I bought a Canon 7

[Forest_rain]

Looks like it'd be cleanable, but you won't really know until you take it apart. If you do nothing and shoot as is, expect a low-contrast pic.

I had a Nikkor 50/2.0 that was so hazy you almost couldn't see through it. It cleaned up just fine. Ditto with an Olympus Zuiko that was on a Mamiya 120 rangefinder I once owned.

Jim B.

I took out the rear lens element and it appears that it's etched onto the surface of the actual lens. Couldn't get it off with alcohol, it looks like the coating is damaged or something. I might just send it back or ask for a discount, since the body works.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Get some cerium oxide paste (premixed is easiest) and just polish off the etched bits yourself. This is how I save money on all the weird motion picture lenses that I have (Angenieux 25mm f.95 that I got for $80 including shipping, for example.) I just buy lenses that need simple cleaning and they usually come out beautifully. I haven't had a bad sample which I couldn't fix in years. If you don't want to put in the labor, send it back and pull that slot machine lever again. Really, the only way you're going to get a camera and lens combo that don't need cleaning, is if you get extremely lucky, or pay up front and buy one that has already been cleaned. The other option is to send it out to a tech, then you're usually spending more than if you paid for an already cleaned camera (hint: recent proof of CLA does not make the camera much more valuable than without CLA). Regardless, you're going to send the camera off for CLA one of these days, if you decide to keep it and use it in present condition. It's as sure as gravity in the current physical model of the universe.
Phil Forrest

 

[Mackinaw]

I took out the rear lens element and it appears that it's etched onto the surface of the actual lens. Couldn't get it off with alcohol, it looks like the coating is damaged or something. I might just send it back or ask for a discount, since the body works.

A 50/50 mixture of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia is good for removing fungus, perhaps it would work here too.

Jim B.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Forest, Congratulations on the Canon 7. It's a great camera, which i'm sure will serve you well. There are lots of lens options. Like Newst, i'd recommend using an 85/90 or 100 instead of the 135. In my personal experience, i've never been happy with a 135 on a rangefinder, albeit that the lens quality is fine. The framing is just too small for me. Only the goggled 135 2.8 Elmarit solved those problems (on Leica).... but that lens was a beast. There are lots of reasonable 35mm canon lenses of good quality. I used the 25mm for a long time with good results, & the 50mm 1.4 is a gem. Best of luck w the camera

 

[Peter Jennings]

I've had several of these lenses and most had this etching on the element directly behind the aperture blades. And, as dourbalistar says, it was most common on the later, black barrel lenses. None of mine were salvageable. It was no big deal to me, because, like you, they mostly came attached to nicely working cameras. If I were you, I'd ask the seller for a partial refund and sell the lens "for parts".

 

[PRJ]

I would say it depends on what you paid for the camera. If it was a good deal not considering the lens then keep it.

You didn't say what version of the 50 you had.

I read recently that acid can clean haze depending on the cause of it which made sense to me if the haze is the result of components of the glass interacting with air. Acid may dissolve it. And as Phil stated above you could polish it but you may not feel comfortable doing so.

The Canon 7 is the best screwmount rangefinder. Great camera.

 

[davhill]

I think it's the two later black barrel Version II and Version III that have a reputation for developing haze, from an outgassing of the cement. The earlier (silver) Serenar versions perhaps less so.

If you don't want to send the whole thing back, perhaps you can negotiate with the seller for a partial refund, seeing was not accurately described?

My 50/1,8 is the black-barrel v.III, and its pristine. Luck of the draw, I suppose, but I paid a fair bit for that luck. Lovely lens.
I concur with previous remarks--judge your decision on the camera; if you like it, negotiate a discount based on the lens. Try to polish it out. If that fails you have a useful piece for practicing lens dis/reassembly.

 

[Forest_rain]

Another question about the Jupiter 12. I've heard that Russian lenses focus differently than Japanese/German lenses, so do I need to adjust the lens/rangefinder to get it to focus?

If it's just a little bit off, perhaps the 2.8 aperture will mean it won't matter much.

Since I'm mixing Canon and Russian lenses, perhaps it's not possible to adjust the rangefinder mechanism. I've heard of Contax users adjusting their lenses with shims, but this is probably beyond me.

Also I've heard of problems with the rear element clearing the interior of the camera. Obviously I'd check it, but it seems that newer versions may clear better than older ones. Seems like there's two main versions - an all black version and a chrome version with black front interior "hood" portion of the lens. Which one should I buy?

Digital needs light entry perpendicular to the sensor. Some slight exception with Leica M digitals.

The J12 works tolerably well when the perpendicular rule is approximated. An APS-C sensor goes close, a 4/3 would be closer. A lot of digital sensors have plastic guards that prevent proper J12 operation.

I use for black-and-white on an R-D1. Colour is tolerable. I can't mount on my Sony APS-C camera. It will mount on the A7 (not that I have one but have GAS) but only the crop framing might do.

Film doesn't care what angle the light strikes at, so J12 images are much better.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Another question about the Jupiter 12. I've heard that Russian lenses focus differently than Japanese/German lenses, so do I need to adjust the lens/rangefinder to get it to focus?


If it's just a little bit off, perhaps the 2.8 aperture will mean it won't matter much.

Since I'm mixing Canon and Russian lenses, perhaps it's not possible to adjust the rangefinder mechanism. I've heard of Contax users adjusting their lenses with shims, but this is probably beyond me.

Also I've heard of problems with the rear element clearing the interior of the camera. Obviously I'd check it, but it seems that newer versions may clear better than older ones. Seems like there's two main versions - an all black version and a chrome version with black front interior "hood" portion of the lens. Which one should I buy?

Forest, if you don't mind my asking, what's your rationale for getting Russian lenses? You've bought a cool Canon rangefinder for a fraction of the price of the Leica. There is a big pool of fine Canon LTM lenses at reasonable prices. You could put together an original Canon rangefinder rig..... just asking

 

[Forest_rain]

Phil recommended the Jupiter 12. I'm not sure, I suppose the Canon 35mm would be better? It looks like it's a little bit expensive on the 'bay right now though, compared to the Jupiter 12...

Forest, if you don't mind my asking, what's your rationale for getting Russian lenses? You've bought a cool Canon rangefinder for a fraction of the price of the Leica. There is a big pool of fine Canon LTM lenses at reasonable prices. You could put together an original Canon rangefinder rig..... just asking

 

[gzuiko]

Canon 7

Canon 7

I use a Canon 50mm f2.2 (Japan market only) or a 100mm f3.5 Serenar on my Canon 7, they are both a little rare but worth looking for. All the Canon RF lenses are prone to haze, so be careful when buying. The Japanese sellers are pretty honest about any evidence of Haze or fungus. To me the Canon 7 feels less solid than the earlier models, I prefer the L2 but the Canon 7 has a much brighter rangefinder and is easier to shoot with.

 

[rfaspen]

J-12s are just fine lenses. Very inexpensive, but excellent performers. Canon 35s are nicer, especially the ergonomics, but getting a J-12 gets you into a wide lens ..... I think it's a good idea, and then getting a Canon 35/2 or 35/2.8 later seems like another good idea.

 

[Forest_rain]

I just did a bunch of searching and it's still not clear whether you can use a Jupiter 12 on Canon (Leica standard) with/without shims.

There's a lot of information on Jupiter 8s and 3's which involve shimming, maybe grinding glass, and losing infinity focus unless you stop down to F4 with the shim on.

But some people have reported the 12 to work with some simple shims installed. Anyone have any knowledge here?

Perhaps it's better to skip the Jupiter...

J-12s are just fine lenses. Very inexpensive, but excellent performers. Canon 35s are nicer, especially the ergonomics, but getting a J-12 gets you into a wide lens ..... I think it's a good idea, and then getting a Canon 35/2 or 35/2.8 later seems like another good idea.

 

[santino]

The J12 should be fine. It is 35mm and only 2.8 - stop it down to f4 and there won‘t be any focus issues. It is a very capable lens for the fraction of the price of other lenses. I‘d give it a try.

 

[AndersG]

It is worth noting that the Jupiter-12 was built over many years and small changes in how close the back end goes to the shutter and baffles might allow it to fit or not fit a Canon 7. My Jupiter-12 (manufacturing no 8401024) does fit my Canon 7 (manufacturing no 836763) but I seldom use it on that camera since my glasses makes the 35mm frame line hard to see.

For focusing I agree with the post by santino above. I have also used Jupiter-8 (50mm/2) and Jupiter-11 (135mm/4), but perhaps seldom fully opened, on my Canon 7 and have not noticed focusing problems (but I'm not such a careful focuser).

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Don't listen to me. Don't listen to anyone. What you need to do is not get the wide and varied opinions of the internet, and go out and shoot. Find out for yourself what cameras and lenses work best for you.
I did a little of the intense internet research but I still had to learn myself what works for me.
I began the RF journey with a Konica Hexar (AF) and sold it to fund my first Leica, an M2. I used that camera for two years then sold it and haven't really looked back. But I really miss that Hexar. It took me to scratch the itch of rangefinders to find the gear that suits me best. Over the last 30 years, I've probably bought and sold more than $50,000 in gear, but that didn't make me a better photographer. I didn't know that I should have just stuck with my Pentax ME Super until over a decade after I sold it. Now I'm no longer a professional photographer and I got a thrift store Pentax MX with 50mm lens. Had Eric H. give it a CLA and now it's perfect. But no one could have told me a long time ago that I didn't need more, more, more. Now I need way less. Anyone need a camera or a typewriter? 😉
Phil Forrest

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"But no one could have told me a long time ago that I didn't need more, more, more. Now I need way less." Phil Forrest

Well said Phil, & not said often enough.

 

[davhill]

I just did a bunch of searching and it's still not clear whether you can use a Jupiter 12 on Canon (Leica standard) with/without shims.

There's a lot of information on Jupiter 8s and 3's which involve shimming, maybe grinding glass, and losing infinity focus unless you stop down to F4 with the shim on.

But some people have reported the 12 to work with some simple shims installed. Anyone have any knowledge here?

Perhaps it's better to skip the Jupiter...

The J12 should work perfectly fine with the Canon-7. The Canon-P has potential issues with the internal baffles hitting the protruding rear element — but clearance is tighter on the P. My J12 just barely fits in my P. Should be fine on the 7.

The other issue with Jupiter (or any soviet LTM lens) is the focusing helicoid. I just mentioned this on another thread so here it is again: when the soviets reproduced Contax and Leica cameras postwar, they used the Contax-spec helicoid for both systems, which is fractionally different than the Leica-spec helicoid. The soviet LTM bodies were manufactured to match, but this means that soviet LTM lenses don’t focus quite precisely on German and Japanese LTM cameras. The issue is inconsequential for wider lenses (like the 35mm J12) because depth of field can easily accommodate the error. For 50’s (J-3 and J-8) it’s just enough off to make near-focus at open apertures to miss focus. This is where you read of shims, to adjust the lens so focus is dead on at close range, with the assumption that increased depth of field at far range will accommodate the shift. (Focus shift is inherent in the optics of Sonnar lenses like the J-3 but that’s another topic). The effect is more pronounced on longer soviet LTM lenses (85,100,135) and they don’t work well with Leica or Canon: they’re great at distance but focus becomes increasingly poor as you get closer. Again, you could adjust one to be optimal at portrait distance.. but the longer lens would be unlikely to focus at infinity.

To sum up: a Jupiter-12 should work fine on a canon-7.

 

[retinax]

My experience has been that the J-12 can be a tight fit with the baffles in both the 7 and the P. But bending them slightly out of the way is no problem.

 

[santino]

One got to have at least one J12 🙂
Tiny front lens with build in hood, giant light bulb like rear lens which almost touches the shutter. I adore the early Zeiss designers. Truely a RF only design. Wish I had the Zeiss original.