Which one should I get? Leica Cl or Canon QL 17

[SimonSawSunlight]

I have both and both are cool, but very different. I think on the long term the CL is the better choice, but also a lot more expensive. the ql17 gIII is a very cool compact camera though with an incredibly sharp lens and a very... individual bokeh.
get a cl and if you find a good deal on a ql17, get that one too 😉 (I paid like USD 15 for QL, 1/11 of the CL body price 😀)

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I'll vote for the CL. Almost every time I've bought a screw thread or M bayonet lens I've tested it in the CL as the CL gets most films through it. The metering is great in the Cl being a large spot and the view in the VF of the speed set is useful.

Regards, David

PS Shouldn't mention it here but there's enough around to have a wide choice and even a choice of technicians if things go wrong.

 

[Palaeoboy]

I owned both and I strongly advise you to get the Canon QL17 ( I still have one) especially when it is now much cheaper than before. The QL 17 is much more robust and has a faster lens which is every bit as good as, if not better than, the 40 'cron. I hate the CL because (1) the top plate is thin and easily dinged; (2) the piece of glass in front of the viewfinder is easily detached. If you like the Leitz glass, get a user M 2 and you'll have a life long companion. Otherwise, the QL17 is the best small rangefinder camera that you'll definitely enjoy. Good luck.

I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with 40mm lenses and as good as the 40mm lens in the Canon is for the money its in no way superior or equal to the 40mm Summicron. In fact there are other fixed lens 40's that are optically superior to the Canon but still below the Summicron.

It may be true the top plate of the CL is more easily dented than that of the Canon but on the flip side the camera back of the Canon is not as well made in comparison to the CL's and is very prone to light leaks from the constantly deteriorating sponge seals. The CL has a reputation for meter failure with age but one camera that has more meter failures are the Canonettes. You just dont hear about it because a million of the things were made and you simply toss them away and buy another. The shutters are not as reliable as the CL's either and prone to seize. As mentioned by another poster the focusing patch is also superior to that in the Canon.

At the end of the day though they arent cameras really in the same price point or compete with each other as one is fixed lens and the other isnt. The CL is a system camera that can be added too. Since price isnt an issue get the CL and should you develop a taste for rangefinder photography and want to move to a Leica M or Ikon the CL makes the perfect compact backup body.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

I would recommend the Cl. I was in a camera store last week and we were discussing a Cl. There are no spare parts available for them. Repairs/parts are taken from unrepairable Cls and they are expensive and the turn around time is long. The Canonet is a good beginer and if it goes bad you are not out a lot of money. Another camera is the Yashica GSN; it is less expensive. It is larger but the lens sharper (IMHO).

 

[mradams]

there is a source that carries batteries for most old cameras, even the one that dont seem to be produced anymore:

http://www.weincell.com/

i buy all my canonet batteries there. 1 battery is good for 1-2 years of shooting if you always close the lens cap after shooting!

 

[mradams]

No Adapter Needed!

No Adapter Needed!

there is a source that carries batteries for most old cameras, even the one that dont seem to be produced anymore:

http://www.weincell.com/

i buy all my canonet batteries there. 1 battery is good for 1-2 years of shooting if you always close the lens cap after shooting!

 

[JohnTF]

I would recommend the Cl. I was in a camera store last week and we were discussing a Cl. There are no spare parts available for them. Repairs/parts are taken from unrepairable Cls and they are expensive and the turn around time is long. The Canonet is a good beginer and if it goes bad you are not out a lot of money. Another camera is the Yashica GSN; it is less expensive. It is larger but the lens sharper (IMHO).

There are a number of places to have a CL serviced properly, plus when it is serviced, it has some value.

Is the build quality as good as an M6? No. But neither is the M5.

I have a dozen or so fixed lens RF's which are not worth the CLA to get the shutters back to reliability. OTOH, I have a Petri and Ricoh RF which both are working well (no meters).

Prices? I know one is getting an overhaul, with a replacement mirror, RF rebuild, full shutter clean, and meter adjustment for the alkaline battery, $80 dealer cost, hardly expensive. The lenses on them are bringing good coin now for whatever reason. I was really surprised at the price, especially since mine will cost me more. It may also depend on the age, I have been told the early ones had more problems with the meters.

Turn around time, couple of weeks.

If the price going in is too high and you still want an M mount, I would say find a good user M6, if not, you are not likely to lose much to give it a try.

Regards, John

 

[bluelight]

Hi John,

Just got a CL that require the overhaul you mentioned. $80 is a good price. Would you mind sharing the contact for teh dealer?

Thanks,

Ed

 

[former member]

>I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with 40mm lenses and as good as the
>40mm lens in the Canon is for the money its in no way superior or equal to the 40mm
>Summicron. In fact there are other fixed lens 40's that are optically superior to the
>Canon but still below the Summicron.

I have the Canon QL17L and the Ql17GIII. I've had four "L"s and more than 10 GIII's. In my experience, The lenses on the Ql17L are better than those on the later GIII. The L's are a bit earlier, and quality control was probably tighter, or just produced on lower numbers. Some elements on the GIII are cheaper than the Ql17L, more use of plastic. Still a solid little camera with a great finder and soft shutter release. There were many more GIII's made, so maybe it was shere numbers or transferring production out of Japan.

My CL with the Summicron is better.

$80 rebuild for a CL was stated as dealer cost. I suspect that translates to $120 or more for consumers. KEH charged $120 for my CL, and i am happy with the work. No work was required on the prisms.

 

[Vincenzo Maielli]

My personal problem solving; i own both...
Ciao.
Vincenzo

 

[outfitter]

who is kidding whom, the CL (and the later Minolta CLE) and the lenses it takes are in a different class. I like the Canon only because it is dirt cheap and easy to pop the top to clean the rangefinder etc. (and I sold my CL and CLE long ago), the lens is OK to very good but not fall down on your knees good (while the Leitz glass is). As to batteries, 675 zinc-oxide hearing aid batteries, about a buck apiece from Walmart are basically the same as Wein batteries at a fraction of the cost; just use o-rings, aluminum foil, wire etc as spacers (Wein puts washers on theirs I just save some and press fit them to a hearing aid battery).

 

[Roger Vadim]

I collect 40mm lenses and fixed lens rangefinders with 40mm lenses and as good as the 40mm lens in the Canon is for the money its in no way superior or equal to the 40mm Summicron. In fact there are other fixed lens 40's that are optically superior to the Canon but still below the Summicron.

Being a 40mm fan, could you ellaborate which 40mm fixed (and nonfixed😉 lens you like best?
Truly interested. I never was a friend of the canon lens either, compared to my Revue 400 1.7/40 it is boring.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

I used to have a Cl but sold it. I still have 2 q17's but don't use them either, they are just to cheap to sell them. BUt my oldest daughter showed interest in them🙂
In your case i'd buy both. Or when budget is really not a problem I'd buy a M6 with a CV35/1.4.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[Palaeoboy]

Being a 40mm fan, could you ellaborate which 40mm fixed (and nonfixed😉 lens you like best?
Truly interested. I never was a friend of the canon lens either, compared to my Revue 400 1.7/40 it is boring.

Well funny you mention the Review 400, because my pick of the 40mm fixed lens rangerfinders was the Minolta 7SII, which in turn is the same lens as that used in the Review. There is also a Vivitar 35ES equivalent but I have found there to be a bit of quality control variation with these. Remember however that compared to most of the AF compacts that followed in the 80's there isn't a bad 40mm lens just some slightly better than others.

I am also partial to the Rollei 35's if your not shooting close and low light situations where focusing can be hit and miss but lens quality non the less is great.

In interchangeable 40mm lenses again there isnt really a bad one but my preferences are;

1/ In SLR the Voigtlander 40mm f2 Ultron is truly an outstanding modern ASPH lens and hard to beat.

2/ In Leica mounts its horses for courses, if you need speed then the Voigtlander Noktons are the way. If you need LTM then the Rollei Sonnar 40mm f2.8 RF is the only choice, so too this lens probably has the best flare control of all the Leica Mount 40's and a saturated colour Zeiss look that some love. The Rokkors are simply the best value for a compact 40mm lenses. My favourite and most commonly used 40mm is one I picked not so much for its optical superiority as its similar to the Rokkors and thats the Summicron 40mm. Strangely though the reason I prefer this lens is often touted as its flaws. I like the hood/filter/cap arrangement of the lens. Usually when you add all 3 it makes a compact lens not so compact. But the way the series 5.5 filter fits into the collapsible hood (allowing me to have a UV filter always attached) and then the cap clips firmly on protecting it all like a solid clamshell unlike any other lens yet retaining its compact size makes it a winner for me. So too with all the other lenses I carry with it use 39mm filters which can be attach by a couple of threads long enough to do whatever is needed at the time.

At the end of the day though since all the Leica Mounts 40's are good, make your choice based on value, size, speed and filter size before you need to worry about them optically.