very nice!
Personally I don't like to have separate settings for the fast and slow shutter speeds. I perfer the modern Canon 7 and now I am waiting for my Canon P to arrive.
How ist the brightness of the rangefinder compared with a FED-2 ?
Ace0fClub5
Member
Thanks John, I'll check out the 50/1.8. I want to try to keep lenses of its same timeframe (1949-51) on it for the time being, so the 85/1.8 and the 35/1.8 end up a little young.
Yes, the IIb was the first model to implement the viewfinder magnification, and it really is an excellent feature. Wish my M5 had that.
Thanks for the tips on loading. I will be sure to do this next time.
Just got back my first roll from it. Some cheap Kodak Max 400 that I took to a 1-hour photo just to make sure everything works.
Shutter speeds seem to be ok except for 1s, but how often do I ever use that?
Untitled by Ace0fClub5, on Flickr
Untitled by Ace0fClub5, on Flickr
Looks like the rangefinder is misaligned though...
Untitled by Ace0fClub5, on Flickr
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
The first two pics seem OK to me, the third looks like you may have been too close to the subject. I get the same thing in some of my close ups. Note the t-shirt is sharp! These cameras require a bit of practice . It's not like the SLR's where a simple twist of the knob to auto would produce a pretty good image as long as one didn't shake the camera too much. Me, I long for the day I will be able to intuitively know how to compose/set/process my pictures . It just takes time and practice, practice, practice.
Ace0fClub5
Member
Trust me, I know how difficult it can be, took me a while to get the hang of getting the 0.95 to focus on exactly what i wanted it to. But that one should have definitely been in focus. I believe the horrizontal alignment is off by a bit. All shots taken at 6 feet and shorter at anything wider open than 5.6 seem to suffer from some backfocus.
When i set the lens to infinity and look at something in the far distance, the rangefinder patch does not line up all the way.
I've read that this is an easy DIY fix by unscrewing the ring around the rangefinder patch, but I can't seem to get it with my bare hands and don't want to use any tools on it, so I may have to wait till i get it CLA'd.
Red Robin
It Is What It Is
Looks like you've got a good plan . This forum das a lot of knowable members in any event. Thanks for the pictures and maybe you will shair again after the adjustments