How does the performance lens of the Canonet QL19 or Canonet G-III QL17 compare to that of the 40mm CL/M-Rokkor lens on the Leica CL? I am interested in results especially at wide open such as f1.7 on the Canonet G-III QL17 or f1.9 on the Canonet QL19 versus f2 on the 40mm M-Rokkor lens. Also would be interested in results in middle apertures such as f5.6 and f8 too.

What sparked my interest in this issue was a comment by Stephen Gandy on the cameraquest page: "A friend of mine has six G-III 17's, claiming that in his tests the G-III outperformed the 40/2 on the Leica CL. I am not sure you can depend on that level of performance, but for it to even compare to the much more expensive Leica speaks very well of the little Canon." For me, that's food for thought.

-- Bill Bolger (bill.bolger@yale.edu), December 31, 2001

Answers

I've used both, and the Cl's 40 is better accross the board. The double image is not as easy to focus on the Canon, and it is a much larger camera. Good value for the money if you want a cheap rangefinder with a quality lens. I like the Olympus cameras from that era better personally--more compact and may be better lenses as well.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 31, 2001.

You might consider the Konica S3. Coupled Rangefinder and shutter preferred auto exposure, entire viewfinder frame visible with glasses (slightly smaller and a lot lighter then the CL or CLE). The 38mm f:1.8 is every bit as good as a 40mm Summicron, but produces a slightly warmer image. Takes standard 49mm filters. I bought three of them still in factory boxes not too long ago -- should last me a lifetime.

-- (bmitch@home.com), December 31, 2001.

Well, his friend is lucky. I had one, and while it was a lovely little camera to use, the lens quality was really not up to much at all. Apparantly, the slower versions of the lens are better performers (I had the 1.9). Sure was quiet tho'. They sell for c.£40-£50 maximum here in the UK although they're quite hard to get hold of.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), December 31, 2001.

I've owned a couple of Canonets as well as a CL with 40 Summicron and 90 Rokkor. Firstly, in no way, wide open did the Canonet perform as well as the Summicron, especially at the edges. It has been said by many the the 40mm Summicron was as sharp as the 35 Summicrons of that period (mid 70s), and I have never seen anyone compare the Canonets to these lenses. As well, as has been mentioned, the rangefinder patch of the CL is far superior. Then there's the matter of the 90 Rokkor, let's see you put that on the Canonet. But in the same breath, for what you can but a Canonet for they are great value for the money..

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 31, 2001.

I've had both. The Leica Summicron-C 40/2 lens is superior to the Canonet lens at all apertures and distances. It certainly ought to be as the Leica lens alone costs significantly more than the Canonets did even new.

The closest match to the Summicron-C 40/2 lens that I've used is the Rollei 35S Sonnar 40/2.8 ... another absolutely outstanding lens, albeit a stop slower.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), December 31, 2001.

Hi Bill! I really lucked out, and got a G-III at a yard sale for two dollars in perfect condition - with a case! The lens is pretty good stopped down a bit, but wide open its nothing to write home about. If you're going out for casual shooting with something around ASA (ISO, sorry!) 400 at f/5.6 to 11, its OK, otherwise you might be a bit disappointed. What I do like about the Canon is its "Quickload" film-load system, which always seems to work, and very intuitive metering system with its very effective and quick Auto-Exposure lock function. Having a leaf shutter also makes it a great "daylight fill-flash" camera. You know, the more I think about the GL-III, the more I realize that its lens may be its worst feature! Oh, well! You might consider dropping by a few yard- sales in the near future! Happy New Year!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), December 31, 2001.

I have 3 different 40's the CL 40f2, the CLE 40f2 and the Summicron 40f2 as I collect them, I also have a Canonet QL17 #500985 with a f1.7 45mm lens. All the M mount 40's are great, hence why i collect them but the 45 f1.7 Canon lens is no match at any aperture for any of my 40's. Wide open is not good at all. Admittedly the Canon may be a good intro rangefinder ( I bought mine for $20)but its a tanks and quite heavy and larger than a CL. The GIII QL17 may however been an improvement someone above mentioned the slower versions are better optically but would be hard pressed to match the Leitz/Minolta 40's. And as someone mentioned above try putting a 90 or even a Voigtlander 15 on the Canon, hammer chisel and some super glue maybe.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.