kb244
Well-known
Few years back I sold my P which I absolutely loved but needed the money.
The only rangefinder I kept around for a while was a Fed 2A and three russian lens. (though I really should have kept my CVs and vintage Canon LTMs ... but money... )
So when I went to reacquire a P, it seemed like the price was still up there considering. So I decided to see how I would like the 7, seeing as it's basically a P upgrade with a meter and different style viewfinder.
This one I picked up, while it did have a dent in the back corner by the rewind (possibly dropped, especially with a little ding by the lever), which was quickly resolved by the seller with a price adjustment.
Fortunately everything else appears to work, shutter speeds, meter, timer, advance, rangefinder coupling, viewfinder frames, etc. And I just adjusted the vertical alignment ever so slightly (was mainly lined up at less than 3 feet, but vertically off elsewhere, now it's spot-on for everything a little under 3 feet up to infinity, with only a sliver off the vertical under 3 feet). Coupling seemed good when I checked against a ground glass.
I haven't had a chance to go out and about with it just yet, but I have a feeling I'm going to like it just as much as the P. The P will always have a special place in my heart, but I think the 7 will grow on me just as much.
Right now I just have :
- Fed Industar-10 50/3.5 Collapsible (gaffer tape just behind the front to keep it from going back in too far when adapted on my olympus, fits the 7 collapsed as long as I mount extended first, and keep the "FED" logo at 12'clock when collapsing)
Was super-hazy and very very low contrast when I had it for a few years, the just recently decided to go ahead and open it up (very easy, two elements thru the rear spanner, cleaned up, no haze, good sharpness, decent out of camera contrast). Seems to work best on my Fed 2A.
- Industar-61L/D 55/2.8 which doesn't have the greatest focus ring gets a tad stiff going down to 2m or closer. Originally I thought there might be some kind of growth inside the lens, so like the I10 I disassembled it thru the rear pretty easily as before, cleaned which mostly seemed like dust, re-assembled and seemed fine. (Seems to have better contrast than the I10, but not as sharp).
- Jupiter 11 135/4 My favorite telephoto even on my Olympus E-M5 (micro-4/3rd) sharp as a tack at f/4 and good contrast.
But soon I'll have a Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 Mk I to cover my wide angle need on the LTM (would love to get the CV Ultron 35/1.7 back, but $$$, so I'll see how the Canon 35/2.8 does, least aesthetically it'll match the 7 like a charm)
Just thinking if I continue down the path of re-acquisition if I should try to get the Canon 50/1.8 Serenar I originally had with my P, or maybe look at getting a post-1950s Summarit 50mm, or perhaps some other variant of a faster 50 (f/2 or faster).
Without further ado, some pictures I shot of the 7 with the Industar-61L/D attached (Will do the same bit different setting once I get the Serenar).
The only rangefinder I kept around for a while was a Fed 2A and three russian lens. (though I really should have kept my CVs and vintage Canon LTMs ... but money... )
So when I went to reacquire a P, it seemed like the price was still up there considering. So I decided to see how I would like the 7, seeing as it's basically a P upgrade with a meter and different style viewfinder.
This one I picked up, while it did have a dent in the back corner by the rewind (possibly dropped, especially with a little ding by the lever), which was quickly resolved by the seller with a price adjustment.
Fortunately everything else appears to work, shutter speeds, meter, timer, advance, rangefinder coupling, viewfinder frames, etc. And I just adjusted the vertical alignment ever so slightly (was mainly lined up at less than 3 feet, but vertically off elsewhere, now it's spot-on for everything a little under 3 feet up to infinity, with only a sliver off the vertical under 3 feet). Coupling seemed good when I checked against a ground glass.
I haven't had a chance to go out and about with it just yet, but I have a feeling I'm going to like it just as much as the P. The P will always have a special place in my heart, but I think the 7 will grow on me just as much.
Right now I just have :
- Fed Industar-10 50/3.5 Collapsible (gaffer tape just behind the front to keep it from going back in too far when adapted on my olympus, fits the 7 collapsed as long as I mount extended first, and keep the "FED" logo at 12'clock when collapsing)
Was super-hazy and very very low contrast when I had it for a few years, the just recently decided to go ahead and open it up (very easy, two elements thru the rear spanner, cleaned up, no haze, good sharpness, decent out of camera contrast). Seems to work best on my Fed 2A.
- Industar-61L/D 55/2.8 which doesn't have the greatest focus ring gets a tad stiff going down to 2m or closer. Originally I thought there might be some kind of growth inside the lens, so like the I10 I disassembled it thru the rear pretty easily as before, cleaned which mostly seemed like dust, re-assembled and seemed fine. (Seems to have better contrast than the I10, but not as sharp).
- Jupiter 11 135/4 My favorite telephoto even on my Olympus E-M5 (micro-4/3rd) sharp as a tack at f/4 and good contrast.
But soon I'll have a Canon Serenar 35mm f/2.8 Mk I to cover my wide angle need on the LTM (would love to get the CV Ultron 35/1.7 back, but $$$, so I'll see how the Canon 35/2.8 does, least aesthetically it'll match the 7 like a charm)
Just thinking if I continue down the path of re-acquisition if I should try to get the Canon 50/1.8 Serenar I originally had with my P, or maybe look at getting a post-1950s Summarit 50mm, or perhaps some other variant of a faster 50 (f/2 or faster).
Without further ado, some pictures I shot of the 7 with the Industar-61L/D attached (Will do the same bit different setting once I get the Serenar).
mcfingon
Western Australia
Looks good Karl. If you want genuine and appropriate Canon lenses from the period of the 7 I can recommend the Canon 50/1.4 (1959-1971). I have one and it's an excellent lens which would suit the size and look of the 7.
Jake Mongey
Well-known
Welcome to the world of the canon 7. Ive been using mine for 3 years now and its reliable and fun to shoot with every time.
kb244
Well-known
Hrm, certainly looks it. http://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s46.html
Looks to be a tad lighter than the 50/1.8 Serenar. They replace some parts with plastic?
Seems to be averaging around 100 more than the 50/1.8 (both the Mk 1 and 2)
This one seems a little confusing, they say serenar, but it's not chrome. Looks like a Mk II... but it has 8 aperture blades. Not 9.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXC-Canon-S...-for-Leica-Screw-Mount-LTM-L39-/132035998582?
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
I moved from a Canon 7 to a Canon L2.
I miss the projected frame-lines but the Canon 7 is a bit to large for me. Plus the meter on mine was busted.
I miss the projected frame-lines but the Canon 7 is a bit to large for me. Plus the meter on mine was busted.
kb244
Well-known
I would probably go P if went backwards, but that L2 does seem like it's lighter/smaller than either.
I'm looking at 495 grams for my Fed 2A (without lens) and and 640g for the Canon 7 (without lens).
Funny enough, the Canon 7 is heavier than my Universal Mercury II (with the Tricor 35/2.7 lens, it's a 1945 half-framer that still works accurately), which weighs in at 590g. Bigger too when I put em side by side, outside of the hump on top going taller than the 7.
That reminds me. I need to get a strap onto my 7. On my P I used to use a rather 70-ish strap
D was kind of the way to go for me lol).
kb244
Well-known
Noticed that some of the wiggling from the I61 was not cuz of the lens, the bayonet/screw mount ring on the body itself was loose. I tightened down the screws. Hopefully no more surprises on this "excellent condition" body.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm using a P now, but I really did enjoy using my old 7, a black repaint that somebody had removed the meter from. Shouldn't have sold it...
Enjoy yours, it looks great!
Enjoy yours, it looks great!
kb244
Well-known
A repaint sounds cool. The loss of a meter would kind of irk me. Funny thing is, I think I would feel more irked at a meter removed, than just simply dead. (weird how that goes).
What are you pairing with your P currently?
And for general audience : Any suggestions on an 85/90? (like maybe the Jupiter-9 80/2?)
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
The chrome 85/2 Canon can be found for a low price. They are heavy and slow to focus but good optics. The late black 85/1.8 is good but no better than the Canon FL 85/1.8 which it shares optics with.
Robert Lai
Well-known
In response to a few questions that you've asked along the way:
1) The Canon 50 1.4 is all metal and glass. There is no plastic on the lens (except the rear lens cap, the original one is similar to bakelite).
2) If the lens mounting flange is loose, even though you've tightened it down, inspect your images closely. You need to know if the image is in focus or not (film to flange distance may be affected), or if one corner or corners are sharp (flange is not square on the body, but canted).
3) The Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4 is a common, good, inexpensive 90mm lens. Due to age, some may have haze, but these aren't difficult to clean out.
Canon lenses are good, but the old chrome ones are VERY HEAVY!. I have the 85mm f/1.9. I hardly use it due to weight.
I've never had luck with a Jupiter 9. Often they are meant for a different film to flange distance than Leica LTM. They may be in focus at infinity, but then as you focus closer they get more out of focus. Some experts such as Brian Sweeney and Kim Coxon have managed to cure this by internal shims, but I'd pass on this lens.
1) The Canon 50 1.4 is all metal and glass. There is no plastic on the lens (except the rear lens cap, the original one is similar to bakelite).
2) If the lens mounting flange is loose, even though you've tightened it down, inspect your images closely. You need to know if the image is in focus or not (film to flange distance may be affected), or if one corner or corners are sharp (flange is not square on the body, but canted).
3) The Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4 is a common, good, inexpensive 90mm lens. Due to age, some may have haze, but these aren't difficult to clean out.
Canon lenses are good, but the old chrome ones are VERY HEAVY!. I have the 85mm f/1.9. I hardly use it due to weight.
I've never had luck with a Jupiter 9. Often they are meant for a different film to flange distance than Leica LTM. They may be in focus at infinity, but then as you focus closer they get more out of focus. Some experts such as Brian Sweeney and Kim Coxon have managed to cure this by internal shims, but I'd pass on this lens.
kb244
Well-known
Used to have the 50/1.8 Serenar, so I know heavy.
Well... ran into a disappointing situation, but not all that unexpected.
Had a couple test color rolls (for the mercury, fed, and 7) , and it used to be I would just drop it off at Meijer like I did last year for "negatives only" and pick it up later in the day.
None of the stores locally seem develop 35mm locally anymore they don't even have the little fujitsu processors anymore. Not even most of the drug stores, just they send it out and wait a week.
As I said, unexpected, but not that surprising, and usually I only use some cheap left over C41 rolls for quick tests, before I bother with B&W.
In regard to the mounting flange, it appears level across, but I can measure each sides/corners depth off the body with my digital calipers to be sure. (the ground glass/loupe test seemed ok).
But unless there's a place locally that can develop my C41 rolls, it'll be a little while longer before I can see results.
Well... ran into a disappointing situation, but not all that unexpected.
Had a couple test color rolls (for the mercury, fed, and 7) , and it used to be I would just drop it off at Meijer like I did last year for "negatives only" and pick it up later in the day.
None of the stores locally seem develop 35mm locally anymore they don't even have the little fujitsu processors anymore. Not even most of the drug stores, just they send it out and wait a week.
As I said, unexpected, but not that surprising, and usually I only use some cheap left over C41 rolls for quick tests, before I bother with B&W.
In regard to the mounting flange, it appears level across, but I can measure each sides/corners depth off the body with my digital calipers to be sure. (the ground glass/loupe test seemed ok).
But unless there's a place locally that can develop my C41 rolls, it'll be a little while longer before I can see results.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the P looks sleeker.
kb244
Well-known
Can't disagree with you from an aesthetic standpoint.
mcfingon
Western Australia
It's not a Serenar, but according to the book I have (Kitchingman - Canon M39 Rangefinder Lenses) it has the same optics as the 50/1.8 Serenar did. He lists 8 versions of the 50/1.8 from 1951 to 1975. The big change was the alloy body in 1956, which the 50/1.4 also has. That's why it's lighter than the earlier Serenars.
mcfingon
Western Australia
Here is my 1950 Serenar 50/1.9 on my 1951 Leica IIIf with Kitchingman's book as a background. It's a lovely lens in spite of not having as good a reputation as the 50/1.8 Serenar. My recommendation is only buy lenses that the seller specifically says have no haze or fungus. If the aperture oil sits on the glass of these lenses for a long time it can etch them and they can't be cleaned easily.
kb244
Well-known
That's what I been doing to date. My feeling is, if I get something with fungus... fungus is alive... fungus can migrate.
kb244
Well-known
By the way, side note : who in this day and age could CLA a working Canon 7 into tip-top shape?
nasmformyzombie
Registered
kb244
Well-known
Noted. Not sure where the 7 would fall on the price list. But seems like either way it's gonna be at least twice what i paid for the 7 if I need it. (but then it'd be like new again in a manner of speaking)
http://www.yyecamera.com/price_list.html
Sent him an email to inquire on approximate pricing in case I want it to be looked over and fine-tuned.