Value of a Canon IIS2?

[3.0]

Hey All,

I recently got the Canon IIS2 with the 50mm 1.8 as part of a darkroom purchase. I initially wanted to keep it but I find that I've been spoiled by the R3M's viewfinder, compared with the Canon's I really feel like I wouldn't enjoy shooting with it.

So I'm thinking of putting it up for sale once I get it CLA'd, especially the lens, it's got quite a bit of oil on the apertures. Other than that the shutter sounds slow at slow speeds but everything works as it should.

Just wondering what a range for it would be so I have a starting point when listing.

 

[Spicy]

I could see how the R3M might spoil you finder-wise, but I would recommend being open minded to keeping it after having it CLA'd, as that will make a difference. I have great things to say about Youxin Ye (great guy, does excellent work, reasonable prices, generally pretty speedy turnaround, stands behind his work if there are any issues, easily reachable -- especially via e-mail).

I am fortunate enough to be about 20min from his workshop when I'm back in the States, and have been down to get various cameras serviced and spent the time watching/chatting with him. The first camera he CLA'd for me was my IIIc, very similar to your Canon Barnack copy. He put in a Japanese-sourced beam splitter which upped the contrast of the focusing tremendously.

I'm pretty sure that almost all the Barnack cameras and their copies use the same piece, so you could send it to him and get it CLA'd/upgraded, and it'll come back a wonderful camera. I'd actually venture a guess and say it would be better to use than the Leica Barnacks, because of Canon's interesting viewfinder-magnification switch -- the build quality is certainly on-par...

His wife also handles the lens-CLAs, since "lenses require the more delicate touch of a woman." Like I said, he's quite the character; great guy to chat with.

Just my two cents... Although it should be mentioned that while his prices are great for the results they give, it's unlikely you'd recoup all the costs for CLAing the body and lens. Someone else please correct me, since I may be wrong, but I would venture a guess saying a freshly CLA'd IIS2 with 50/1.8 would likely be in the $450~500 range, perhaps a bit more depending on condition. Without the CLA, you could probably get 350-400 or so for it. Getting it CLA'd would make it a MUCH better user for whoever ends up keeping it, but won't increase the value as much as the cost of the CLA, unfortunately.

My thoughts are there is a good chance you'll find it's worth keeping if you CLA it; otherwise sell it as-is sans CLA.

 

[3.0]

Cool, thanks for the tip. I think you've convinced me to shoot a few rolls through it and see what happens. I really do like the feel and weight of it, my bessa feels like a toy after I've handled the Canon.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrfcameras.html

this link might help?

 

[Dez]

I think you may be a bit optimistic about the pricing of the Canon. One of the best means of testing the market price is to do a search on ebay, limiting the search terms to sold items. Asking price and selling price on ebay can be worlds apart. Look for similar cameras: IIS2, IIS, IVSB, and IVSB2. The IIS2 is a variant of the IVSB2, the only difference I know of is the removal of the 1/1000 shutter speed, so these similar cameras should give a good idea of pricing.
I agree that with a CLA, the RF Canons are superb cameras, in many ways more advanced than the Barnack Leicas, especially concerning the range/viewfinder. I have a IVSB2 and a Leica IIIG, and although the IIIG is more valuable to a collector, the Canon is definitely the better camera for actual use.
Concern about oil on the aperture blades is mostly a carry-over from the SLR world, where it may cause problems with the automatic stop-down feature. In a RF camera, the only concern is whether or not the lubricant will condense on the adjacent glass surfaces causing fog. Internal fog is common with this particular lens, but if your lens is free of fog, I wouldn't bother cleaning it; if the oil hasn't caused any fog in the last 60 years, chances are it's not about to.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Mackinaw]

.....Concern about oil on the aperture blades is mostly a carry-over from the SLR world, where it may cause problems with the automatic stop-down feature. In a RF camera, the only concern is whether or not the lubricant will condense on the adjacent glass surfaces causing fog. Internal fog is common with this particular lens, but if your lens is free of fog, I wouldn't bother cleaning it; if the oil hasn't caused any fog in the last 60 years, chances are it's not about to.....

I agree with this. I bought a chrome Canon 35/2.8 lens back in 1976 that had oil on the aperture blades. It was always my intention to send the lens to somebody and have it cleaned. I never did. Fast forward to 2014 and the lens still has oil on the aperture blades. Since there's no signs of haze on the interior elements, I don't worry about it.

Jim B.

 

[farlymac]

The time you would have to worry about oil on the aperture blades is when it is extremely cold out. This could make the oil coagulate, which sticks the blades together, then they get bent when trying to change settings. But this is a rare occurrence. Usually, if it's that cold, you're not going to be out taking photos anyway.

Enjoy your camera, it's one of the nicest Barnack type ones around. And try this site for a price estimate.

PF

 

[3.0]

I didn't know that about aperture blades, very interesting. Although I figured it would be easier to sell if the oil wasn't on the lens, yeah there doesn't seem to be fog at all. I'm really surprised at the condition of the camera.

Actually I really like the camera but I wanted to free up some funds to a Minolta-35. I know they're very similar and the Minolta has a shutter that goes bad, but I have this strange thing with vintage Minoltas.

I think you may be a bit optimistic about the pricing of the Canon. One of the best means of testing the market price is to do a search on ebay, limiting the search terms to sold items. Asking price and selling price on ebay can be worlds apart. Look for similar cameras: IIS2, IIS, IVSB, and IVSB2. The IIS2 is a variant of the IVSB2, the only difference I know of is the removal of the 1/1000 shutter speed, so these similar cameras should give a good idea of pricing.
I agree that with a CLA, the RF Canons are superb cameras, in many ways more advanced than the Barnack Leicas, especially concerning the range/viewfinder. I have a IVSB2 and a Leica IIIG, and although the IIIG is more valuable to a collector, the Canon is definitely the better camera for actual use.
Concern about oil on the aperture blades is mostly a carry-over from the SLR world, where it may cause problems with the automatic stop-down feature. In a RF camera, the only concern is whether or not the lubricant will condense on the adjacent glass surfaces causing fog. Internal fog is common with this particular lens, but if your lens is free of fog, I wouldn't bother cleaning it; if the oil hasn't caused any fog in the last 60 years, chances are it's not about to.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[3.0]

http://www.antiquecameras.net/canonrfcameras.html

this link might help?

Awesome site, thanks for the link!

 

[briansilcox]

value

value

I would echo some of what has been posted above... I bought a IIf2 for about $200.00 with a 50 1.8 a couple years ago, and had it and two lenses CLA'd. I doubt that the camera with 50 would fetch more than 350.00 even though it is very clean. On the other hand, I find that this is the most user friendly finder of all of my similar era bodies because of the magnifier in the viewfinder for sensitive focus. I have had some some excellent results with the Canon 50 1.8, so I would think about keeping it as well. Just my 2 cents.

 

[3.0]

Thanks for the info Brian.

I generally like the camera but the thing is I just got a Minolta-35 which I like more, and as much as I'd like to keep both I really should only have one. But then again if I can't really get much return from the Canon, and you're right I do like the lens, I might just keep it.