Canonet 45mm - Do You Know....(not for vets)

[ruben]

Today i got a QL not gIII 1.9, lens 45mm, made in Japan, blah blah blah.


As a newbie in the matter, one thing surprised me a lot: despite sporting a 45mm lens, the size of the lens and lens barrel is not bigger, and perhaps exactly the same, as a Canonet QL 17 GIII, which as everybody knows sports a 40mm lens.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[40oz]

all the f1.9 Canonets were 45mm, I believe. I'm sure there is a slight difference in size if you sit them side by side, but then, 5mm isn't very big,either.

 

[pshinkaw]

I have the Canonet with the 45mm/1.7. It looks pretty much like a 45/1.9, and only slightly longer than my GIII.

What I don't understand is why they bothered to make both a 1.7 and 1.9 model. There isn't that much difference in lens speed and there could have been some efficiency savings in making one-less model. Perhaps they had a contract for 1.9 lenses that they coudn't get out of.

-Paul

 

[ruben]

With the risk of being childish, I have measured the length of the lens barrel of both the GIII 1.7 40mm and the non GIII 1.9 45mm, and both are exactly the same: 29mm

All other conditions being equal, a 45mm lens is supposed to be bigger than a 40mm one. But perhaps it is just a Yashica-from prejudice.

As for other 5mm difference in body size, I don't see where. Not that it matters, but still of interest.

I think the alternative 1.9mm aperture model was designed to offer the buyer a cheaper alternative.

Another matter of interest to me would be which version, the 1.9 or 1.7, is sharper at widest aperture.

 

[Trius]

Ruben: 40oz meant the 5mm difference in focal length, not physical size of the camera.

Earl

 

[kb244]

If I recall the 40mm f/1.7 on the QL17 GIII was *Supposibly* sharper than the 45mm f/1.9 on the QL19 models. But as far as focal length and light differences, they're so similar it may not even be all that noticible side by side in a print.

Besides why would a 45/1.9 (slower lens) be any larger in diameter than a 40/1.7? Course if you think about it 45 / 1.9 = 23.6 , 40 / 1.7 = 23.5 , ie: both only need the same lens diameter to have their respective f-stop (Since thats basically what the f-stop is, the diameter of the lens opening to give that amount of light at the given focal length) so it would be of no surprise if both had the same lens diameter.

 

[payasam]

The original Canonet, the one with film wind at the bottom and selenium meter cells around the lens, was 45/1.9.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Just to complete the picture, The GIII 1.9 also had a 45mm lens. AFAIK, the decision to shorten the lens length from 45 to 40 with the "New" Canonet was to reduce the size. Around that time "compact" was in. (Think OM1 ads 😉 )

By having the overall barrel length the same means less production costs in producing the 2 models. Why make 2 models? Cost is the obvious answer. Look at nearly all the SLRs and other cameras of the time. They all had a choice of "standard" lens. Quite often F1.4, F1.7/1.8 and F2. The Konica S2 had the 1.8 lens but there was also the S1.6 etc

Having used most of the Canonets, my preference is for the small 1.9 models. It is more of a subjective thing rather than a comparison of sharpness etc. I just found it gave me more pleasing pics. It might have something to do with the fact that I am a 50 person rather than a 35 one. Others, who prefer the 35 lens as their "usual" lens would probably choose the 1.7.

Kim