Canon LTM QL17GIII vs QL19GIII

[Photon-hunter]

As it all comes down to the lenses...what are the main differences between this two lenses? (apart, obviously of the 17 being a tad faster..). Is any of them considerably "better" from the other? (from an image quality-Sharpness/contrast point of view). What are the differences in the construction of them?

Thanks again.

E.

 

[Spyderman]

One is 40mm f/1.7 the other is slightly longer 45mm f/1.9.

I doubt you could find any difference in the pictures.

 

[Rey]

I know that the 1.7 edition is considered superb, Leica quality. I'm not sure about the 1.9. The build quality of both cameras should be similar though.

 

[ghostganz]

Maybe the 1.9 doesn't have the astigmatism (weird looking out-of-focus areas) of the 1.7? They seem to be rarer than the 1.7's anyway.

 

[Kim Coxon]

I have never seen any comments saying one lens is better than the others. However, as Andrej says, many say they prefer the QL19 for the slightly longer focal length which gives better portraits.

Kim

 

[ruben]

I think this is a nice question calling for a test. My logics say that being one 40mm f/1.7, and the other 45mm f/1.9 they cannot be of equal performance at their common f/stops, unless Canon cheapened the quality of the glass in their lower priced f/1.9 version.

But a test is imperative here. As well as Bryan's expertize.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Kim Coxon]

Before moving on to the VI-L, I had both of the cameras (and indeed most of the earlier versions.) Personally, apart from the angle of view, I didn't notice any real "quality" difference between them but I didn't go above 9x 6 prints. I pefrered the 45mm lens but that is probabl because I am more of a 50mm person than a 35mm person.

Kim

 

[januaryman]

Hmm.. (chuckling to myelf) I was just going to saythe 40mm was better because I'm more of a 35mm person. Lately. The Yashica E35's (I have 3) have great lenses that are 45mm, but shooting with the Canonet 17 felt better. YMMV.