What is the fastest lens on a fixed lens RF?

[Magpie]

Hi,

Have been thinking about getting another camera, what I don't have is a 35mm fixed lens RF. I want to be able to load with reasonably fast film and carry it in the bottom of my briefcase, bag or whatever and know that it will be able to capture most scenes - even at night.

It has to be reasonably priced so that if the worst was to happen (lost, stolen or broken etc) I could shrug, pour another glass of red and look around for another one.

This set me to thinking, is there one camera, readily available, that has a faster lens than the Canonet GIII 17? My budget would be $100 tops.

What do you suggest😕

Regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Brendan,

Yashica Lynx 14, as far as I recall -- f/1.4 as the name suggests, from memory 47mm or 45mm. I got rid of mine years ago because the RF was so dim it was hard to focus in any light, but this was almost certainly a result of th camera's age and condition, not an inherent fault.

Edit: for cheapness, reliability and excellent quality, though a slower lens, I'd heartily recommend a Konica. There are quite a few: mine has an f/1.9 lens, mechanical shutter, selenium (battery-independent) meter that still works. It's also a LOT smaller than a Lynx 14.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[JonR]

Yashica Electro 35 CC is a very nice camera with 1,8 fixed lens. Very compact, good optical quality and often with clear rangefinders even today. Another plus is that the battery required is still available and not one of the older mercury batteries.

Price level maybe between 50 and 100 USD for a good one !?

/Jon

 

[Kim Coxon]

I just sold a Konica 1.6 to another member here for $40. that had the 1.6 lens as the name suggests. There would be little difference between the 1.6/1.7/1.8 lenses and the Lynx is only 1/2 stop faster. I would go for the one you like the handling off. The GIII's and Oly are smaller. The meter on the Konica still works in manual mode and many like the shutter on the Yashicas.

Kim

Kim

 

[mike goldberg]

Seems to me another factor would be the quality of a given fast, fixed lens, wide open. I find the QL-17 to be excellent.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I have a bias, though, because I remember when these fixed lens rangefinders were current, and were simply the cheap point and shoot cameras of the day. "Real photographers" didn't buy them, dads bought them to shoot pictures of the kids. They are better cameras than we thought at the time 🙂

I don't think they were ever "cheap" in the same sense as fixed focus compact cameras were in the 1980's and 1990's or 5-7 MP 1/2.5" or smaller sensor, 3-4x zoom lens digital P&S cameras are quickly becoming. The really cheap cameras at the time were fixed, scale or zone focus cameras such as the Olympus Trip 35 and the various 126 film instamatics. Between them and the fast lens rangefinders was also the class of slower lens (typically f/2.8) rangefinders with full program AE only.

"Real photographers" did not use fixed lens rangefinders in the 1960s' or 1970's, but let's not forget that most of them did not even use 35 mm film cameras in those days. The 35 mm rangefinders and then the 35 mm SLR were used by photojournalists and street photographers, but most pros and serious amateurs used TLRs and MF SLRs. Amateurs adopted the 35 mm SLR in the 1970's, since MF SLR's were too expensive for them and TLRs were so big, but pros were more conservative. Even TLR's were still popular enough that manufacturing continued. In the 1990's there were many conservative pros such as wedding photographers who used MF SLR's even for field work. Many of them changed directly from them to Canon full frame DSLR's.

Perhaps a more accurate analogy for fast lens rangefinders than "cheap point and shoot cameras" would be the long zoom (3-5x) P&S cameras of the 1990s or modern digital "superzoom" (10x or longer) cameras. They were (and are) not cheap and they were mostly used for holiday and family photography, but most serious photographers don't use them for various reasons.

 

[dmr]

Mamiya made, for a while, a f1.5 version of the Super Deluxe rangefinder.

Mine is the 1.7 model and I love it. I really don't imagine that much of an advantage with a fraction of a stop extra.

 

[titrisol]

The Lynx 14 had a 1.4
Among others the Petri 7s had a 1.8

 

[Magpie]

Thanks for all the suggestions, we have a Camera Market here in Sydney this coming Sunday so I will see what is available.

Hopefully something good will be there - sometimes the market days have nothing but junk and other times great bargains can be had - if you get there early enough!

Wish me luck

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

By the 1970's most PJ's were shooting 35mm, usually Nikon.

But, perhaps "cheap" was not a fair description. These fixed lens rangefinders were consumer cameras, built to a price point, never intended to be used heavily or often. Within those parameters, they met their goal. The fact that so many exist today in almost unused condition (most problems with them are associated more with disuse than use) confirms that the companies understood their target consumer.

These cameras now are achieving a status they didn't have then, with serious photograhers buying and using them, and producing amazing photos with them. The result is that these utilitarian cameras of decades ago are becoming cult favorites and commanding relatively high prices for what they are.

You are of course right about the PJ's, I wasn't clear enough. Photojournalists were the first pros to adopt the 35 mm SLR, but many other pros used MF cameras well into the 1980's and some into 1990's even for field work.

Fixed lens rangefinders really were consumer cameras. Let me illustrate the point with an image:



These cameras represent about the same market segment but 20 years in between them. Neither was particularly cheap at their day and they accupied the upper range of consumer cameras. The interesting thing is that while the Electro 35 GSN is respected nowadays, the Prima Super 135 probably never will be, even though it is capable of producing quite decent images. Much slower lens probably has something to do with the lack of respect, but I wonder if it's the only reason. Probably materials and overall feel of use have something to do with it as well.

 

[jlw]

By the 1970's most PJ's were shooting 35mm, usually Nikon.

Just as a side note to this discussion, I seem to recall that the well-known pictures of President Reagan immediately after Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme's assasination attempt on him were shot with a Canon QL17.

If I recall the details correctly, the shooting occurred as Reagan was leaving a building after a speech. The press corps had been getting podium shots of the speech and still had long lenses mounted on their SLRs -- but one guy also happened to have a compact RF hanging around his neck for grab shots. (I suppose I could research his name, but I'm feeling lazy this morning.)

Incidentally, another reason for the "cult status" of the QL17 GIII is that it was one of the last of these "compact RF" models to be available. At one time just about every major Japanese manufacturer (notable holdouts were Asahi and Nikon) sold one of these little cameras with a coupled range/viewfinder, a fixed, high-quality, semi-wide lens, a leaf shutter, a CdS meter, and auto exposure. Some were made by contract manufacturers and some by the camera makers themselves.

Gradually most of them dropped off the rolls -- possibly because labor costs rose to the point that it might have been costing almost as much to build one of these "low-priced" cameras as it did to build an SLR (and didn't offer the revenue-boosting opportunity to sell extra lenses afterward.) Hence the big marketing push to get casual photographers to switch to SLRs in the '70s.

Canon, with the GIII, was one of the last to persist with this type of camera -- so one reason it has more recognition than most may be that it was around the longest.

 

[shadowfox]

I thnk there are at least four cameras that has better lens than the Canonet GIII.

Olympus 35 SP and 35 RD, Yashica Electro 35, and Minolta Hi-matic 7sII.

All has max aperture of 1.7

 

[niimo]

I own a Yashica Lynx-14 here is a set of shots taken with it http://www.flickr.com/photos/niimo/sets/72157600595281533/

The Lynx is the camera on the top left:

Larger version for detail:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2262/1846594529_1280225b71_b.jpg

As you can see, it is not small, nor very portable. It is slightly bulkier and significantly heavier than the GSN. MUCH more so than the Canonet.
I recently shot a roll with a canonet and was thrilled with how it handled. I would take a canonet in a blink over the lynx-14. The Canonet going to 800 ISO, I would just use faster film in there, I think the Lynx only goes to 400 if I recall correctly.

I vaguely recall another F/1.4 filxed lens camera, I'll look into it.

 

[ltketch]

I like my Minolta 7Sii, 40/1.7! Auto and manual modes though no meter in manual!

 

[jan normandale]

For the money and consistent results the Yashica GSN is a consideration. The other cameras are less readily available and prices reflect that. I've several of the cameras listed here and in the "value equation" the GSN wins.. not by much but I'd say it does.

The other cameras all take excellent shots don't doubt it. Just check the galleries for images by all the others.. ie, KM 7sii, Canonet GIII 17, Lynx 14. Each has qualities that makes people love them or dismiss them but they all give good images.

 

[NickTrop]

I LOVE my Lynx 14.

The question was, "What's the fastest fixed lens rangefinder?" There is only one answer - and it ain't any of the other cameras mentioned. The answer is the Lynx 14. Period.

An f1.4 lens is a special thing. 1.7 is fast but mundane, commonplace. As -always- you don't get a 1.4 because of its low-light capabilities are that much better than a 1.7/1.8 lens at wide-open apertures. You get it because f1.4s behave differently, have different optical designs, and generally preform better at f4 and sharpen up better at f2 than the others. This is true of the 7 element/5 group F1.4 lens on the Lynx.

It's also a 100% manual camera - not aperture priority, not shutter priority, all manual. Its leaf shutter syncs flash at all speeds. It tops any 1.4 on an SLR because you can hand-hold it at slower shutter speeds because its a leaf shutter camera. No mirror slap. So you can disregard the SLR "slowest shutter speed = 1/focal length" rule.

All manual, very good 1.4 lens, parrallex corrected view finder. NO compromises. And - because of this, its THE BEST low-light shooter among the fixed lens rangefinders. It is, however, a big and heavy camera with a large 45mm front element. Don't like bigger cameras? Then this one ain't for you.

If you get one send it off to a good repair person and have it serviced. Mine works as new, the rangefinder is fine - not Leica class but certainly functional and as good as any of the others in this category, "when serviced and cleaned". You'd have to pry if from my cold dead hands. To the person who said these cameras were "cheap" a while ago, I posted a thread about what these cameras would cost today using old ads for the prices, and an inflation calculater. The Lynx would cost $700 in todays dollarettes. Up to you if you consider a $700 a "cheap" camera. I don't. It was also Yashica's "flagship" in its day, costing more than the GSN and also more than their "Pro" medium format TLR cameras.

 

[dmr]

Just as a side note to this discussion, I seem to recall that the well-known pictures of President Reagan immediately after Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme's assasination attempt on him were shot with a Canon QL17.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was Ford that "Squeaky" tried to get.

 

[ully]

Yes

Yes

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was Ford that "Squeaky" tried to get.

It was Ford.