Tsheltry
Member
Tsheltry
Member
I don't know why the picture isn't working
Mackinaw
Think Different
I gather you mean an L3.
More info at the Canon Museum:
http://global.canon/en/c-museum/camera.html
Jim B.
More info at the Canon Museum:
http://global.canon/en/c-museum/camera.html
Jim B.
Tsheltry
Member
Yes I do. That's just a lowercase L
02Pilot
Malcontent
I have an L1 that I like a lot. The smallest LTM 35mm lenses will seem disproportionately small on it, but later Canon 35s like the 1.8 and 2.0 are a nice match. Another good fit, if you can find one, is the Komura/W.Acall/(about five other names) 35/3.5 - it's my favorite 35mm lens.
radi(c)al_cam
Well-known
Tsheltry
Member
Does anyone know if the Jupiter 12 will mount to this camera correctly?
02Pilot
Malcontent
Mine mounted OK on my L1; there shouldn't be any problem. It's a tight fit, and in theory you might need to ever-so-slightly bend the top of the light trap to clear the rear element. Open the shutter on B and watch closely as you screw on the lens.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
I have a VT which is a cousin of your L1 but bigger due to the trigger winder built in. I have the early 35/2.8 34mm filter version and the 35/1.8 and both work fine. If you are patient you can still find good deals on them but the J-12 would provide a different look so may be worth seeking anyway.
They both, but the 35/2.8 especially, always feels a bit small as I'm coming from an SLR and fast 50 background.
Your 50mm f/2.8 is a Tessar design. Nice lens, especially stopped down. If it is clear and clean (no scratches/haze/massive dust collection), it would not give up much for image quality to most of the other 50mm lenses Canon made for the rangefinders except if you want to use wide apertures. Hoods/shades can be found, that would definitely help. There was a specific one for the 50/2.8 but anything that clamps on/slips on 42mm would work just fine.
They both, but the 35/2.8 especially, always feels a bit small as I'm coming from an SLR and fast 50 background.
Your 50mm f/2.8 is a Tessar design. Nice lens, especially stopped down. If it is clear and clean (no scratches/haze/massive dust collection), it would not give up much for image quality to most of the other 50mm lenses Canon made for the rangefinders except if you want to use wide apertures. Hoods/shades can be found, that would definitely help. There was a specific one for the 50/2.8 but anything that clamps on/slips on 42mm would work just fine.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155715
Review/thoughts about Canon L2, almost the same camera with L3.
Review/thoughts about Canon L2, almost the same camera with L3.
Tsheltry
Member
It's got some scratches on it. I'll try to get pictures later. nothing terrible though. I picked up a canon 50mm 1.8 that should be coming in soon. I like bokeh
Tsheltry
Member
How do you like the Jupiter 12? I found a couple decent copies
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Be sure to look at the 50/1.8 closely for haze on the element behind the aperture. Very commonly hazed. A little haze may clean up but if it's heavy it is very likely to have damaged the surface which is nearly impossible to polish back to a usable state. I've been trying different things with very limited improvement for over a year now on the hazed copies I have.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
Well, it's the cheapest 35mm for M39 or Contax mount RFs, and capable of taking award winning photos, so I have no complaint about it. The vignetting at larger apertures is strong.
Kenomatic
Newbie
If you bought the Canon L3 with the lens for $150, and everything works, then you got a good deal. The lenses alone seem to be going for about $150 and up. I just bought an L3 body myself. I'm too broke to shop for a nice Canon lens, so I settled for an inexpensive Industar 61 lens for now. Odd thing is that when I screw it all the way on, the numbers face to the left instead of up. I checked the focus at the film gate and compared it to the rangefinder focus, and I think it's going to work, I hope
Tsheltry
Member
If you bought the Canon L3 with the lens for $150, and everything works, then you got a good deal. The lenses alone seem to be going for about $150 and up. I just bought an L3 body myself. I'm too broke to shop for a nice Canon lens, so I settled for an inexpensive Industar 61 lens for now. Odd thing is that when I screw it all the way on, the numbers face to the left instead of up. I checked the focus at the film gate and compared it to the rangefinder focus, and I think it's going to work, I hope
The canon lenses are a little on the high side. That's why I jumped on this one when he told me the price. Just picked up a canon 50mm 1.8 for $100 so hopefully it's good also.
mooge
Well-known
Kenomatic -
If the scale of the lens really doesn't line up with the top of the camera, somebody took the lens flange off and put it back on in the wrong orientation. The lens flange can go on 4 different ways because of the bolt pattern...
You can undo the screws that hold the flange to the body and orient the flange correctly. Just make sure the shims under the flange stay in the same orientation with respect to the body (unless they were rotated as well?) and be careful that you don't chowder the screw heads.
Cheers.
If the scale of the lens really doesn't line up with the top of the camera, somebody took the lens flange off and put it back on in the wrong orientation. The lens flange can go on 4 different ways because of the bolt pattern...
You can undo the screws that hold the flange to the body and orient the flange correctly. Just make sure the shims under the flange stay in the same orientation with respect to the body (unless they were rotated as well?) and be careful that you don't chowder the screw heads.
Cheers.
02Pilot
Malcontent
With Soviet lenses, I'd be more suspect of the lens being the issue rather than the body. I'm not sure about the I-61, but I have a feeling you may be able to simply rotate the barrel after some minor disassembly.