Canon LTM Canonets Optics - The No-Legend Tale

[ruben]

During my RFF addiction times, still kicking for dopamine in the cheapo challengers field, I have been hearing time and again about "legendary" lens. Who hasn't?

Thus for example the Yashica Yashinons have been challenging Leica glass. Zuiko optics have been beyond question. Konica's Hexanons of the sixties are part of The Family.

Yet, the absence of Canonets "Canon" glass in the beauty competition is something I would like to reconsider outspokenly in this thread. Is it inferior to the cheapo lengendary ones ?

Has the extremely filled functions' package of the GIIIs stolen the attention from the optical side of the Canonets ?

And BTW, are the optics of the 45mm f1.9 inferior ?

Let's talk and show images. Just one minor request: if you are going to show an image, take into account that the quality of a lens cannot be seen in a computer screen if the picture was done at mid-day light with ISO 100 fujicolor etc.

To my opinion, which of course can be debated, the best image test of a lens is at the closest possible distance and widest possible apperture. Here we really enter the beauty's dressing room.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[dmr]

Let's talk and show images.

Overall I love the GIII, but the lens does have its limitations.

I really thought the image below was the Money Shot, and at first glance it does not look bad, but on closer inspection there is an awful lot of visible aberration, identified by JLW here as astigmatism some time ago in another example shot.

When shooting wide open or close to wide open, particularly with point sources or bright lights, there is a very significant tangential distortion as you can see in the building marquee inset blow-up.

The Mamiya SD shows SOME of this astigmatism, but not as much. I don't really know how much of this is to be expected in the high-rent lenses.

 

[januaryman]

Well, the Canonet used to be called the poor man's leica. I'm poor enough to agree. I have two of them.

 

[ruben]

Hi dmr,
Kindly let me express I understand your feelings, even more as it seems to me you like to photograph at similar situations. But I would like to pressure a bit: Have you been consistently disappoined by the "Canon" Canonet glass at wide apertures but not at night?

Hi Jim,
Are those two Canonets the only cameras you have ever had. Would you like to comment anything about the optics at widest apertures ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Spyderman]

Canonet indeed is one underrated camera. The lens is good. I can't compare it to other fixed lens compact RF's or M-baonet lenses, but it's very good. It may have its quirks like not-very-nice bokeh, light fall-off and astigmatism in the corners wide open, but it's still a nice sharp lens. Here are a couple of my recent pictures. I've picked some which were shot wide-open or somewhere near wide open.

The following are from my trip to Prague in february this year.

 

[Spyderman]

Here are another three...

From last winter.

The first one at a bus station (poor incandescent lighting), the second in a pizza restaurant (light from candle and laps on the walls - barely handholdable), the third in a mall.

 

[ruben]

Hi Januaryman,

Well, I have toured your flickr collection, found that fortunately you are less poor than I assumed and therefore I find you are in the right position to evaluate the Canonet glass. Would you like to do the effort ?

Besides I have been very pleased with several pictures there.

The following link leads to an image of yours I forward for what seems to me have been made with a wide aperture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/januaryman/2164598516/sizes/l/

Cheers
Ruben

PS,
Viewers will do well by enlarging the image to its "original size"

 

[ruben]

Hi Ondej,
Many thanks for the images. Would you like to compare the Canonet glass to other cameras you own, in more specific detail ? From a very general view it looks that an Helios wide open is far better...

Given my credentials, the last sentence may sound as a blow under the belt, but I am really looking for the positive side of the Canonets optics, or a true disqualification.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Spyderman]

I really can't compare it to other equipment that I have. I usually shoot canonet alone. It's a camera that can be taken everywhere, and the lens is so flexible that I often don't need anythyng else.

It's definitely different from all my other equipment because of the funny bokeh wide open. Closest in focal length is CV35/2.5 but that one behaves much better in terms of bokeh. The Canonet wide open shots always have the distinct look (if there is a strong point light source).

Contrast is pretty good, and sharpness more than adequate. Look at the second series of shots I've posted. Most at f1.7 or f2. Not too bad IMHO.

(BTW: my Canonet has some pretty bad cleaning marks on the front glass, so to prevent it from getting worse I always use a protective UV filter, a cheap one by Rovi )

 

[Ronald_H]

Canonet GIII, 40mm f1.7 lens. 1/30th, f2. HP5+ in Diafine, one lightbulb overhead and a smidgen of daylight.

 

[ruben]

Ok Ronald,
Many thanks. I think you ended the question with a clear nock out.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[dmr]

Have you been consistently disappoined by the "Canon" Canonet glass at wide apertures but not at night?

I've actually been very happy with the way it performs in general, in daylight, or at night when not wide open. Here are a few examples. First was between 4 and 2.8, IIRC.

 

[Broke]

Overall I love the GIII, but the lens does have its limitations.

I really thought the image below was the Money Shot, and at first glance it does not look bad, but on closer inspection there is an awful lot of visible aberration, identified by JLW here as astigmatism some time ago in another example shot.

Isn't that coma? Astigmatism is a difference in the resolution in sagittal and tangiential lines.

I really like the GIII, but have found the Summicron-C better, though this lens is prone to coma wide open with point lights also.

 

[dmr]

Isn't that coma? Astigmatism is a difference in the resolution in sagittal and tangiential lines.

I first thought it might be coma, but JLW examined another sample and upon close checking, it was obvious that it was more astigmatism, as the point-source lights (in the other image, I will try to find and repost) were football shaped and the long ends were parallel to the tangential lines, perpendicular to the sagittal lines.

 

[Broke]

I first thought it might be coma, but JLW examined another sample and upon close checking, it was obvious that it was more astigmatism, as the point-source lights (in the other image, I will try to find and repost) were football shaped and the long ends were parallel to the tangential lines, perpendicular to the saggital lines.

Very interesting -- i'd like to see it if you still have it.
Here's how the Summicron-C behaves, has round highlights on center, butterfly-like highlights in the periphery.

 

[oftheherd]

Well, seems I always have trouble adding photos. However, the below link should get you to a photo I took with my Canonet 17. It was done with great technical expertise. I put on a #2 close up filter, measured with a small tape measure in one hand, and the Canonet in the other. I don't recall the settings, but I think it was close to wide open. When you evaluate, remember there is a close up filter, it was hand held, and probably wasn't at the exact distance the filter should have had.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=36610&ppuser=50

 

[NickTrop]

I'm of the opinion that:

1. All of these fast-ish lenses on the FLRFs of the "golden age" of FLRFs are in, basically, the same quality range, including the Canon...

2. That quality category is "more than good enough"...

3. They were "non-exotic" good ole tried and true double gauss designs...

4. There are a few notable exceptions
a. Konica Auto S3 (Higher resolution at all apertures)
b. Oly 35 SP 7 element 5 group vs. 6/4
c. Lynx 14 7 element 5 group, f1.4
d. Electro CC - 35mm focal length at f1.8

5. The more exotic and much more expensive lenses might be "better" but it's a case of diminishing returns if ever there was one, and that under 90% of circumstances won't come into play or matter... (In fact, some of the uncorrected aberations and imperfections would usually go unnoticed or even serve to be "happy accidents" that make a picture more interesting....)

6. There are "signature" differences or differences in "character" among these lenses that one can distinguish "usually" after shooting them for a while. Of all my lenses, I like the look of the "signature" of the Fujica Compact Deluxe the most. Not sure how it would do against any other lens in a lens test, though or if it's a technicall "better" or "worse" lens. I simply like how da pictures look taken with this camera a little better than the others...

For others it might be a Yashica or a Canonette .

 

[oftheherd]

...

Of all my lenses, I like the look of the "signature" of the Fujica Compact Deluxe the most. Not sure how it would do against any other lens in a lens test, though or if it's a technicall "better" or "worse" lens. I simply like how da pictures look taken with this camera a little better than the others...
...

You sir, have excellent tastes in lenses.

 

[dmr]

Here is the original thread about the astigmatism on the GIII.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16609

Alas, the images, including a diagram explaining why it's astigmatism, have fallen into the bit bucket. I'm posting the original photo in question here.

One poster remarked that it's vignetting rather than astigmatism or coma, but I might disagree with that.

The aberration in question is manifested in the "football" shaped street lights in the distance toward the right of the image.

Yes, yes, yes, I know this photo sucks! What I got was not what I saw and what I felt at the time! There are a few things here which make it suck, such as:

1. It's the god-awful Walgreens/Agfa 400 film which has very unforgiving response to available artificial light.

2. That annoying "swoosh" which appears to eminate from the light between the second and third tenements. It's actually some internal reflection stuff from the street light on top of the pole on which the One Way sign is mounted. The light would be in the center of the circle made up of that swoosh.

3. The aberrations in question.

I re-shot that scene using the Mamiya and Fuji film. Much better, but still not the way I want it to be. Maybe when I'm in that part of the city I'll try yet again.

Oh well ...

 

[ruben]

Hi dmr,
I know your are highly knowledgeable of technical stuff. Doesn't Ronald H image satisfy you enough, beyond the obvious issue you have with the Canonet glass for your night photography ?

Cheers,
Ruben